[SPEAKER_53]: Fourth regular meeting, Medford City Council, February 20th, 2024 is called to order. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Gallagher.
[Callahan]: Present.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Sorry. Councilor Gallagher.
[Callahan]: Present.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Vice President Collins. Present. Councilor Lazzaro. Present. Councilor Leming. Present. Councilor Scapelli. Present. Councilor Tseng. Present. President Bears.
[Bears]: Present, seven present, none absent, please rise to salute the flag.
[SPEAKER_53]: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Before we get started tonight, is there anyone who knows what the fire code is for this room? So we're not going to be doing outbursts tonight, and we will recess and we will adjourn this meeting if we're going to be interrupting me or any speaker.
[Bears]: We're going to respect everybody to speak, as we have at our previous meetings. Everyone will get an amount of time. And if we're going to do stuff like that, we're going to recess or adjourn.
[SPEAKER_54]: Mr. President, can I say something, sir? No, I'm gonna move us here.
[Bears]: I mean, yes, Councilor Scarpelli, if you wanna enforce the fact that this is gonna be a respectful space, but if it's not, we're not gonna disrupt the public meeting.
[Buckley]: Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you, Mr. President. Listen, tonight's a very important night, and we know, we wanna hear everybody, but I will tell you, We've had meetings in the past where people brought in bells and signs, and we've told them to put them away. So all we just ask is, listen, everyone here has a reason to be here. Just show the respect to each other to make sure the message is sent, okay? And we'll make sure that you're heard, okay? So I just thank you for that. And I know you have a right to be inflamed, believe me. But I just ask you to just get through this meeting and make sure everybody, because a lot of people on TV, there's a lot of people in this room that are going to spread your message. So just please, just let them hear your message.
[Bears]: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarapelli. And as I said, everyone will get a chance to be heard, but we're not going to jeer and shout when people talk. You're welcome to clap when someone's done. but we're not gonna interrupt each other and we're gonna have a respectful and orderly meeting. And if not, we're gonna address that. The records of the meeting of February 6th, 2024 passed to Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, how did you find the records?
[Collins]: I find them in order and I move for approval.
[Bears]: Councilor Collins has moved approval, seconded by? Second. Councilor Tseng, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Scapelli?
[Bears]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Bears?
[Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative, none in the negative. The meeting records from February 6th are approved. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I would motion to suspend the rules and take the following papers out of order in this order. 24-044, 24-040, 24-039, 24-046, 23-411, 23081, and 24-043.
[Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. On the motion of Vice President Collins to take those papers out of order, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. And if folks in the back wouldn't mind, if you could just close the doors so if people are speaking out in the hallway, we don't hear them on the system in here.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: Speak up on the intercom, please.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Callahan, Councilor Callahan? Yes. Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. Councilor Zim Laming.
[Bears]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Scapelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Villescaz.
[Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none in the negative. We are taking the following papers out of order. 24-044, a petition for a cleaning and dyeing license by Antoine Vo. Petition for cleaning and dyeing license by Antoine Vo, DUK Laundromat, DBA Leased Laundry, 281 Boston Avenue, Medford MA 02155. We have all the requisite reports on file. I'll go to the Chair of Licensing, Permitting, and Science, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Buckley]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[SPEAKER_53]: So is the petitioner here this evening online? We do have the petitioner here on Zoom.
[SPEAKER_16]: Hello, how are you guys doing? Hello, my name is Antoine Vo. Slight correction, the name of the business of the LOC is DVK Laundromats, but besides that, we plan to open a DBA as Lay's Laundry. Nice to meet everybody.
[Buckley]: Thank you. The question, if you could give us a brief description of what you're asking for, sir, and we could then get some information and move forward.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yes, also I want to mention that my business partner Nate, Nathan Downs is also there too in person. But that said, there is currently a closed laundromat called the Laundry Mat 281 Boston Avenue. We plan to reopen the laundromat.
[Buckley]: Okay, so everything is in order, sir. So what this is, is a laundromat that's moving into Boston Ave, correct?
[SPEAKER_16]: We're not moving, we're just reopening the existing one that is currently closed.
[Buckley]: And we're turning it over to new owners. Everything else stays the same, correct? Correct. Correct, so everything's in order, Mr. President. I move approval.
[Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to move approval. Any further questions by members of the council? Seeing none, is there a second on the motion? Councilor Lazzaro, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Callahan. Yes. Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. Councilor Leming.
[Bears]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Scapelli.
[Bears]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmatives are in the negative. The license is approved. Thank you, Mr. Vo.
[Keene]: Thank you very much, everybody. I look forward to new business.
[Bears]: 24-040 Election Warrant, March 5th, 2024 Presidential Primary. Dear Mr. Clerk, I am writing on behalf of the Election Commission to request the attached to the Election Warrant be included in the Council's package for the upcoming Council meeting. To this end, we require to seek the Council's signature on the Election Warrant to proceed with the necessary preparations for the upcoming Presidential Preferential Primary on Tuesday, March 5th, 2024. For what's the call to election has already been presented to and approved by the Council body, Election Commission Chair Malorin, Member DiBenedetto.
[Henry Milorin]: Mr. President, not a whole lot to say about it. It's basically respecting the symbolisms behind it. We're just requiring your signature approval from the council so we can start posting our work prior to the election of March 5th. We have seven days prior to the election to make it happen.
[Bears]: Great. Any questions from members of the council moving forward? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to accept the election warrant, seconded by?
[Lazzaro]: Second.
[Bears]: Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. And has everybody here signed the warrant? Yes, I have. Great.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Diaz.
[Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes and the warrant is accepted.
[SPEAKER_52]: Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, everyone. Please vote Tuesday, March 5th, or at early voting or by mail. 24-039, request to accept the provisions of MGL, Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 22G, related to the real estate tax exemptions for qualifying veterans. I will welcome our assessor, Ted Costigan, for explanation and comment. Mr. Costigan.
[Ted Costigan]: Good evening, Council. The city allows last year 226 wounded disabled veterans and their surviving spouses a tax exemption, ranging from $800 to a full exemption depending on their, their status. I'm asking tonight the council adopt. The President indicated Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 22G, which would allow this benefit to expand to wounded veterans that have a disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs that own their house in certain trusts and conservatorships. So I'm asking for the option of that.
[Bears]: Thank you, and Mr. Costigan, just to clarify, this is just enabling certain types of ownership to be eligible for the veteran's exemption of the property tax levy?
[Ted Costigan]: That's correct.
[Bears]: Great, thank you. Any questions, members of the council?
