[Nicole Morell]: All right, 20-024, Committee of the Whole, meeting notice Wednesday, November 2nd, 2022 at 6 p.m. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Present. Councilor Caraviello. Present. Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight. Present. Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng. Present. President Morell.
[Nicole Morell]: Present, six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole on Wednesday, November 2nd, 2022 at 6 p.m. via Zoom only. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the potential establishment of an affordable housing trust, 20-024. The city council has invited housing planner, Danielle Evans, Sharon Everett of KP Law, and Shelly Gurning of Metro Housing Partnership to attend. For further information, aids and accommodations, contact the city clerk at 781-787-4222. 393-2425. Sincerely yours, Nicole Morell, Council President. So this is the second committee of the whole we have had on this topic at the last meeting we had two motions related to prevailing wage, and I'm sorry I'm forgetting the second Oh, as far as trends conveyance of city on parcels I believe we're the two major questions that the council is left with. So I'm happy to open up to Councilors for discussion at this point, or if we want to turn it over to Danielle or director hunt to hear. and update on those questions we had.
[Zac Bears]: President?
[Nicole Morell]: Councilor Bears, Vice President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I believe we also asked city staff to make multiple changes and edits to the ordinance beyond those two. So I'd be interested to hear from city staff, perhaps on a screen share or something else if they have an updated red line draft of the ordinance that we can look at.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Vice President Bears.
[Unidentified]: Danielle or Alicia, is that something you could provide for us? Yes. Good evening.
[Danielle Evans]: Danielle Evans, housing planner at PDS. I believe Alicia had just sent out the two drafts. We did two red line drafts. One with the changes pretty much verbatim that were requested at the last committee of the poll. and then a separate draft with some recommended modifications to those requested amendments that we hope will be able to meet the intent of those original proposed amendments while also allowing the trust to still be effective. We had a lot of input from the housing partnership as well as KP Law and other housing experts that weighed in. And we think that where we landed is a good place to satisfy all parties, hopefully. And we're happy to answer any questions. share the screen or do you have the document open?
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, if you wouldn't mind sharing a screen just because we we just just got this document. So if you wouldn't mind. Walking us through and then I can. I can forward it to see Roberta Cameron asked for that. I'll just forward you that a copy Roberta as well.
[Unidentified]: OK, would you like me to start with which version?
[Danielle Evans]: The original the first version that was the request?
[Unidentified]: Yes, if you could start with the City Council, please. Sorry, I have too many windows open. These are really small. I'm also happy to share if you want me to share and you want to walk through. Oh, I think I have the right one now.
[Alicia Hunt]: Can everybody see that? Danielle, did I forward them the right one? It says that you've started screen sharing, but on my screen, it's not actually showing it yet. You might want to end and try again. We had a couple of different versions on our server. I think I hit send on the runs that were SE edits, right?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I'm trying to. I don't know why this is not OK, we go. OK, I'll try again.
[Danielle Evans]: Sorry, we originally I originally had assumed this was in person, I forgot about the voting and I was going to print out hard copies.
[Unidentified]: I can try to share and see if. Still, yep, there we go. Okay. All right.
[Danielle Evans]: So just to walk you guys through this, some of the changes that were requested was appointment of trustees and how they're appointed. And there was a request that the mayor appoint the trustees, but they'd be subject to confirmation by the city council. So we included that. There was a request to include language regarding compensation of the trustees. The language was, with the exception of the mayor, trustees shall receive an annual stipend of $1,000.
[Unidentified]: And let's see. And then we get down to the powers.
[Danielle Evans]: There was some requests to add some limitations to the powers regarding the conveyance of city-owned land. We included transfer limitation provision. The trust shall obtain the approval of the city council prior to conveying any real property pursuant to section 8.3 above. 8.3, sorry, I get this just wrong. is regarding the trust authority and power to sell, lease, exchange, transfer, convey property. And so this limitation puts that check on that of having it go back to city council for approval as was requested. Finally, there was the request to include prevailing wage requirements that any project that was funded with affordable housing trust funds would be subject to prevailing wage requirements. So the language that we added was any party receiving a grant or gift of funds from the trust for this construction. This could be wordsmithed a little bit more. This was in flux up to the last minute of this meeting. shall be required to comply with the bailing wage laws. So that is the, I believe that was all of the requests when I was looking at my notes and reading the minutes. Was there anything that I might've missed?
[Alicia Hunt]: And Madam President, we have some suggestions on a couple of these were highly debated. So I think it would be useful for you to see our suggestions. and then debate and discuss after, because we reviewed this with housing advocates, with the consultant who was, we got the grant to advise us on this, and with legal counsel. And so I think it'll be helpful for you to hear the results of all that advice that we'd gotten, and then debate the languages in these various pieces.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay, thank you. I do see Councilor Knight has his hand up. I know you put it down, but I didn't know if you wanted to speak, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Well, I was just looking at the other document that was sent and the language that Ashley went over does not reflect at all what this vote of the council was or what the amendment was that I put forward. Just to be clear, ultimately, my position on this has not changed. We're using government public funds to fund these projects. They're no different than a contractor. And they should be treated with the same respect that our other public contractors are treated and paid the prevailing wage rate. And it falls in line with our wage theft ordinance. And it falls in line with our responsible employer ordinance that we have here in the city. So I know that these housing partners don't want to spend money on labor, but labor are also a part of this community. and that money that they receive through their wages will go back into the circular flow of our economy. So ultimately, when I look at this, it's the use of public funds, and the use of public funds should be done in a fashion that lifts everybody up, not just a select few. We all stand here and talk about how we support labor. Well, let's support labor, then let's put our money where our mouth is. You know, we have an opportunity to do that right now and to maybe be precedent setting, and that's important. So that's where I am on this. I also think it's curious that out of everybody that's been talked to, nobody from the Boston building trade has been talked to, nobody from the labor movement has been talked to about this. Housing developers have, and lawyers have, but those people that are actually going to be impacted as soon as lives could be improved by this haven't been. So I think that that's something that's curious as well. But with that being said, Madam President, I digress and move on. My comments are just what I said. Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. To be clear, the version that was on the screen a minute ago was the original reflected exactly the language the councillors had asked for. And Danielle now has up the language that Councilor Knight is responding to so that everybody can see what the language is that he's speaking about.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Director Hunt. Going to you, Planner Evans.
[Danielle Evans]: So this is another version that was informed by our conversations with the housing partnership, with affordable housing developers, other housing planners and funders in the region. So some of the changes here. The one difference between the last version regarding compensation of trustees is that we weren't going to be prescriptive of the amount in the ordinance so that it could change and could be increased every budget year without needing an actual ordinance amendment. We found that best practice is not to put in fees and stipends, not to codify it, but to have that be something that's in the budget. So it could go up with cost of living without being a big process. So we had this as the, with the exception of the mayor, trustees shall receive an annual site in an amount determined by the city council from time to time. Okay, so the next difference was regarding the transfer limitations. We were changing it so to put a threshold of which properties, if they were to be conveyed, we'd have to come back for a vote first. and the size requirement or the size threshold we landed on was 10,000 square feet. I looked at, I did a review of city properties, looking at what would be size that definitely should require another look, looking at all of the city The former school properties, what size those were, making sure this was well below. All of those were much, much higher than this amount. But then, so it would be in city council and conveying city-owned property, the trust may choose to place limitations and or conditions on the conveyance of such property by the trust. The trust shall not convey any real property pursuant to section 8.3 above and having area of more than 10,000 square feet without the approval of the city council. In addition to having the blanket 10,000 square foot threshold, this also reiterates the power that the city council already has to place limitations when conveying the city land to the trust in the first place. One thing that I did confirm with legal council was that city council is the gatekeeper for all city land who currently own city land to be transferred to the trust. There's no other way that it could make it into the trust outside of a city council vote. So we were hoping that would add more assurances if there was specific parcels that definitely didn't never want to be sold, would only want to be in a, say, a land lease situation or there were specific ideas or conditions of how those properties would be handled or treated, those limitations and conditions could be placed at the time of the vote.
[Unidentified]: And also before it is sold, it would come back if it's above the threshold or if that's what was stipulated.
[Danielle Evans]: And then the second change is that funding preference for projects with project labor agreements. And so we have the trust in evaluating funding requests shall give preference to projects that include project labor agreements.
[Unidentified]: And that is all of change.
[Danielle Evans]: So those are the three differences are the transfer limitations to have the size threshold, giving preference to projects with project limber agreements rather than requiring prevailing wages and the stipend to not have a specific dollar attached to that to give some more flexibility.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Danielle. Going to Councilor Knight, then Councilor Caraviello.
[Adam Knight]: I'm good, Danielle. That's my question in our presentation.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. How do we determine that amount of 10,000 square feet?
[Danielle Evans]: Well, I looked at the city, city properties, you know, looking at properties, like the parking lot properties, anything large, I was looking at any of the former school land, how big those were. basically making sure that this threshold would be below most of those. There is a, so the city lot, the parking lots behind city hall, it's several contiguous lots. There's one or two that are a hair below 10,000 square feet. I debated whether I should lower the threshold to nine or knowing that those are important parcels that if they were ever conveyed to the trust, which you probably wouldn't want to convey them to the trust anyways, because you wouldn't want them to just be housing. So they just wouldn't be conveyed at all. But if they were, at that time, you can place the limitations.
[Richard Caraviello]: I would be more comfortable with maybe 7,500 square feet versus 10, because even A lot of households in Medford are 10,000 square feet. And do we know how many parcels that the city owns that are 10,000 or more? Even the, you know, those odd pieces?
[Danielle Evans]: Well, one of the issues is that so many of them are, when they were flatted out, you know, a hundred years ago, they, especially in the heights, we see a lot of that. There are like 4,000 square feet or like 3,000 square feet but you might get some contiguous blocks of that. So, and you would treat it as one property usually with it's considered.
[Richard Caraviello]: I would be more comfortable with a lower number than versus the 70 versus 10,000, maybe even 7,000 would be a little better. 10,000 is a pretty decent, let's say there's a lot of properties in the city that don't have 10, the landowners don't their own houses don't have 10,000 square feet so I would like to see that number lowered a little bit. Would you like that is that emotion cancer Harvey I like the motion that we discuss the 10,000 feet to reducing it to a lower number.
[Nicole Morell]: So the motion is to discuss or to actually change it?
[Richard Caraviello]: I'd like to drop it down to $7,500. If we'd like to discuss it, we can have further discussion on it also.
[Nicole Morell]: OK, so we'll leave that motion. We'll set tight on voting on that motion and just allow for more discussion. Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Vice President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. On the three changes suggested by PDS, I don't have any problem with the issue around the compensation of members of the trust fund board. In terms of the transfer limitations, I was the one who asked for this limitation. And I did also motion to request that PDS provide a suggested square footage threshold. So I appreciate that being included here. For me, I'm happy to discuss it more. And apologies, Daniel, if you've just said this, but, you know, in terms of city owned parcels, I know that there's a lot that are, you know, truly unbuildable, you know, it's like ledge and essentially sides of cliffs. Do you have any numbers in front of you about how many city owned parcels fall below the 10,000 threshold or above the 10,000 threshold? My concern was personally that we avoid transference of large parcels because of the benefits of holding onto those and benefits of public land ownership. I know that many folks are still a little frustrated by the fact that we transferred away all the old school buildings and a way that they could have really benefited the community in the long run, as well as you know, the price that they, the individual condos in this building is going for now versus what the properties were transferred originally. So my concern really was with those bigger properties. Do you have an estimate on, you know, how many are bigger than 10,000 versus smaller?
[Danielle Evans]: Should I stop sharing the screen? I'm just trying to, I gotta hunt around my, I did request a spreadsheet from the assistant assessor with that data?
[Zac Bears]: You can stop screen sharing on my account.
[Alicia Hunt]: I do, while she's looking for that, it is helpful for everybody to be clear that no land, no currently city-owned land gets into the Affordable Housing Trust without the city council voting to put it there. It is possible for them to receive land in other ways. if they had cash, they could buy land, they could receive donations. But like current, if there are lots that people are concerned about, they would not put them in the trust. What I could imagine could be a concern is that one city council votes to put land into the trust, and then The land isn't acted on right away and a later Council decides they don't want that land in the trust or they don't want that land to be sold and then they're trying to claw it back or prevent the sale.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And then that as a why I appreciate also the inclusion and understanding of the options that the council has based on general law on that first vote, and that this would be about which threshold would be needed for essentially a second vote of the council to transfer public land.
[Nicole Morell]: Vice President Bears, are you waiting for that response? Yes. Yeah, okay. Are there any other discussion from the council at this time as we wait for that?
[Zac Bears]: I could talk as well about the question around labor. I do have some thoughts around that.
[Nicole Morell]: Sure, please continue.
[Zac Bears]: So definitely understand where Councilor Knight is coming from and appreciated the intent that labor be represented in this ordinance. I do think that the approach on project labor agreements could be a beneficial one. Just as I see it, you know prevailing wage laws apply to public construction projects and one of the reasons that they exist is because of the lowest bidder requirement for public construction projects and the essentially One reason for prevailing wage laws is to set a floor for all contractors who are bidding on public construction projects so that someone can't put out an incredibly low bid for labor costs and then get the bid because they're shortchanging labor. I do think in this case, given that the amount of funding that's likely to go into the Affordable Housing Trust, that we probably wouldn't be building entirely public projects out of this fund. We would be contributing a relatively small portion, although maybe significant enough to make a project viable that was slightly less than viable beforehand to private construction projects, whether that be a nonprofit developer or a market rate developer to increase the affordability in their project. And that is a different set of conditions than a completely public construction project. And it is my understanding that if the Affordable Housing Trust Fund were to, say, provide funding to a Medford Housing Authority project, that that project would still be subject to prevailing wage laws because it's a public construction project. The reason I can see the project labor agreement option being potentially the way to go is that it's more of a, it could encourage projects that otherwise, you know, may for entirely forego public money and not have any sort of project labor agreement and certainly not meeting prevailing wage requirements. It can encourage a project like that to create a project labor agreement versus I think the mandate of prevailing wages may be seen as potentially a project developer could be seen as a barrier so they don't apply for public funding through our affordable housing trust fund at all. So I could see that as a viable approach to make sure that labor is protected. Obviously, it's kind of using a different tool. I'm definitely interested to hear more about that from my fellow Councilors and from the folks from Planning and Development Sustainability and our consultant on that.
[Adam Knight]: I mean, nothing in the proposed language mandates it. It just says that preference will be given to someone who decides to do it. What's going to encourage them to decide to do that?
[Zac Bears]: My thought would be that the preference would be given to someone who decides to do it versus someone who doesn't.
[Adam Knight]: Yeah, preference is preference. But that doesn't even mean that they're mandated to pick that person, even if they have a preference. You know what I mean? The subjectivity of the committee and their ability appropriate the funds or to issue the funds, make the recommendations where the funds to be issued is what it is. You know what I mean? And quite frankly, if they don't believe that this is a viable measure or noble enough measure, then they're not going to care about it. And it sounds to me like this is something that's a concern. But again, if we're using public money to fund projects, then it should be looked at like it's a public project. I mean, these are taxpayer dollars. This is an assessment of people's property tax here in this community. The people that perform these jobs live in the city. They should be paid the prevailing wage rate or the highest rate that we can possibly guarantee them. I mean, we talk about wanting to raise the minimum wage and wanting to have private entities and private businesses be regulated by government authority. Well, let's do it then. I mean, ultimately, what we're doing is giving an opportunity for someone to make $20 an hour to make $40 an hour.