[Tseng]: Councilor Tseng? Thank you, Mr. Costigan. I just wanted to check and make sure, are we maxing out the exemption for seniors and vets?
[Ted Costigan]: That's correct.
[Tseng]: Thank you, that's helpful, and I think good for the residents of our city.
[Ted Costigan]: Absolutely.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Costigan. Any further questions? Councilor Collins?
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for being here tonight. Assessor Costigan, just the basic bullet points for what this new exemption would does. I'm glad that in the past couple of years, the council has been able to take votes to make sure that we are maxing out the exemptions for these populations in Medford that I think uncontroversially, we want to extend these benefits to populations very deserving of the tax break that the city can provide. I'd be happy to motion for approval to adopt this tonight. That was a motion to approve.
[Bears]: Second. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Callaghan. Yes. Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. Councilor Leming.
[Bears]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Scapelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes, I mean affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. And I saw in your request there is no waiver or extended advertising because we're adopting state law. So you're good.
[Ted Costigan]: Thank you.
[Bears]: Appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks. Mr. Simpons, could you read me back the order again?
[Collins]: Yes, after that one we just voted on, which was 24-039, next up is 24-046. Great.
[Bears]: All right, 24-046, request to exempt Fire Chief position from civil service law. February 15th, 2024, to Honorable President, members of the Medford City Council, Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, re-removal of Fire Chief position from civil service. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respect the request and recommend that your Honorable body vote to submit a request pursuant to Article II, Section 8, Paragraph 1, Clause 1 of the Amendments to the Constitution of Massachusetts, as amended by Article 89, that state senator name and state representative name submit special legislation to the general court seeking to remove the position of fire chief in Medford Fire Department from the civil service law, General Law Chapter 31, which would divest the position from all rights and obligations set forth in General Law Chapter 31, your vote, and the legislation would have no effect on civil service status of any other member of the fire department or any other employee of the city of Medford. The special act would provide as follows, an act exempting the position of fire chief in the city of Medford from the civil service law, be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in general court assembled and by the authority of the same as follows. Section one, the position of fire chief in the city of Medford shall be exempt from chapter 31 of the general laws. Section two, section one shall not impair the civil service status of any person holding the position of fire chief in the city on the effective act of the state. Section three, this act shall take effect upon its passage by way of background of the approximately 102 municipal fire departments that are subject to the civil service law. Approximately 51 departments or 50% have a civil service chief in recent years. Municipalities have sought to accept the position of fire chief from chapter 31 for various reasons. Among one of the main reasons that municipalities have sought to exempt the position from Chapter 31 is because once a fire chief is appointed under the current civil service system, they are essentially lifetime appointments and the procedures which the municipality would have to follow to make a change in the position and the standard the municipality would have to satisfy in order to do so are avoidably burdensome with the ever-changing nature and fluidity of the fire profession. Currently, the needs of the city maintain little notice. The chief needs to be able to quickly change, adapt, and work with the changing needs of the city to ensure proper supervision of the department and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. By removing the position from civil service, the city would be able to annually evaluate the chief's performance on a predetermined contractual basis. The city would have the ability to negotiate removal. and non reappointment clauses with the individual in the position rather than being bound to the de facto lifetime appointment that comes with the civil service law. The city additionally would not be bound to the constructive measures that exist in civil service relative to appointments to the position of fire chief under civil service and applicant pool. is generally limited and certain scenarios are utilized when either a test or assessment center is administered for the position. In order to post a test, the city must work with the understaffed civil service HRD unit. This requires back and forth of multiple forms and processes that are generally unnecessary or redundant. Subjects must create online profiles, submit more required forms and documents electronically, and pay fees to the Commonwealth. The city must then wait for civil service to process all forms and payments, which can take months. They must then conduct a bid for a vendor to deliver the exam and arrange a date that works for the city, the vendor, and for a civil service representative to be present. This again pushes up the timeline. Outside of the constraints of civil service and through its own procurement process, the city would solicit bids from vendors who have experience in conducting fire service assessment centers. For a fire chief, the request for proposals would seek a qualified consultant to design, validate, administer, and score an assessment center. In order to create a promotional eligible list from which to promote a candidate to the position, the city would be able to offer a better test to a larger and more diverse pool of applicants that could draw interest from applicants throughout the Commonwealth as well as nationally. This process would better allow the city and fire department to evolve, maximize its budget, manage the department and fill a vital position in a more expedited manner through its own appointment process. the city would be in a better position to diversify the department without jumping through hoops that civil service requires when asking for specialized certification. It would also allow the city more flexibility on the quote scenarios presented during the test by removing the fire chief from civil service. The city would be replacing an outdated and cumbersome procedure with an updated and efficient one. Given the fire chief's pending retirement and the resulting vacancy in the position, now is the opportune time for the council to act. The removal of the fire chief from civil service will serve to propel the department in the right direction going forward, and it would be in the best interest of the residents of the city. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Brianne Alamogordo, mayor.
[SPEAKER_31]: Mr. President.
[Bears]: I would like to recognize the administration so they can present the paper before we move to council comment.
[SPEAKER_31]: No.
[Bears]: Okay. Madam Chief of Staff.
[Nazarian]: Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity. I would like to request, Mr. President, if the council could please provide the mayor, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, the opportunity to speak. She's on the call.