[Zac Bears]: I'd certainly be open to words stronger than preference, but my concern would be that no project ever applies to use funds from this trust fund because they're just not going to be paying that wage rate. And then we just have taxpayer money sitting in a trust fund that doesn't get used.
[Adam Knight]: Yeah, I mean, I think it's apples and oranges, right? I mean, you know, we put the language in there that's strong enough and we involve labor in the conversation. I know they'd be willing to talk. I know that I had the AFL-CIO, I organized a meeting with the AFL-CIO and the Medford Housing Authority to discuss about ways that they can use their affordable housing trust fund partnership to help fund the Walkman Co-op project and the 122 Riverside, the 99 Riverside App project that they're working on. They have prevailing wage rates for stick-built buildings. I mean, these things are, this is the direction that organized labor is going in right now. They're moving closer into the, more into the housing development sector because of the market and the needs. So, you know what I mean? I think that then we have an opportunity here to do something that's gonna help these people that go to work every day. You know what I mean? These people that, are part of a movement that's, you know, quite frankly, probably done more for social justice and rights of individuals than just about any other movement, aside from the civil rights movement, they were part of that. So, you know, when it comes down to labor and supporting labor, I don't think that we should waver.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. I do see a number of Councilors with hands up. I do see some other folks with hands up. I'm going to get through discussion with the Councilors first, and then we'll go to comments from the public. Just going back to Danielle, did you have an answer to Vice President Bears's question?
[Danielle Evans]: I just wanted to clarify that housing trust funds wouldn't all be from taxpayers. Ideally, it would be a portion of the Community Preservation Act funds, are not subject to prevailing wage, unless it's for a public project, at which point it is. But when we fund outside entities like Metro Community Housing, they do not use prevailing wages.
[Adam Knight]: Right. But what I'm saying is if they're going to be playing with our money, then they should.
[Danielle Evans]: Well, CPA, that's the one piece that is public money that we use and is not subject to prevailing wages non-public properties, but we would also hope that we would have other funding streams to this, which would be, it could be donations, it could be fractional payments, it could be linkage, things like that.
[Unidentified]: So it doesn't always necessarily originate as taxpayer money. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you, Danielle. Going to Councilor Collins and Councilor Tseng.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and appreciate all the planning, development and sustainability staff and housing experts in on the call and weighing in on the ordinance. I think it's really helpful to get a variety of perspectives on knowledge about best practices on this ordinance. I It's great to see the direction that this ordinance is going in. I really appreciate the recommended amendments made by Planning, Development and Sustainability staff. Thank you for putting that together. I had the opportunity to talk to a number of locals, local housing experts since we last met on this. Well, actually first I wanted to say that I appreciate Councilor Knight's comments because I think it doesn't get said enough that labor is behind a lot of the, you know, progressive movements that we've been able to enjoy in our society. And I think that deserves to be said. And I think it's important to make sure that we're doing this right in terms of crafting an ordinance that gives appropriate deference to our partners in labor. At the same time, one of the conversations that I had since we last talked about this, I talked to the Malton city staffer. I don't remember when Malton enacted their municipal affordable housing trust, but it, you know, I was one of the folks that voted for the amendment to add prevailing wage condition into our ordinance. And I was, you know, I was really shocked to hear how much of an impact it is estimated to have had on other municipal housing, affordable housing trusts. I know on the North Shore, there's been a lot of construction using affordable housing trust property and assets that it just would not have been able to materialize if that had been stipulated for their trust. I'm interested in a way to find a way to make this ordinance fair for labor while still allowing the trust to be effective and do what it's designed to do, which is to get more housing built in our community and not render, affordable housing is already so expensive to build. We wanna make sure that under this ordinance, affordable housing can actually built as opposed to being prohibitively expensive So I'm interested in talking more about the project labor agreements and seeing if there is a way to finesse that language to make it stronger, to make it more of a strong incentive to developers. That language piece is something that I noted when we were going over the first round of our zoning modification. What's the value of stating a preference for a developer? What's the value of stating a priority? in trying to attract certain types of developers, certain types of projects. So I am curious if there's a way that we can use that language so that we don't create a hurdle that's too high for affordable housing developers to actually clear while creating an incentive that will actually result in better labor agreements in our community. Thanks.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Going to Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. I think my points are similar to Councilor Collins. I think I was also one of the Councilors who voted in favor of adding the, amending the ordinance to include a prevailing wage section. And I've had a similar experience talking to housing experts who are afraid that such a strong statement would perhaps be, would make projects prohibitively expensive And I do think, you know, when I think about in an ideal world, we would definitely have prevailing wage, the prevailing wage in section and to have, you know, these wonderful, to have an opportunity for these families who are working on these projects to live in them. But I also think about, you know, if we don't have these affordable housing projects, at all, then working families won't be able to live here at all. And I think that's another important piece of consideration, which is that if that is the unintended policy effect of the situation, then we would actually still end up hurting working class folks, which I think is not the intention of our council either. And so I think it's important to find that balance. I definitely like the suggestion of having a preference in there. And I would, ironically, I would prefer to have stronger language and preference if it exists, perhaps something about prioritization, perhaps something maybe even structural where we take a look at projects that comply with prevailing wage laws first. where the trust looks at that first. But I'm no legal expert, so I don't know what options we have out there. But I do think we need to find a solution that's just fair to everyone. And there's no perfect option out there. And so we have to find a solution that I think maximizes opportunities for everyone.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I'm gonna go to Councilor Knight, and then I'm also gonna just hand over the chair to Vice-President Bears for, I gotta hop on to childcare for one moment as people may be able to hear. So, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: So, in essence, right, the city council could vote to convey all the parcels of Medford Square, right, that we have down in Medford Square, the city owns. We could take that vote and that could happen, and we could convey the ownership of that property to the Affordable Trust. The Affordable Trust could then take that property and sell it to an affordable housing developer, right? and take all those parcels out of the public realm, right? So that those parcels are no longer most subject to the public prevailing wage law.
[Alicia Hunt]: I guess you're asking Councilor a question about the powers of the city council.
[Adam Knight]: No, what I'm saying is, I mean, say we have city owned parcels that we conveyed to the trust. Those parcels are now no longer the property of the city. They've been conveyed to the trust. Now the trust can do what they want with it, right?
[Alicia Hunt]: Well, that's actually I think what's the way this is written. You asked for the provision saying that the city council then has to vote again if the trust chooses to then.
[Adam Knight]: So under this language, we could actually have a 10,000 square foot parcel or 20 or 30 or 40,000 square foot parcel that the city votes to convey. be taken out of the public domain, right? Because once we give it to the trust, then the trust can do what they want, right? They can sell the land, can't they?
[Alicia Hunt]: I think that's the way I'm reading the language that's in here.
[Adam Knight]: So the trust could sell the land off to a private entity and it would take that public land You know, it would make public land that if the city were to develop it or we would develop it internally, we'd be public. So the workers that would have been on that job would have been subject to the public.
[Alicia Hunt]: The city would never have the financing and the expertise to be able to develop that land internally. And I will point out that the members of the Affordable Housing Trust are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council. So you're not handing it over to a for-profit entity. This is a board, a commission of the city.
[Adam Knight]: Right, they could, can sell the land, right?
[Alicia Hunt]: That is one of the powers.
[Zac Bears]: I do think that one of the things we put in there was that the council would have to approve a sale of any land over 10,000 square feet, and we're debating that threshold too. So the council would have a second vote.
[Adam Knight]: Yeah, I just, I find it troublesome. You know what I mean? I think it's an end around on the prevailing way.
[Alicia Hunt]: I, there was one thing that one of the Councilors mentioned, I'm not sure if everybody's familiar with what prevailing wages are, but many workers who would then earn prevailing wage would not actually be eligible for housing that's at 80% of area median income. So deed restricted affordable housing, they would make too much money to be eligible for this housing. So I just want to put that into perspective on this.
[Adam Knight]: Yeah, but I mean, this isn't the Walmart mentality. We're not in a race to the bottom. We're not going to develop our public policy so that people can be on the public dole. I mean, that's not the way government works. I mean, ultimately what we want to do is rise everybody up. So we're going to say we're going to keep wages low so that these people can be eligible for these social safety net programs. That doesn't make sense when we can rise them up with money. I mean, I don't know. I like going to work and earning a living. But, you know, that's me. I just think that, you know what I mean? It's a little crazy. But what I'm saying is the people that live in this community are the people, the people that live in this community now that have their children in our schools are the ones that work in these jobs. You know what I mean? We have how many members of organized labor that live in this community? Well over 500. various, various industries. You know what I mean? Those are the people who'd be working on this job. Those are the ones that would get risen up, ones that live in this community now, not the people that would maybe be eligible to live in housing later. But I certainly, I would never support keeping people's wages low to keep them eligible for public benefit.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. And that is not what I was saying. But we should be clear. Actually, we may want to hear from, so Shelly is the consultant from MHP that we have the Mass Housing Partnership. And she was pointing out in the chat, but it might make sense to hear from Shelly that to point out if the trust cannot. then sell land for quote private development other than affordable housing. They would have to have long-term affordable restrictions on any of the land that is in their trust. That's part of the point of an affordable housing trust is that this would continue to be deed restricted property. But I do feel like Shelly should speak to that because she has experience with an affordable housing trust and I do not.
[Zac Bears]: Um, I did see Danielle Evans hand. So Danielle, if there's anything you want to add, then I can go to Shelley.
[Danielle Evans]: Um, oh yeah, I raised my hand just to, um, specify that simply transferring land into the trust. Doesn't take it out of the public realm. It would have to be transferred, you know, conveyed a subsequent conveyance to a private or entity. And that we already, we had already inserted the language that it would be required there be a vote and say there was certain land that we didn't want to sell, but we would prefer to do a long-term lease, but then have to have a developer, like say issue an RFP and have it developed. I believe that that would still be subject to prevailing wage because it's on city land, but I would defer to our consultants, which we applied for, which is free consulting, we applied for got a technical assistance grant. Just wanna add that.
[Zac Bears]: Just to confirm what you said, Danielle, essentially that property controlled by the Affordable Housing Trust is still owned by the city of Blackburn.
[Danielle Evans]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. I'm gonna go to Councilor Caraviello and then to Shelley. Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't see anything addressing senior needs in this community, in this trust fund here.
[Zac Bears]: Is there any comment from PDS staff on that?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah, I mean, I don't, like I said, you know, I'd like to see something giving them some type of preference also.
[Alicia Hunt]: I don't think I defer this question to our consultant who has experience with affordable housing trusts and best practices and what works.
[Richard Caraviello]: Because none of our communities is still seniors.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, if you could. make President Morello co host. I did see Sharon go on mute. So I'll go to Sharon and then I'll go to Shelly. Sharon.
[Everett]: So good evening. When properties conveyed to the trust, it still remains city property. And the city and the trust can dispose of city property only for affordable housing purposes. So just by going into the trust doesn't give the trust unfettered discretion. It has only limited powers of sale and can do it and make more affordable housing purposes. So there's an inbuilt limitation to the trust's powers. So there's a, you know, just selling the property for a profit and making a private property is not within the realm of the trust's jurisdiction.
[Adam Knight]: I don't think I was clear when I was trying to explain myself. So ultimately we have the parking lot behind City Hall that the city owns. We take that property and we convey it to the Affordable Housing Trust for the purpose of creating affordable housing. The Affordable Housing Trust then takes that city-owned land and they sell it to a developer to develop affordable housing. Once that ownership transfers from the trust to the developer, It's now private property, right?
[Everett]: Correct.
[Adam Knight]: So therefore, we took a piece of public land, which if any other construction project was done there, those people would have gotten a prevailing wage. And we've transferred the ownership of that to a private entity, and now that private entity can pay them less than prevailing wage. That's what I was trying to explain, or trying to confirm.
[Everett]: Well, the other option is to go into long-term leases of city property so that remains an asset of the city at the end of the term. So that's always an option.
[Zac Bears]: If I may just ask one question, and Shelley may be the person to answer it. If the city were to conduct a long-term lease to build affordable housing on public land, would that project be subject to the prevailing wage law if it was a private developer using public land under a long-term lease?
[Everett]: Unfortunately, I'm not a labor attorney, so I won't know if that applies in that context, but I can certainly inquire of my labor colleagues and get back to you on that question.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, I'll recognize Shelley, who may have the answer and save all of us a little time. Shelley, you're recognized, I think, to answer a few questions at this point.
[MCM00001353_SPEAKER_08]: So I actually am not going to take that one. I'd appreciate it, Sharon, to actually dig into that for you. That's not my expertise. I just would like to say, so I work with MHP, Mass Housing Partnership. We finance affordable housing development. We work in communities across the state. We've worked in dozens of communities that have affordable housing trusts. We now have over 130 communities in the state with a local affordable housing trust. And I really would, I'm not really sure what the point of creating a trust and then requiring prevailing wage. I know what the purpose would be if you have CPA because a developer can just go to the Community Preservation Act to receive funds because they aren't bound by the same restriction and the cost of prevailing wage is high. The local funds that are put into a development are minuscule, a tiny fraction of the overall development costs, developments of affordable housing are millions of dollars and the local funds are typically 200,000, 300,000, 500,000, it's a very small portion. And then to require the entire development to have this much higher cost, it creates gaps in performance for developers. The amount of local funds that would need to be put in to make up that gap are funds that your trust will likely not have. So if you have CPA, the developer could just go to that fund. So I think that it just begs the question of why would you do that when you have this other local funding source? And the city is really interested in some small developments and infill developments. I'm not sure how that would be done because smaller developments will likely lean on smaller developers and smaller developers just don't have the capacity to do the administrative piece of prevailing wage. It's, it's a policy that really is geared towards larger developers to have more capacity. Those are oftentimes, it means that developers of color developers that are led by women developments that are led by women, oftentimes have a more difficult on competing.
[Adam Knight]: And in terms of senior preference, can you just speak to that a little bit also.
[MCM00001353_SPEAKER_08]: because the administrative costs of complying to prevailing wage is significant. It often takes additional steps.
[Adam Knight]: Women in minority businesses have preference in what are the contract though, don't they?
[MCM00001353_SPEAKER_08]: Well, if you, in order to comply with prevailing wage, if you need to hire additional staff, if you need to have additional mechanisms in place for the reporting, that's more difficult for less capitalized firms, smaller firms that oftentimes disproportionately are led by people of color and women. So it can make it more difficult for those people to compete in your community if this is the direction that you go. It also means that the small developments that you want to do, the infill developments that the city is looking at investing in for your infill projects, it makes it more difficult for a developer to be able to actually respond to RFPs and to build those units. in your community. So I think that to make it as a blanket, that it's for all developments that the trust might fund needs prevailing wage, I think that that sets up a real challenge for Medford. But again, if you have CPA and CPA is not bound by that, it just begs the question of why would you have one funding source with this restriction, but not another? I just also want to quickly speak to the Councilor that brought up the senior preference putting a senior preference in the ordinance and that ordinance ordinances typically don't specify the. doesn't just prioritize who will be able to have access to the housing, that comes out of your housing plan. So the needs will be identified in your housing plan. And it's not just seniors in Medford that are struggling with housing costs. I'm sure there are other classes of people as well. So that would come out of your housing plan. You would identify those needs in your housing plan. And we always urge trusts to use existing housing plans and to work collaboratively with the city and the identified needs that have come up through broader city planning.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Shelly. President Merle, do you want me to turn the chair back over to you?