[Bears]: Okay, we will go to the mayor.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Bears and City Council On the call with me, you just heard from Chief of Staff Nina Nazarian. We also have Lisa Crowley, our Human Resource Director, as well as Attorney Brian Mazur for any legal questions you may have tonight. I think the paper speaks for itself. Thank you for reading it fully, President Bears. The position of Fire Chief became vacant as of a week ago when the chief freedman put in his retirement papers. So I want to thank him for his service to the city. But it became an opportunity for the city, like many others that have come before us, to request to remove the position from civil service. As you heard, out of 300 plus 51 cities and towns, there's only 100 um In civil service and there's only 50 that haven't removed the position. So out of 351 cities and towns Only 50 are restricted by civil service guidelines and what civil service does is creates a very stringent process not allowing the city to have a broad candidate pool, which includes members of our own department if they choose to have interest in the position and I think modernizing the position making it more open, competitive, with the goal of hiring the best candidate from a broad pool of applicants, is in the best interest of the city of Medford. And I ask that council support this paper this evening so we can move forward and modernize the way that it's done, the process, so we can get the best candidate for the city of Medford to lead our fire department.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam Mayor. We'll go to members of the council. Zack? Zack? All right, just if we could close the doors, please, again, I ask so we can hear in the room and hear everyone's comments. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Buckley]: Thank you. So with all due respect, what the mayor has just said and what you just read is completely crap. This is a joke and this is disgusting. What we're seeing right now is we're seeing action that's being taken by this mayor that has negatively affected multiple departments, multiple people, good people in this community, good people that's worked for the city and found a way to destroy. And I know I'm reading, I read some posts that all of a sudden the mayor is some kind of right fighter. We don't need a right fighter, we need a mayor. We need a leader that's gonna make decisions that's best for this community. We are, this is what, these are the phone calls I've gotten, I've received this week. The school budget, $2.4 million, $2.5 million in the hole this year. We still have questions within our school system of safety. We still have questions about our paraprofessionals and whether we have enough teachers. We're talking about a situation that that you're looking across the city and you're seeing good people getting hurt and the mayor spending good money that belongs to the city to do things on her own agenda, chasing around city employees and paying for private investigators. paying good money for private investigators, and then the results come back that the city is fraudulent, leaving us into a world of hurt when it comes to finances, and when it comes to what the budget's gonna look like, because what we have to pay people in penalties. We have probably the one of best, best employees I've ever worked with than Aleesha Nunley, a former finance director. was fighting and suing the city now going after the city because the way this man treated her. And I believe the comments were that that that at the time that they wanted to have a white male present the budget because she didn't feel that this council would listen to a woman of color, which is which is a disgrace. And I could go on and on. But what I want to what I find more appalling is this situation right here. Everybody in this community, I've been reading things going back and forth and trying to support this. It's a disgrace if anybody's trying to support this for the fact that everybody works. And when you go to work, you're given a certain criteria of what you can and what you can't do. And all this doesn't stem from anything about equity or what 350 other cities are doing in the Commonwealth. This is retribution, this is an attack against an issue that occurred that left our firefighters speechless because it was then called an investigation. So they couldn't tell the truth. What I do know of the men and women that are our firefighters, they earned the right to have sick time. And if I asked these firefighters to raise their hand if they have over 100 days or 200 days saved or 300 days saved, I can guarantee you, Mr. President, the majority of this room hands will go up in red. Because that's the truth. What's been the only constant since the pandemic? The only constant are men and women in fire that have done anything that this city has needed. And we hear rhetoric that our facilities, that the mayor's put money toward the facilities. That's a joke. Well, the money that was put into those facilities are just barely getting by so they're safe and where they stay every night. When we talked about what happened the other day, and this is all fraudulent, and this was some sort of pre-planned, where does it say that? What investigation said that? Because all the firefighters I talked to is that they have sick time, and all they did was use the days that they're supposed to take if they need it. And then I heard, well, what's shocking is they called sick in the morning, but miraculously show up at night. Miraculously, that's who they are. They're coming in sick because they don't have coverage. So what I find appalling, you're talking about wasted money, setting a dialogue that this financial budget coming this year is going to be disgusting. I will warn everybody, don't be shocked if this mayor presents cuts for fire, police, DPW, custodians, teachers, because we're in trouble. The state has already reported that people that I've talked to, that we're in trouble. We have no more ESSA money. We have no more ARPA money. We have 60 positions that we're going to lose that are sponsored by those monies. So maybe this is a dialogue that says City of Medford, they're not listening because until tonight, there haven't been many people listening. The City of Medford, please. We have the firefighters that are using this and wasting $93,000. The president from the fire department is gonna come up and I hope he explains the situation, why we're wasting money on a deputy, I believe a deputy that's over time, I believe almost $50,000 that we've paid because the mayor will not promote that position. You wanna talk about hypocrisy? This is a disgrace. We have teachers that are getting a check every week because they're not getting their prep time. that's costing our city. Because they're not doing the job correctly. Now we have a council that's been talking about overrides and talking about other ways to create money. There's one reason that we're gonna be in a mess. Because the way we've managed our fiscal funds in this community in the last four years, we have no development, we have no movement, we have no new money coming in. And you wanna turn and look at the fight of the economy to blame them? Shame on you, Madam Mayor. I want to close with this. Did any of you speak to the mayor personally? Anyone in the room?
[Ricky Cormio]: Any councillors? You did. You did. You did. You did. That's over to the mayor.
[Buckley]: You all did. I didn't. It's shocking, right? I didn't. So it's not illegal, you can talk to each individual, not as a group, but this is what we're saying. There's a dialogue being sent, and I implore to my fellow Councilors that no matter what's happened in this community, no matter what we've looked at and said, whatever has divided this community, because there's been a lot, but there's been one constant. one constant, no matter what, whether they didn't get their raise for years, whether their facilities are deplorable. whether they're waiting for their retro checks, there's one constant, the fire department's still strong. And the dialogue that's being spun, that Chief Friedman, shame on you firefighters, because the reason why Chief Friedman left is because of your entitled ignorance. That's a word. What I'm hearing is the total opposite. He left because he's never been talked to as an individual, as a professional, the way this administration talks to their department. So I ask, what's the other constant? No city solicitor, nobody that we can call to talk and ask what our direction should be. We haven't had stability in most any of our department heads in this city. We've had turnover and I think every position When we went for a new chief, I didn't see the mayor come up here. The dialogue wasn't the mayor coming up and setting this out saying, the chief of police, we need to do this because of X, Y, and Z and everything you read, Mr. President. She didn't say that. But all of a sudden, the fire department who stand strong with their convictions and stand strong for what they believe in in our community and do the right thing every single day, the firemen that have the right to use their sick time have the right. So it's not their fault that we don't find enough firefighters that we protect our staff just in case this happens. We don't have that. We didn't do that. But it's these firefighters after this incident came out, and an irate mayor went public, went to the news authorities, knowing that these people couldn't defend themselves by calling it a criminal act. And then come to us for a paper to give her control? Please, I beg all of you, do not even consider this because this is one constant that has worked no matter what. One thing I heard from these firefighters and their families and their families, when they watch their families, their loved ones leave the house to go to work, they don't know if they're going to come home. But what they do have is they have each other. And by bringing someone in from the outside, you're gonna disrupt that. The goal to say that the delay in all this is a joke. We have capable, qualified firefighters that can step in as an interim chief while this process moves the way it's supposed to in the civil process like we've always done. So I'll leave you with this, for those people who know. Chief Sacco, Chief Giliberti, Chief Freeman, Chief Buckley, civil servants, correct? They were pretty good. Correct? They were pretty good. They've led our city in some tough times and they've done a good job. Why would we even consider, why would we even consider changing that? This shouldn't even be a conversation. So I appreciate and thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Okay, Councilor Scarpelli, we're gonna go to other councilors. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: President Bears, are you able to answer questions if you know the answer?