[Nicole Morell]: No, if you could keep the chair. I did just have one question. I mean, this is a simple ordinance. I mean, not that it's ideal. There's nothing that could, you know, if we want to set this, if the council decides to set us with a prevailing wage and we find we're not getting projects, the council could go back and modify this ordinance, correct?
[Gerard]: Correct.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, President Morell.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to, unless anyone else would like to comment on that before I open this up to members of the public.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'll go to Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. I appreciate Shelly weighing in. I think that, I'm glad we're having this discussion. I think that, just to state where I'm at on this ordinance. I personally, I think the most important thing is that we pass it at all. I think that the sort of the skeleton of the ordinance that we're looking at has been means tested in other communities. You know, speaking of the housing production plan, we just reviewed a draft of ours and it said that, you know, almost 50% of Medford households are eligible for, you know, 80% area median income subsidized housing. So it's, you know, just, It's so apparent, I think, to members of this council. I think that this is a really shared value, a shared concern, that increasing our stock of affordable housing is not a hypothetical. It's not a future. It's not about when people move here who need affordable housing. It's about meeting an existing need that really isn't being met at the scale that it needs to at all. I think that President Morell brings up a really good point that, like any ordinance, we review and can revise ordinances whenever the council chooses to. you know, towards that same point, I'd say that we could, you know, move forward with the best possible version of this ordinance. Maybe that's, you know, with the amendments that Planning, Development and Sustainability has provided for us tonight. And then that can be revised. You know, the stipulations that the council puts on conveyances can be revised. But I think it's actually urgent that we pass this ordinance soon. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. I'm just going to comment very quickly from the chair and then open it up to the public. It just sounds to me like one of the questions here is, You know, it's not, do we build something and the labor cost is, you know, under a project labor agreement or prevailing wage. It sounds to me like the question is, if we have this prevailing rate wage requirement in here, you know, does this trust fund serve a purpose at all? And also if the trust fund, if no one applies for using funds from the trust fund, then it's never gonna generate any jobs anyway. So, you know, if we're going to, implement this trust fund and we're going to have this as another tool in our toolbox to try to address the massive housing crisis that we face. It sounds like we should be trying to structure it so that it gets projects done and that those projects have the best labor conditions we can put on them. And it sounds like, from the expert opinion in the room, that putting a prevailing wage requirement on this means that likely projects would just never happen, and so no jobs would be created and there'd be no labor benefit. I do see Councilor Knight's hand. I'll go to Councilor Knight, and then I will address the other hands that are up.
[Adam Knight]: I just don't know when it became okay to condone underpaying employees. And, you know, we have an opportunity here. The prevailing wage rate is set by the government. I don't make it up. And the government sets it for a reason. They set it for a reason because that's the amount of money that people need to make in order to live in our society. And for us to sit here and try to justify reasoning why we shouldn't when we have the opportunity to provide these working people with this benefit is astounding to me. I just, I scratch my head. You know what I mean? I don't get hung up on too many social justice issues, but you know what I mean? When it comes to labor, when it comes to workers' rights, that's really where I get my dander up. And, you know, when we sit there and we talk about, you know, the necessity to create housing in this community, absolutely, there is a necessity to create housing in this community. But there's also a necessity to put our money where our mouth is and to do what's fair and equitable to those people that are going to be doing the work. especially when we're using public funds to do it. So my whole thought process on this is like, how can we in our right mind justify saying it's okay to pay people less than what they deserve when the government sets the prevailing wage rate and says what it is?
[Zac Bears]: If the government set the prevailing wage rate and said, you know, everyone should make this amount, then it would be the minimum wage. And they don't do that because the purpose of the prevailing wage is specific to public construction projects and making sure that, you know, that bidders don't underbid the labor section of their projects. I don't think it's an apples to oranges comparison.
[Adam Knight]: And I mean, ultimately we're using taxpayer dollars to do it. You know what I mean? We're using state money to do it, state funds. Tax dollars, property tax dollars. You know what I mean? So I just, I can't wrap my head around this whole thought process, especially when many of us talk about our support for working people in labor units. It's just, it's very confusing to me. But it is what it is. I mean, ultimately, it sounds like you got your four votes that you need to do whatever you got to do anyway. So why beat the dead horse? Just make a motion and kill it. You know what I mean? Because, you know, it's in looking at it, you know what I mean? I just from a theoretical standpoint, it's something that, you know, I have a difficult time supporting. Ultimately, you're pretty much saying, my company doesn't want to pay my people. So I'm not going to apply for your money. Well, fine, then don't take our money. Someone else will. You know what I mean? When there's $25 million in there, they can fund an entire project. Maybe the AFL-CIO comes to us and they respond to one of our RFIs and says, we can do the whole thing. And we can do it entirely with union labor. You know, so, you know, when we talk about infill zoning and stuff like that, yeah, that's all well and good, you know, but I'm talking about large scale developments in this community. You know what I mean? That we have the ability to really make a large scale difference. You know, when we talk about the opportunities that we lost already with the administration fighting the 40B developments in this community that would have created hundreds of units, we're sitting here fighting over whether or not people should deserve to get paid a fair and equitable wage. when they're doing the work. I just think that, you know what I mean? Maybe we're fighting the wrong forum, but ultimately I just can't support underpaying workers.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I think we all agree that we think that workers should be compensated fairly. And I guess the point here is that if we implement the prevailing wage requirement and given the amount of funding available to this right now, it'd be decades before there's $25 million in this fund. We're saying that we'd rather not have this fund be used to support any affordable housing construction and not support anyone getting paid anything.
[Adam Knight]: Well, I don't think we're saying that at all. Cause I mean, we're only putting 10% in the affordable housing bucket every year, plus special projects. We can put a hundred percent of it in if we want to. You know what I mean? It's really up to us as to what, not a hundred, but 10, 10 and 10, and then whatever else is left over, you know? So we could fund it more at a higher rate than we're funding it right now. You know what I mean?
[Zac Bears]: It could still be 12 years.
[Adam Knight]: And we could put it in an RFI for projects like that. And we could do a long-term thing. So we could do it as Shelley said, incremental funding. project, right, program a project, right? There's other opportunities that are out there. You know, I just, like I said, you know, this is about workers and workers' rights. It's not about affordable housing. It's tax-paid dollars.
[Zac Bears]: I'll leave it at this because I shouldn't be, you know, going back and forth, even though I think it's nice to have a good debate. I would be potentially comfortable with some sort of tiered structure where if an award was made over a certain amount, the requirements would be different than if an award was made under a certain amount.
[Adam Knight]: I mean, I think that the square footage of the development is more important than that. So we have a large scale $40 million development that come into us with $5 million, but they're using people that are getting paid well below the prevailing wage rate. You know what I mean? We're gonna give them the money? What if they've had wage theft ordinance violations? What if they have responsible employer violations that have happened in the past through the ordinances we've already put together? Do we give them the money? Is that a preclusion?
[Zac Bears]: I will, um, leave that idea to percolate permanent and recognize some other folks.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, I did say I would recognize members of the public, so I will go to Roberta Cameron. Oh, sorry, Roberta. Here you go.
[Roberta Cameron]: Thank you for recognizing me, Councilor Bears. So I wanted to thank you for the language change or thank the staff for the language changes that have been made. And to Councilor Knight's concern that large parcels might be conveyed by the trust in the future. The language that was put into this draft this evening ensures that the council will have to approve that conveyance. And at that time, the council could add conditions so that the trust will have to defer to the council at the time of conveyance. So in particular, with a large parcel such as what you have in mind,
[MCM00001039_SPEAKER_14]: That large parcel, I think, is going to have a considerable amount of council oversight already going into the ordinance. And what we want to do is an ordinance that is flexible enough to be able to provide for a process that works for small businesses. I think we've lost Roberta there.
[Adam Knight]: I thought I was the only one that had terrible audio. I was like, is it just me? Am I supposed to say something?
[Zac Bears]: I wasn't sure if it was just me either. I will recognize Roberta when she rejoins the meeting. I will go to Dennis and then Susan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Dennis, I will unmute you now.
[Denis Dettling Kalthofer]: Thank you. Thank you city Councilors and thank you, Vice President Bears. So I have several questions and comments but I don't want to take up a huge amount of time I thought I maybe I would email them to you but I can also read them out to you now and get answers later.
[Zac Bears]: If you want to if you want to read your questions, that would be great.
[Denis Dettling Kalthofer]: I will, because I can't send it in the chat to everyone. That doesn't seem to work. So here's the first question. Does or will the city own any housing, not just like parking lots and so on, but actual housing? Will they take over any real estate where the taxes haven't been paid? Then my second question is, if the city owns any housing, will they rent or sell it themselves through the trust or however, and what percentage of this housing would be affordable or middle income? My third question is that I, well, actually a comment that I think that if it's being, if it's city housing, we could require a higher percentage of affordable and middle income housing, you know, rent and or purchase prices than the 15% that's required for private housing, new housing construction. Then I have my third is a question, what are the requirements for the percentages of affordable and middle income housing in new construction that's contracted through the trust and again, my comment would be white. do we not require higher than 15% of affordable and middle income for the private housing that's constructed through funds from the trust, if that's how it's done? And then where the funding comes from for the trust, is it just from community preservation funds and donations? Or are there other sources? For example, what about imposing a tax on luxury housing? And I agree that prevailing wages should be a requirement in any contracted construction. I think it's just, you know, we shouldn't be afraid. We shouldn't backpedal to say we're gonna have to pay people less than a living wage so that we can have affordable housing. Well, where are those people gonna live if they live in Medford? And then finally, I wanted to ask, are we going to ever deal with the question of rent control. Can the city put any limits on increases in private housing rentals, or on the percentage of income. percentage of income that's allowed in terms of rental cost, like 30% of it shouldn't pay more than, people shouldn't pay more than 30% of their income on rent. I think it's nice to have a housing trust and help people with, a few people who cannot afford market rates, but what about everybody else? So, and increases along the way. Those are my questions and comments and I'll send it to everyone as an email as well. Everyone is an email as well, at least the city council members and Alicia on.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Dennis. In general, I will try to give a quick general overview answer. My understanding, and I believe anyone who speaks after me can feel free to correct me, the city would not become an owner or landlord or really developer of properties under this trust fund. Funds would be used, and right now the main available source does seem to be CPA funding only, to, on a project by project basis, work with Nonprofit affordable housing developers or market rate developers to increase the percent to use city funds as a way to increase the percentage of affordable. deed-restricted affordable units in projects. But questions like the transfer fee on luxury housing, that would require a home rule petition, permission from the state to allow us to implement something like that. It would require a vote of the State House and the State Senate. There's a coalition of many communities that is currently working on this. None of them so far have been approved to implement such a transfer fee or luxury housing tax. And the same thing is true on rent control or rent stabilization policies that's currently banned statewide by the state legislature. There are many communities who are asking for cities and towns to have permission to implement their own policies around that, but it would again require a change in state law.
[Denis Dettling Kalthofer]: Thank you. I just have one more question. So does the city take over any property for failure to pay real estate tax?
[Zac Bears]: I do believe that happens. I don't have any specific data on how often it happens or how many of those properties are currently under control of the city right now. But that would probably be with the assessor's office.
[Denis Dettling Kalthofer]: Thank you, and I want the city councilors to please consider my suggestions as well, even if they require petitioning the state for changes, because I think it would be helpful to have, at least to have the city request such changes and home rule on these issues so that we can do better than just providing a little charity.
[Zac Bears]: I agree with you wholeheartedly that we should put those forward.
[Denis Dettling Kalthofer]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Dennis. I will now go to Susan. Give me one minute to unmute you, Susan.
[Gerard]: Hi, yeah. I'm a member of Housing Medford and a strong proponent and advocate of this law as it is written now. I want to say that I have been a union organizer with the UAW and a longtime member of the MTA. I've stood on countless picket lines. I am totally pro-labor and have always been. However, I think no one has said what the prevailing wage actually is. The prevailing wage is $120,000 a year, which I must say in my entire life, even as a full professor at a community college, I never earned anything like. We are not talking about starvation wages. We're not talking about minimum wage. We're not talking about breaking people's backs. We're talking about incredibly high construction wages. And my son is a city planner, was for the city of Somerville, and now teaches city planning at MIT. And I have talked with him and countless other city planners who say that if you require the prevailing wage, not only, as one of the other speakers has said, will smaller developers not be able to ever develop anything. and small construction companies who cannot pay $120,000 a year, they can pay, and the average wage is $90,000 a year, which also I might say is a wage I never received in my entire life. They can pay $90,000 a year, which is a perfectly decent wage. But they cannot afford $120,000 a year. And I have heard some city planners who have been involved in affordable housing say that if you require the prevailing wage for every single project, and mind you, of course, as people have said, the federal projects do require the $120,000 a year. but that no affordable housing will ever be built in Medford. That's a pretty strong statement, but one of the city planners I spoke to did say that. So, I think you have to have some realistic sense that some smaller projects, anything built by the federal government would, of course, have to pay $120,000 a year, but smaller projects might not be able to pay that, and it doesn't mean they're going to be paying starvation wages either. I'd also like to contradict Adam Knight, Councilor Knight, on the issue of all of these construction workers will be living in Medford. We had some construction done on our Unitarian church, and none of the workers were living in Medford. So, I mean, that seems You know, they were paid, they were paid very well. They were paid out of funds from the CPA. They were paid out of funds from the CPA. They set their wages and we paid them. And thank you, CPA, for having, you know, it was a historical preservation project. And thank you, Danielle and Roberta, for having given us the money to do that. Of course, we couldn't have paid anything to them without that. But what I'm trying to say is- Yes, you did. Thank you, City Council. Really, this was wonderful. It was a city preservation project. I'm a senior. I'll be 80 on my next birthday. I'm fortunate enough to have bought a house in Medford a million years ago for $60,000. This house, of course, is now worth close to a million, so I'm not in trouble. But in an excellent presentation that Roberta Cameron gave at our church, she pointed out those of us who are seniors in Medford who own houses are in pretty good shape, but the seniors in Medford who do not own their own houses are in very bad shape and they desperately need affordable housing. So I want to make a plea that people not nitpick this entire ordinance, that they accept it as it is. It's an excellent ordinance. It's thoughtful. It doesn't answer all the issues around housing. I also support the transfer fee, which, by the way, is something that the state can pass and is one of the things that I and other groups that I belong to are lobbying for a state transfer fee that would allow us to take some money from these over-million-dollar projects and give a little piece of it to affordable housing. I just want to make it clear, when people talk about prevailing wage and poor starving union workers, I mean, you're talking about $120,000 a year salaries, which not every small construction company can afford to pay. And thank you for listening to me.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Susan. I'm going to go to Shelley, if you're still here with us, Shelley.