[Bears]: if I ask you questions.
[Lazzaro]: Do the firefighters have a contract right now? Are they working with a contract? My understanding is yes, there's a signed contract. Okay. The change in the designation of the fire chief, what impact would it have on the rank and file firefighters, do you know?
[Bears]: According to this proposal, it would not change their civil service status. It would just change who is able... It says the law specifically says The section one shall not impair the civil service status of any person. Oh, sorry. The position of fire chief for the city of Medford. Yes.
[Lazzaro]: So it wouldn't have an impact on anybody except for the fire chief.
[SPEAKER_52]: That's as it's written.
[Lazzaro]: My understanding is when everybody called out sick at the same time early this month, that since it's the fire department and there can still be fires and disruption and emergencies that Somebody will get called in to cover those shifts and those people that get called in get paid overtime. Do you know if that's true?
[Bears]: I don't. If you want to direct questions to the administration, we can all speak and then we can hear from the administration if they want to answer the question. That would be helpful.
[Lazzaro]: My belief is that what happens is when you call in sick, then somebody who is not scheduled to work that shift comes in and fills in that shift but gets paid overtime. And that is why it was so much more expensive during that time. So what appeared to be a coordinated call out meant that it cost a significantly larger amount of money to the city. The reason I'm saying this in explicit terms is because I think most people in Medford wouldn't understand that to be the case because at most jobs, if you're a shift worker, if you work in retail or restaurant, and you fill in for somebody, you just get paid normal wages that you would be paid on any other day. But my understanding is that in the fire department, when you call at six, somebody else comes and fills in that position, but you get paid time and a half or double time something over time. I just want to clarify that. So I think that there is a possibility that if a fire chief comes in who is from a different department, it would have to be somebody who has worked in a fire department and has that experience. They would be maybe somebody that would say, oh, hey, maybe if everybody called out sick one day, that would be something that we would have to discuss. that wouldn't be something I would be comfortable with happening on an ongoing basis. Maybe I wouldn't want everybody to then get paid overtime to make up a coordinated call out, even though we have a contract, even though it's not a strike, even though there is no, there does not seem to be an ask. There doesn't seem to be any reason for that coordinated call out. And, excuse me, no, no, you may not. Alleged?
[SPEAKER_58]: Let's not call a coordinated attack.
[Bears]: I'm not policing anyone's speech here. So if we could just step back from the podium, and we're gonna, no one.
[SPEAKER_58]: I'll pose it for you, it's an alleged.
[Lungo-Koehn]: You're not part of this conversation here, we're not.
[Bears]: We're not gonna go back here. And we're not gonna have outbursts. And again, I wouldn't. Interrupting Councilor Scarpelli, we're not gonna interrupt other councilors. Councilor Lazzaro, you have the floor.
[Lazzaro]: What I'm saying is if there was a fire chief who was not part of civil service and who came in from an outside fire department, I believe that the likelihood of a situation like what happened earlier in February would be much less. I would, if there's possibility for the administration to speak to that.
[Bears]: If you're gonna have conversations, please take them outside.
[Lazzaro]: if the administration could speak to that, I would appreciate it. Just about the overtime issue is that if you can correct me if I was wrong about that.
[Bears]: Great, I have that down. We'll go back to the administration.
[Leming]: Councilor Leming. Thank you, and I also ask that I'm just gonna... That's fine. I'm just gonna talk, and I'm going to...
[Bears]: Well, if folks would not have conversations and not leave the doors open, it's difficult to hear. It's difficult to hear in this room when people are shouting, when the doors are open, when there's conversations happening. So I please ask that people respect everyone who's speaking.
[Leming]: Thank you. So I got messages from about 30 people opposed to this, including three or four from firefighters. I ended up having long conversations, you know, with two of those firefighters. I had dinner with another one on. Friday, Thursday, and I even went to the South Medford fire station and rang their doorbell and tried to start a conversation with the fellow there who obviously wasn't expecting to talk to a city councilor but the point that I'm getting at is that City Council, just like the rest of, like many other people in Medford, has been in a bit of an information vacuum about the nature of what's been happening with union negotiations between the mayor and the leadership and the firefighters union. And so what I'm trying to say is that We didn't really know too much about what was going on behind closed doors compared to the rest of the public until last Thursday when this came onto the agenda and suddenly became in the interest of both parties to put as much information about what's been happening behind closed doors for months. as possible. So I did talk to the I did talk to the mayor, I tried to talk to different firefighters, I tried to get past a lot of the spin. A lot of you know, obviously, during the union negotiations, union contract negotiations, relationships fell apart. And there's a lot of there's a lot of bad blood that's going around. And I heard a lot of that. And so what I'm going to say is, What I'm going to try to do is make my thinking about this as transparent as I possibly can, and so I'm going to say the points that appeal to me most for voting down, and then I'm going to say the points that I see in favor of this, and then I want to listen to public comment after that, and I'm not going to say anything else. The point in opposition to this that meant the most to me was the morale in the fire department. There are promotional issues. If you bring in somebody from the outside, firefighters cannot advance in the normal routes. I hear that loud and clear that so I received an email from a firefighter. Dan Craven, and I think he phrased it best. He said, four promotions normally happen in this scenario. Firefighter, Lieutenant, Captain, Deputy Chief each get promoted to fill the vacancies created by the Fire Chief's retirement. There are already established promotional lists for Deputy Chief, Captain, and Lieutenant. The Mayor has instead called upon your Honorable Body to remove the Chief's position from civil service law so that she can hire him outside the Medford Fire Department. which would in turn effectively nullify the normal promotions. I take that very seriously. He then goes on to talk about all of the studying that's required for these tests, why they're so difficult to do. And I've also heard about the behavior that from the mayor personally, which obviously didn't appeal to a lot of people during this. What I'm going to say that I need, if I am going to vote against this, I absolutely need to be convinced of a few things. First, the sick time situation as my colleagues have both brought up. Now, I have tried to ask as many firefighters about this as possible. I have been told that they actually were sick and I'll be perfectly honest, 21 out of 23 people call in in a day and then they come in later, I don't believe it. I'm just gonna say that I do not believe it. I have, otherwise when I try to ask about that, I think that there's some ongoing, you know, potential litigation. So people have been advised to not talk to me about what's happening behind closed doors. And one in my position in this is that we absolutely cannot have, we cannot have the fire department making the five o'clock news about these issues, okay? That is my bottom line. I understand morale issues. I understand everything else. I do not want to see the Medford Fire Department with a culture that encourages these kinds of issues like sick time and whatnot. And if If an outsider can fix the culture that encouraged that, then I would vote for an outsider. The other thing that, the other thing, and this was a fact that was confirmed by both sides, I specifically asked this of both the fire department and of the mayor. Now, one issue is that the civil service test is fair, it allows for promotions. I was told about, you know, a situation in 1999, where two people took the promotional exam to go from deputy to fire chief, one of them was less popular, but scored higher, that person became fire chief. This past time, three to four people signed up to take the exam, only one of them actually took it. Okay, so if you're telling me that it is a competitive process to be fire chief, then that is not something that given that fact that I believe now I have heard I've heard that fact has been confirmed to me by both sides. What I have heard from why that was from the mayor was that folks wanted to select their friends. What I've heard that that was from the fire department is that it is a big decision. People need to talk to their families about whether or not they want to take the advancement exam and so on. I even talked to one of the deputy chiefs that signed up for that but did not take it. But the point is that It did not convince me that it was a competitive process. So that being said, the morale issue is something that I do take very seriously. I don't expect what I just said to appeal to everybody in this room, but my goal here is to make my thinking on this as transparent as possible. That's where I'm at with that. I've tried to talk to as many firefighters as I can. I hope once all of this blows over, I can hang out with you all some more, maybe do a Q&A session, just try to make City Council a bit more accessible and transparent. But that's my thinking. Thank you. And I look forward to listening to members of the public.