[Alicia Hunt]: Councilor Shelly had to go, but she left a couple of comments with me to share with you. Do you want me to just... I actually am still here.
[MCM00001353_SPEAKER_08]: You are there. Thank you. I need to go, but I've been so interested in the conversation. I just wanted to point to a comment that I made in the... Chat that most public funds and affordable housing developments are state and federal funds and there is not a blanket requirement that that. With all programs that to require prevailing wage. In fact, LIHTC, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, is the most significant funding source, federal funding source, and prevailing wage is not required. There are some HUD programs that do require prevailing wage. So I just wanted to put that out there, that yes, there is something called prevailing wage for public projects, but most affordable housing is not a public project. They're private projects, and prevailing wage is not required, even though the majority of public funds are state and federal funds. So that was the main point that I wanted to put out there. And then Susan touched on a couple others and she said it better than me. Thank you. And I do have to go, but it was wonderful to be with you. Thank you for letting me participate.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Shelly. Much appreciated. I'll go to Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Do these funds have to stay in the community? in what sense that projects would only- Say someone applies for money through the affordable housing trust fund that's not, is doing a project not a method. If we appropriate funds for that, do we get to number one, can we do that number one and number two? If we do, do we get credit for the percentage towards our affordable housing, number of affordable housing units in our community? Like say, remember when, Daniel Blank came and applied on behalf of the Somerville Community Coalition for funds through the Community Preservation Act to do the St. Clements Church, make that into affordable housing, but the majority of the property was located in Somerville. And he didn't end up getting the funding. It fell through. It didn't end up happening.
[Danielle Evans]: If I may? Yes, absolutely. So the Somerville Community Corporation, the St. Clements, that was all in Medford. To get on the subsidized housing inventory, we can't do 100% local preference. The state will let us do, I think up to 70% is the max. And that's what we do require when we submit our local action unit applications to the state to go to the very max 70% because our demographics support it.
[Adam Knight]: So 30% of the money that we have goes out of the city?
[Alicia Hunt]: No, no, no misunderstanding. The units must be in Medford. When they then put the lottery out for who gets to live.
[Adam Knight]: Okay, I'm not. No, I'm more concerned about the money. It's say, can I can now apply for money for the method affordable housing trust?
[Danielle Evans]: No.
[Adam Knight]: No, okay, so another entity from outside, the development has to be inside the community. It's not a regional application process, we can't fund projects that are in the region or anything like that, it's only within the boundaries of the city.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, it's not like, you might be thinking of our HOME program, which we're part of an eight-city consortium, and we all pool our resources, and then the eight municipalities allocate funds within the region.
[Adam Knight]: But this- Or even like with our community development block grant, when we have entities that apply that, you know, really don't do anything for Medford per se, but very little for Medford, but apply for the block grant funding. You know, they're 80, 90% servicing, providing services for another community. And Medford really doesn't make up much of their clientele, but they're looking for money from Medford. You know what I mean? I want to make sure that the money stays within the confines and the walls of this community.
[Alicia Hunt]: I just want to make sure I correct that misunderstanding, because those agencies might only serve a small percentage of their clientele in Medford, but every quarter they have to report to us the number of Medford residents they served, and their funding is supposed to be only for serving Medford residents. This allows them to serve Medford residents as well as other communities, but the money is for serving Medford residents only.
[Zac Bears]: Just to confirm, any funds spent by the Affordable Housing Trust would be spent on projects within the city of Medford only?
[MCM00001353_SPEAKER_08]: Correct.
[Zac Bears]: I will go to Shirin and then Roberta.
[Everett]: Thank you. I just wanted to pass on my experience with affordable housing trusts and working on affordable housing projects. I have done many across the state and I represent many affordable housing trusts. I just want to note that usually, you know, when their ordinances or bylaws passed on affordable housing trusts, There are few, if any, limitations placed on the powers of the trust, because the purpose is to empower the trust to develop affordable housing as is deemed best. I haven't seen any town or city require prevailing wage, and it may be that's what their preference is, and Medford's preference is different. But I just also want to point out that the statute had the concern being that public funds should go to construction to pay a prevailing wage, the statutes could have required that. But what they do instead is instead of having the funds go to pay people's wages, which is CPA dollars or trust fund dollars go to pay wages, they're instead geared towards building housing for such workers if they meet the income criteria. So you are helping those in need by developing housing that is affordable to those at low and moderate incomes in Bedford. So there is contribution to a number of people, including those who might have been working on such projects. If you do require a parading wage, and I know that every affordable housing project is a drive for dollars, and they search high and low, I mean, affordable housing trust funds will be going towards paying the increased cost of the labor versus being spent on the housing. Now, again, if that's city's choice, that's what it is. But just the realities of the economics of affordable housing, it will impede affordable housing projects from taking off. So I just want to pass on my experience. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Shirin. I will go to Roberta Cameron.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And then Councilor Collins. Roberta, I will unmute you now.
[Roberta Cameron]: Hello again, and thank you. Can you hear me this time?
[Zac Bears]: It's okay, but it was a little glitchy, so I may have to speak up and let you know that we can't hear you.
[Roberta Cameron]: Okay, please interrupt me again if you can't hear me. So I wanted to make two points. First of all, the fact I've, the ordinance that you have drafted includes a provision that requires council approval for larger parcels that are conveyed by the trust. And so I heard Councilor Knight's concern earlier about the trust conveying a large property for a large development project without, so that it's no longer in the public realm. However, the council will have many opportunities to engage and to put conditions on that before that can be conveyed, given that you've already put that requirement into this version of the ordinance. So the council I think will have many opportunities before you put a property into the trust and then again before the property can be conveyed out of the trust to ensure that for large significant projects you can have some say in what the terms of those projects are going to be. But most of the projects that the trust undertakes will be small projects on small properties, whether they are previously owned by the trust or the trust is just putting money into small projects. Those small projects are best facilitated with flexibility. And so I'm afraid of, as the previous speaker said, of hampering the flexibility of the trust by putting too many constraints on its powers. And the other thing that I just had to point out, given speaking as a person who works for a municipality, most of the people who are working for the public sector who are receiving taxpayer money that pay our salaries and wages are not making prevailing wages. So the prevailing wages is higher than the wages that the city is paying its own employees or that any city is paying most of its employees. I just needed to put that out there. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: I don't think it makes it right, number one. Number two, I don't support a race to the bottom.
[Roberta Cameron]: It's not a race to the bottom to pay a wage that is comparable to what we're already agreeing to pay all of our employees.
[Adam Knight]: If we left it up to the administration of any business corporation or anything else and they set the buffer wages to what they should pay our employees, we'd all be underpaid.
[Zac Bears]: which is what we do, but that's a different story.
[Adam Knight]: And right now we have the opportunity to change that. I mean, let's not beat this dead horse. Let's not beat this dead horse. You know what I mean? Ultimately it is what it is. I stand where I stand and you know what I mean? I can sit here and I'll debate with anybody all night if they want. I don't think that's what they want. I think I've made my position pretty clear.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. I will go to Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Vice President Paris. Thank you everybody who's who's weighed in. I'm gonna make a few comments and then I'm gonna make a motion just to return to the text of the ordinance. Just again, sort of laying out my thoughts on the changes before us that we've been reviewing tonight. Most of my concerns have been addressed. I'm glad to see compensation for the trustees. That's something I care about on all of our boards and commissions. I think that not prescribing a specific amount is the correct move on that piece of that like other aspects of the ordinance that can be flexible reactive to changing circumstances. personally, I feel content with the size with the development size threshold that requires that second city council vote. I think that's the strikes the right balance between not over involving the city council and having that be hampering to process while at the same time involving us on those most meaningful conveyances. And, you know, thirdly, based on the testimony that from housing experts that we've heard tonight, but I've had other conversations know, to put it pretty bluntly, my understanding is that putting prevailing wage into this ordinance would not result in better outcomes for workers working in Medford. It would just prevent affordable housing from being started in Medford. I wish that weren't the case, but it is my understanding that that is the case. You know, if prevailing wage wouldn't help workers, and it wouldn't get affordable housing done, I'd rather we do one than neither. So with that being said, I would motion to report the paper out and accept the recommendations provided by the PDS staff and consultants.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. I am going to turn the chair back to President Morell.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And also raise my hand.
[Nicole Morell]: Can everyone hear me?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Nicole Morell]: Yes, okay, sorry. Air Pods, I appreciate you, Vice President Bears, for taking over. It is a very rough sick season out there, and I have a sick baby, so I appreciate the time to be able to get him down. Council. Uh, going to buy Susan bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Um I would second Councilor Collins emotion to accept the. Recommendations of PDS staff and report the paper out of committee. Um I would also make a further motion. That we send a copy of the amended ordinance to the greater Boston from their organization.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Mr. Beyers. And we do also have a motion on the floor from Councilor Caraviello from earlier in the meeting.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Is Councilor Caraviello still with us?
[Adam Knight]: I'll be happy to second Councilor Caraviello's motion to reduce it.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Clerk Hurtubise, it looks like Councilor Caraviello dropped off. Are we still able to move forward with his original motion?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I can read it back. He moved to discuss lowering the 10,000 square foot threshold down to 7,500 square feet. And then I do have a second from Councilor Knight.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay, yeah, I just got a text from Councilor Carvialo that a truck went by his house and ripped a cable off his house. So that's where his internet went. We'll address that at a future meeting.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. I have vice president bears motion to send a copy of the ordinance to the greater Boston building trade conference and request feedback from them.
[Zac Bears]: Correct. Building trades unions. Yeah.
[Nicole Morell]: And then we have Councilor Collins motion as well to report the paper out of committee with the, and accept the changes proposed by PDS. And that was seconded by vice president bears.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And I would like, sorry, go ahead. I don't have a second on Vice President Bears's motion.
[Nicole Morell]: Second by Councilor Tseng. And if we could, before we vote, I do just want to say I very much share Councilor Knight's concerns. I think we end up in a little bit of a chicken or an egg situation and absolutely to his point where we have this opportunity to address the wages that put us in these situations in the first place. I think it's, it's imperative on us to act. That being said, I understand that the challenge is before us. And I want to note that a vote tonight is not a vote to enact this or not. It's a vote to report this out of committee. And I appreciate Vice President Bears's motion to get feedback from the Boston Building Trade Union, Trade Council as well, to be able to move forward with this, because I think that input is very important. We had a meeting last night where we asked for input from outside groups. And I think that's something that continue that model when it's very important like this. Councilor Knight, do you have your hand back up?
[Adam Knight]: I do.
[Nicole Morell]: Councilor Knight?
[Adam Knight]: I do. I'm just looking at the contradictory motions that are on the floor. I mean, ultimately we have a motion to report the paper out favorably, but at the same time ask for what friends in the union think. How are we going to report? We don't know what they think, but we're going to report the paper out favorably. You know, we're putting the chicken before the egg. You know what I mean? I understand it's good cover. It is what it is. Get the letter out. That's fine. I can't support this paper this evening. I can't support reporting this paper out of committee favorably. We're putting the paper out of committee at all this evening. The issues of how, when, and where prevailing wage would be applicable haven't been resolved. They've been discussed. You know, I certainly have several ideas and several thoughts about it that, you know what I mean, might make a difference. you know, at this point, and if we want to get feedback from the union now, let's get it.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Going to Vice Mayor Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Just looping back on the threshold question, Danielle, were you able to get that information on how many city parcels are above 10,000 or below 10,000? And if possible, could you maybe tell us how many are above 7,500 or below 7,500 square feet?
[Danielle Evans]: So the data I have, let's see, how many rows? It's not the best data. I have 20,190 rows. I asked for the land use code so that I could cross-reference what it is. I need to deduct all the protected public space, city hall, there's a lot of things in here. Some of it's in acres, some of it's in square feet. It needs more. analysis. I can send everyone the spreadsheet, but I can also do some analysis.
[Zac Bears]: Analysis is fine with me. I guess, given that, do you think that a 7,500 square foot threshold would be significantly detrimental compared to a 10,000 square foot threshold?
[Danielle Evans]: I don't think so. I think the idea was that this would be for these infill parcels, you know, creating ones and twos on some of our smaller lots. that would have no other, you know, couldn't be done. Nothing else could really be done on them except like a single or a two.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Okay. Then that that's sufficient enough to answer my question. I'll support Councilor Caraviello's motion. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Any further discussion from the council at this time? Okay, so we'll take Councilor Caraviello's motion first. So on the motion of Councilor Caraviello to drop the, just wanna make sure. the transfer limit to 7,500 square feet, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. I believe Councilor Caraviello is absent for his motion. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.
[Nicole Morell]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Second, we have the motion of Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: I would just amend my motion to remove the contradictory part that we've voted to change the size threshold to 7,500. So I'm sorry, what's the contradictory part?
[Nicole Morell]: Okay, so what would your motion be then?
[Kit Collins]: I guess it would be to accept the recommendations provided
[Adam Knight]: Get a move approval.
[Kit Collins]: Move approval, except that the language is now 7,500 square feet and not 10,000.
[Adam Knight]: Yeah, we already approved that.
[Zac Bears]: But it's to adopt the, I think it would be a motion to adopt the recommendations as written by Planning Development and Sustainability with the transfer limitation threshold of 7,500 square feet, not 10,000 square feet.
[Nicole Morell]: Let me know when you have that language, Mr. Clerk.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, I have Councilor Collins moved to report the paper out and to accept the recommendations made by staff and consultants with the transfer and limitation threshold of 7,500 square feet, not 10,000 square feet. And I have a second from Vice President Bears on that.
[Nicole Morell]: And I believe, and I'm sorry, did you mention the part about reporting out the paper as well?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay. So on the motion of Councilor Collins, as seconded by Vice President Bears, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello is absent. Councilor Collins. Councilor Knight. No. Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell?
[Nicole Morell]: No, three in the affirmative, two in the negative, the motion passes. And then we have another motion from Vice President Bears.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And then Vice President Bears has moved to send a copy of the ordinance to Greater Boston Building Trades Unions and to request feedback from them. And I have a second from Councilor Tseng.
[Nicole Morell]: Correct. So on the motion of Vice President Bears, as seconded by Councilor Tseng, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears? Yes. Councilor Caraviello is absent. Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Knight?
[Adam Knight]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell?
[Nicole Morell]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. Any further discussion from the council or Do I have a motion to adjourn? Before we adjourn, is there anyone else in the public who'd like to speak? Seeing none, motion of Councilor Knight to adjourn, seconded by Vice President Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears? Yes. Councilor Caraviello is absent. Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell.
[Nicole Morell]: Yes, I am in front of zero and the motion passes meeting is adjourned. Thanks all. Thank you everyone.
|
total time: 5.95 minutes total words: 716 |
total time: 7.03 minutes total words: 446 |
total time: 13.01 minutes total words: 1222 |
total time: 14.81 minutes total words: 1781 |
|
total time: 1.33 minutes total words: 155 |
total time: 2.25 minutes total words: 184 |
||