[SPEAKER_51]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Members of the Council, Council Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you to everybody who's assembled here today. I think this is probably one of the four council chambers that I've seen, and we pack it two or three times a year. Thank you all for being here. I'm going to keep it pretty short. I've had several conversations with several folks around this issue in the past few days, some of whom I know were in the room. Thank you for reaching out. I always appreciate residents and folks who live and work in this community for getting in touch with us directly. This is how this has to work. This is the dynamic. We're elected. You live here. You work here. This is our city. I'm here to listen. I've tried to, you know, begin that process of listening with the folks who've reached out to me over the past couple days. We've heard about this over the past several days from the administration. You know, I am going into this from the perspective of this decision has landed on our desks. I know that the priority of folks here, the folks who work in service in the interest of public safety, I know what your priority is. Your priority is the public safety of Medford residents, the people who live here. As an elected representative, that has to be my priority as well. I know that's the priority shared by the committee, by the community. And so as we continue to listen and hear from people around this, that's going to be my guiding light is what decision will be in the best interest of executing public safety for Medford residents, as well as possible every single day because of how the department is structured and any decisions that we have the jurisdiction to make around that. That is going to be my lens. I've said this about other policies before, you know, because it applies to many things. With any decision, what I try to remember, it can't be about this administration or this person in the role right now or this person who's doing the job right now, it's about the department, it's about the community, it's about today, but it's also about five years from now, 10 years from now. It's always hard not to make these issues personal because we are a community made up of people who know each other and care for each other and sometimes have history with one another, but these decisions can't be made with anything other than that North Star of public safety in mind. That's the perspective that I'm going into this with for the rest of the meeting. I look forward to listening and hearing from people about this continuing to hear from constituents and firefighters and the administration and my fellow Councilors about this. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you. I'll be brief as well because I know a lot of people want to speak. I want to echo Councilor Collins' sentiment. I've spent a lot of the last few days talking to people, catching up on emails and phone calls and haven't been able to reach everyone, especially since I was sick for a few days last week. I think my job here tonight is to listen. and to listen to the perspectives in the room and give you all a chance to speak. And I have myself questions about this policy, concerns as well. And I think it's important just to recognize that my job tonight is to listen.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I have a question from Councilors for the Administration. Are there any other questions for the Administration from members of the Council? Oh, Anna, sorry, Councilor Callaghan, I recognize you, then if folks have questions, let me know. Councilor Callaghan.
[Callahan]: Thank you so much. I want to really thank all of the people who reach out to me. I have received more emails on this topic than I've probably on any other topic and spoken to a number of firefighters. And honestly, my position on this, I am finding it extremely difficult to believe that a healthy fire department filled with people who want to do their jobs, respect their leaders, and are, you know, doing the best that they can here in Medford in this incredibly difficult job is going to be helped by a process that almost to a T, like every single one of them does not want. So, If we are looking, that is just very difficult for me to believe. I want to make sure that whatever process that we have for selecting, and it was very interesting to me to hear, and I really dug into the process and how it has worked in the past, and how people are satisfied with it, and why it is that this particular process that the fire department has builds trust, builds respect, builds a really good, as Councilor Lemmie said, morale, And I am finding it very difficult to believe that a process that every firefighter does not want is going to get better leadership into the position. So that's where I start from, but I'm open ears and I'm very interested in hearing from everyone who is here to speak about this topic. Thank you.
[Bears]: Are there any questions from members of the council for the administration? All right, we have Councilor Lazzaro's question, which was regarding, you can repeat it if you wanna phrase it.
[Lazzaro]: Yeah, my question was if firefighters call out sick and somebody has to come in and fill in for the firefighters that are not in attendance, do the firefighters that have come in to fill in, they get paid overtime, is that correct?
[Bears]: We have the chief of staff, the mayor and the HR director. Do any of you want to field that question? You can raise your hand and I can unmute you.
[Clerk]: All right.
[Nazarian]: Thank you, President Bears, happily answer that question. Yes, in fact, it does trigger overtime.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further questions from members of the council? For the administration, Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I said I wasn't gonna talk again, but I remembered a clarifying question that I just wanted to double check before we get further into the weeds on this. It's my understanding from the research and the conversations that I've had so far about this, that this change, if it were to go forward, would not render ineligible any applicant within the fire department that's currently eligible for the role that would just extend the pool wider than it currently is. Can the administration confirm if that's true?
[Bears]: go to the chief of staff or go to the mayor has raised her hand, I'll go to the mayor.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Bears. Yes, Councilor Collins and the committee, the application pool would of course allow internal candidates to apply.
[SPEAKER_53]: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So a question from Councilor Scarpelli.
[Buckley]: So for clarity, now we have within the civil service, there's a process in place that if we hire within through the civil service process, we know exactly what the fiscal point will be when we hire that chief, correct? We know exactly there's a formula in place that says firefighters make A, the chief is eligible to make B, correct? So if that's correct, we allow to open that up and eliminate civil service, we can have people come in to ask for $200,000 a year, 210,000, 180,000. So they can come in and really inflate that cost in that department, correct? matter.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, that is the current salary, actually. So if you took it out of civil service, there would not, it would not be an at will, fire chief, it would be a contracted fire chief from somebody either in the department in the state or even broader. And I think That is the way that it has to be versus last time where four deputies signed up to take the test, only one took it. So it seemed like the chief was handpicked by the union. And that too, that did a disservice to our captains who could have signed up for and Taken the test to be a potential candidate But once four signed up it blocked everybody else and you did hear from other people within the department upset with that process, too I'm gonna I think you want the best candidate in this situation. You had a situation at the beginning of the month Where it cost the city almost a hundred thousand dollars to pay for overtime I think it was not the entire fire department's fault. I think it was just a misguided situation that got out of hand. And it's unfortunate because there are good members of the fire department that should be able to rise up. We just want to make sure that the best person for this job is the proper candidate. And we need to gain some control Of the membership we need to make sure that we're helping people rise rise up with integrity And that we have a respected department versus what we're seeing
[Buckley]: So thank you, Madam Mayor.
[SPEAKER_31]: So thank you.
[Buckley]: I have a follow up then because you said something very important. Madam Mayor, you said that the concern of the overtime because of this so-called concern that you had. Let me ask you something point blank. Are you not promoting positions that are costing us overtime right now? Something you have control of?
[Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Scarpelli, we promote pretty quickly. Sometimes it does take HR a week or two or myself to review. We had a retirement several weeks back. It came before myself and HR. I started to review it. Hoping that I could just promote and push that and get that checked off the list But when I went to look to see who who was on the list because it's not an assessment center Like I I wish it was it's whoever's at the top is how we promote within our fire department and that that's all well and good That's how it's it's taken place and how the process has has landed the last several, you know I think since I've been around. But what we have now is not only a review of what happened the first weekend in February, not because I want to review it, it's because we had people 21 people call out out of 23. I, as mayor, have an obligation to look into why that happened. And it wasn't just Saturday. We had 12, 13 people call out on Friday. 12 or 13 people call out on Saturday. Monday got a little better. Again, 12 or 13 people until we're scrambling to get a legal letter to the union president saying please stop this behavior. It's putting the city at risk. It's causing $100,000 in overtime. Overtime has already been skyrocketing. I've been trying to get control of it and get a review on overtime. because I did suspect what the data is showing, we're going to continue to review it. So if I have people on that list that should be promoted, that were misguided and happened to take time off during that, what I say is an orchestrated event, I have to take a time out and make sure we're promoting Through this review, investigation, whatever this comes about, I need to make sure that the leaders in the department are going to lead the department with integrity and show their younger members how a department should be led. and the behavior that should be in our proud Medford Fire Department who are risking their lives to protect us. It happened to me. Pat Ripley, he's retired, came in when we had an electrical fire. I will be ever, ever grateful. I'm not taking away from what they do every day. I respect that. I respect the job they do every day. What I don't respect is the fact that we have a contract. It is settled. And there was an orchestrated event. And I don't know what lesson they were trying to teach me. I don't know what that was. They just had met with our HR director and our diversity equity inclusion director the day before. I said, how did those meetings go? Everybody said they went fine. They have questions. We have concerns. They have concerns. But it went well. And then the next day, there was an orchestrated event. And I don't know why. And the people in the residents don't deserve it. So yes, we have a school deficit we have over time, it's out of control in the fire department. And we have an orchestrated event that's making it worse. And I, I as mayor have to look into that I have to figure out why that was, and I have to make sure it doesn't happen again. And I have to
[Buckley]: So so thank you, Madam Mayor. I have some questions because I just think that a contractual obligation as the mayor to to promote an internal candidate that I believe has cost the city over $50,000 to date for overtime. So I think that's one. So I know that you're making it sound like fluff, but this is something that's going to destroy and divide our city, even more than you think. So you have decided as the mayor of this community to now is becoming investigated the jury and the judge to say that this was orchestrated, and it's done. Councilor Leming wants our firefighters to explain something and how they can talk about this. But you, Madam Mayor, have called this an investigation. So I don't know what these people can say tonight legally to convince you. And what I fear tonight is you're going to vote yes on an issue that they have no control to support because the mayor is setting a dialogue. There's history here, Madam Mayor. If this is the first thing this mayor has done, if this is the first thing that you've done that has questioned the support for working men and women in this community, I would say, well, maybe we'd have to look into it. But is it contractual that these men and women in this department, they are given the right to have sick time? Yes, they are. Now, as a former teacher, and listen, If I can ask the president of the teachers union to ask on a daily basis, how many teachers are off because they're sick? I would say there's probably 60, 70 a day sometimes. So this isn't crazy, but when you spin the dialogue that's doing something like deceiving, this is what divides this community, Madam Mayor. So until we find out what's going on, so isn't that confusing? They meet with the HR director the day before and everything's great. But could it be that maybe they're sick? Maybe there's a doubt in anybody's mind? Some have already made comments that they've already judged us. They've already judged these people. And this is what I find appalling. You're putting the cart ahead of the horse, and it's doing major, major destruction to our community. You're saying that you need to do this because of the community, and you have this responsibility. Look at this responsibility. Your family's calling you today. You're dividing the city. We have so much more that we need to worry about right now, Madam Mayor. Way too much more. To be dealing with this when we have competent people in place to do this is a waste of our taxpayers' time and taxpayer money. The question is, do we have these two questions? I apologize. The one question is, if she can speak to it, that are you familiar with the amount of money that we're paying because contractually you're not promoting a certain position? That's one. I was told today, whether you can speak on it or not, that you might have already offered this position to an outside candidate, whether it's intern or not, if that's the truth, that's against the law. That's against a chapter that I don't have in front of me, but I can get it for you. What is it? 4238, so I would question that too. And I think that would, the reason why I think that needs to be figured out, that this council have to understand, is this something prearranged? Does the mayor already have somebody in place? Because if she's talking about this transparent process and something that we need in this community, if she's already pre-approved somebody to come in that declined the job today, that should be alarming to all of us. Because everything she just said means nothing, if that's the truth.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: So thank you.
[Bears]: The questions were about if a position hasn't been promoted and has the position been offered to anyone on an interim or permanent basis?
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, yep. I think Councilor scarpelli referenced 42 38 which is trumped by the city charter The city charter says the mayor has appointing authority to all department heads So yes, I did offer the interim position to a candidate that I thought could really work with the membership as well as how to explain why Something like the beginning of what happened in the beginning of february was just not helpful um But he was somewhat scared away. And then I believe a statement was put out telling everybody in, I don't know if it was in the state, not to apply for the interim role here in Medford. So, yes, I did offer it. And he no longer will accept the position because he knows he's going to get major pushback if he does accept. I can um, I can turn it over to attorney maser if you want to understand better how the charter trumps 42 38 With regards to just the dividing. Um I'm not dividing the community whatsoever. I Am trying to get to the bottom of what happened at the beginning of the month. I'm trying to hold those accountable that need accountability The only one that divided is the person that put out the call allegedly to not come to work that weekend. That started the division. I'm trying to fix it. And I believe I'm going to turn it over to HR director Lisa Crowley. There is some overtime costs to not promoting, but I don't see how I can promote people until I have finished our review on what happened, who was involved, and continued the data research that I'm doing that is bringing up some other issues with regards to sick time. People do have sick time for when they're sick.
[SPEAKER_52]: Director Crowley.
[Lisa Crowley]: Hi, Mr. President, to the council and all those that are in chambers. There is a cost of overtime for not hiring. Unfortunately, I don't have the paperwork in front of me. If I knew the question was going to be asked, I would have made sure I was prepared. But the mayor is not holding back on the promotions. What we're doing is we're making sure that we're going through the civil service process and putting forth the most qualified On the list as civil service process, I'm not sure if, you know, the list comes out, you have your top candidates, depending on where they are on the list. That's how we hire. And that's what we will be doing in the near future. But there is no, there's no. holds back for any kind of retaliation that, you know, has been stated here. It's that is not been the case. We have been working with bringing on five new firefighters. Right now we're walking through that whole process. That too in itself is a massive undertaking through the civil service process. So we are working with the fire department. I respect the fire department as well. I've had many conversations with President Buckley and Secretary of the union, and we are working through getting the promotions as soon as we can, but we are still working on getting five new firefighters on board. And that again has taken some time there's Exams they have to go through, they have to go through a rigorous process and we're still through that process. Hopefully we can get them on board through their required examinations and hopefully get them into an academy sometime within the next couple of months. We don't have control over when the academy accepts anybody. So once we get all the prerequisites done, then it's up to the academy to tell us when we can get those firefighters in.
[Buckley]: Thank you. I'll just end with this, two things. I'll end with this. Madam Mayor, when there was an issue with the gun clip and the place was filled, when you talk about divide, I wish you were here instead of on Zoom, because there are people outside waiting to get in here. This is a dividing issue, whether you want to believe it or not. And second, more importantly, to my fellow councilors, everything the mayor stated, everything she said about equity and having this process, if she's already gone out and handpicked somebody that declined, how true is that?
[SPEAKER_53]: Thank you, I'm gonna go to the Chief of Staff.
[Nazarian]: Thank you, President Bears. Through you to Councilor Scarapelli, just to be clear, we're talking about an interim appointment. This is a normal process in which ensuring that there's leadership in the department for, you know, obviously operational and other important avenues. it needs to be done. That is something that the mayor is doing to try to ensure there's good communication between the department, our office, human resources office, all of those things would be incredibly important to have an interim fire chief. There's no scenario where we wouldn't want an interim in that position. So this is an interim on a temporary basis to be clear. Thank you.
[Buckley]: So, if I can, when Chief Sacco left, we had an interim police chief that was capable, an officer I believe was, I forget who it was, but we had, was it Clemente? The acting chief who did an amazing job. And I'm sure we had qualified candidates that could be appointed tonight as interim chiefs tonight that weren't part of it.
[Bears]: Thank you. We're gonna, you know, if there's a response to the administration or any other questions for the administration, we'll go there now. Any other questions from Councilors? Anything you'd like to clarify on your end, Madam Chief of Staff or Madam Mayor? All right, seeing none. How many people in this room would like to speak tonight? Please raise your hand. All right, that is a reasonable number of people. Last week, two weeks ago, we had over 70 people speak in public comment, so I made a decision as chair to go to two minutes. Seeing that we have about 10 people tonight, we're gonna go by the city council rules, which are five minutes. and I'm going to ask you, just if you could, we have a piece of paper over there, Mr. Buckley, you can go after. Just for the record, we have assistant clerk Sylvina with us tonight. Just for our records, we're asking people to sign up, so we make sure we get your name and your address correct for speaking. So I'm gonna start timer, five minutes, I'll give a 30 second warning, and we will go to you, Mr. Buckley.
[Buckley]: just a point of information to the chair. A deputy retired on January 7th, and a promotion can take place the next day or two days after. January 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, all the way into February, there was no promotion made on that position. So it had nothing to do with any alleged sick time use. That's just a point of information. Good evening, Councilors, and thank you all tonight for your comments so far. I'm here tonight to ask you to vote no on the Mayor's request to move the position of Fire Chief from Civil Service. The following is an excerpt from a white letter written by the late Senator Ken Donnery. The civil service system was instituted to manage how public employees are recruited, screened for legality and security purposes, trained, disciplined, classified, compensated, promoted, and in some case retired. Massachusetts was one of the first states that passed a merit system in 1883. History will show that the implementation of this system became a necessity due to the inefficient workforce that came about because of political and patronage abuses. Before the inception of the civil service system, public service was in a serious decay. Outright corruption was not uncommon. The spore system became an established institution. Decisions on appointments, promotions, and removal of jobs were made solely for political purposes. The morale of the workforce was at an all-time low, and a system had to be devised to find a solution to these problems. The solution is to set up a merit system for the following reasons. The merit system removes moralizing influence that political interference usually causes. It ensures that the civil service servant's loyalty is given to the public they serve rather than the politician in power. It gives employees some job security without which no technical or professional officer can do their work. And it elevates the civil service workforce to a higher plane of professionalization. This process has been a vital pathway for veterans and disabled veterans to obtain gainful and meaningful employment, grounded in a fair selection system. Although the mayor is only asking to remove the fire chief from civil service at this time, make no doubt about it, she will attempt to do the same with future new hires. Give an inch and they will take a mile. This will allow cronyism, nepotism, and favoritism to creep into our city, all of which is currently being mitigated through the civil service process. position with someone of the mayor's choosing is a detriment to the city and a danger to the department. Appointed positions leave the door open to favoritism, coercion, and political patronage. The chief must be able to stand their ground on the basis of safety, even if it is not a politically favorable position or decision. If appointed, making these decisions become almost impossible for fear of biting the hand that feeds you, or worse, for being terminated for doing the right thing. The instability and chaos within a department created by a potentially revolving door for the fire chief's position is unmeasurable. Firefighters need to have confidence in their leader on the fire ground and administratively, even though he is not OVC eye to eye. Our city, specifically under the current mayor, has had multiple personal scandals involving the hiring, firing, disputes turning into legal battles, and a particularly tumultuous reputation with labor contract negotiations. There have been major positions within the city government that have gone vacant for months or even years. The last thing the city should do is hand over the reins of hiring, firing, and directing of the fire chief to this current administration. Civil service has and will continue to be that governing body that will establish a set of regulations, timelines, procedures, qualifications to be met as a way to standardize the process. Within our ranks, we have decades of experience on the fire ground and a profound understanding of departmental procedures. These members have an intimate knowledge of the unique city infrastructure, the layout and size, and most importantly, respect for our citizens. Our union and the membership of this department are invested in the well-being of this city. Our investment is built on the oath we take as firefighters to do all we can for our city and the people who call us in an emergency. We only ask that you, the city, provide us with the necessary tools, equipment, and facilities and confidence to let us work. Today, it was very troubling to hear that the mayor had offered the chief to someone outside the city of the fire department. Her decision was made unilaterally, without regard for this city charter, and has complete disregard for this council. its opinion or results of this meeting. The members of this council here today ran for office on the platform that fights for the people of Medford basic needs. While supporting local labor with a quote from the platform reading, we commit to supporting local labor unions, keeping public jobs public by rejecting outsourcing.
[SPEAKER_51]: 30 seconds.
[Buckley]: We ask that the council acknowledge that we, as a union, feel that outsourcing a job that has always been hired from a pool of long-time and heavily invested members is damaging and goes against the ideal of this department, and we'd assume the ideals of this council. We hope that this council declines the motion to hire a chief from outside the department, outside our union, and outside our city. Please keep politics out of public safety.
[Bears]: As has been our principle, I'm going to go to Guy Manganiello on Zoom. You can speak for five minutes. Please give your name and address for the record. And the hand is gone.
[SPEAKER_54]: I'm gonna ask you to unmute if you're on mute.
[SPEAKER_13]: Apologies, Mr. President. I was looking at speaking this evening, but not particularly on this topic. When you had asked the question, you had asked if anybody planned on speaking this evening. So that was the- Thank you.
[Bears]: All right, we'll go to Mr. Jones. Name and address for the record, and you'll have five minutes.
[Buckley]: Bob Jones, 5 St. Mary's Street, Method Mass. Again, I think it might be what's up.
[Bears]: Tap the microphone base. I think it shut off.
[SPEAKER_58]: Here we go again. I am embarrassed to be here in front of the council for these issues.
[Buckley]: I'd like to address some of the city council's comments, concerns and questions. First of all, second of all, we in this union as professionals try to keep our issues in house and internal. Apparently the mayor doesn't agree with that. So here we are. Let's get them all out there.
[SPEAKER_58]: Mr. Leming asked about the fact that I'm sorry, it was a question again to refresh my memory. There's so many things that I'd like to.
[Bears]: Councilor Leming, if you'd like to clarify and I'll pause your time. So,
[Leming]: The two things that I brought up were first off the issue of the sick time abuse that occurred in early February. The point that I was bringing up was that I need to be convinced that whatever future leader that is hired, is appointed, does not lead the fire department to a position where they're making the five o'clock news in the future. That to me is the bottom line behind, like even beyond a lot of the morale issues that have been brought up. My perspective is that, doing this would lead to people thinking that they could never make it to the top, which obviously affects motivation. But at the same time, if you bring an outside officer to lead a new unit, that is more effective at inducing culture change than having somebody that has spent their entire career in that particular body. So I have not seen anything that can convince me that the current civil service process will effectively address any sick time abuse issues that are currently happening. That's where I'm at right now. And I don't think this was another point that I brought up. It wasn't necessarily a question, but it was kind of supporting that point was the fact that there was one person who actually took the exam this past time to go from deputy to higher chief. And so I don't want to speculate as to the reasons for that. Four people signed up, one person took it. That is a fact that has been established by both sides. But to me, that is evidence against the idea that the civil service position, when applied every single promotional round, would actually hire competitive leadership. Those were the specific points that I brought up. Now, to my colleague's point about, you know, potential litigation here, I do respect that. I do respect that this is not something that firefighters of the union can necessarily speak directly to. Again, I have asked folks that I can find, and they typically have referred me to either representatives from the union or union lawyers, which that's the response that I've gotten. Those are my thoughts. That is the result of where... That's the result. Basically, to summarize, if an outside leader can keep the fire department from making the news with corruption allegations in the future, then I will be voting for an outside leader.
[Bears]: To refresh my memories... I'll put you back on. Sorry, go ahead. What's the clarification?
[Buckley]: Who went to the news?
[Bears]: The early...
[Leming]: That's a fair point. So I think the nature of the point of who went to the news is like, okay, so it was the mayor that presented the news release there. And I thought about that too, like clearly the idea here is the mayor, like, there's the sick time issue that happened, the mayor brought that to the news. And so, this absolutely is a situation where The mayor brings something to the news. It is public points against the fire department. There's totally political maneuvering here. Here's the thing, if the fire department is gonna do that, you can't put yourselves in a position where somebody can give your actions to a local news source and it's worth reporting. Okay, does that make sense?
[Buckley]: Not really. I was surprised that you covered it, actually, with everything else that's going on in the city, the country, and the world, that our staffing issues was the second lead news story on the... on the 5 o'clock rules.
[Bears]: If I may, I'd like to avoid further back and forth. I appreciate the clarification. I don't think we wanted to go on this. We don't want to hear from everybody, but I appreciate you asking, Mr. Jones. I'll go back to you. I think we have a clear understanding of what to respond to.
[Buckley]: I'd like to answer all questions as far as the exam. As far as the exam, the deputy chief that took the exam, Chief Friedman, passed the exam, correct? So obviously, he studied and has a knowledge base to do that. As far as people not going to the exam and not taking the test, I don't know where that information came from, because I wasn't there, and I would dispute any of that. As far as Councilor, I think it's Councilor Lazzaro, your comments, with the staffing we've been in my 23 years on this department, if we had sufficient staffing, then we wouldn't have had a hire all the time. We have had. We haven't hired a firefighter in 15 months. In that time, we've had approximately 10 retirements. So who's looking at that? We are. Apparently, nobody else cares about it. Going back to the deputy chief that's not promoted, the deputy chief that's not promoted is causing another deputy chief to work overtime in his spot whenever he's supposed to work. That's to the tune of about $45,000 at this point. Going back to the other promotional issues, A chief leaving the department happens every day all across the state. Common procedure is to make the senior deputy chief interim chief until a search can be done and a permanent chief can be completed.
[SPEAKER_32]: We have two deputies right here that could be named chief tomorrow.
[Buckley]: We have five deputies. There's five deputies that have over 20 years experience that could go into the job, no problem. No problem at all. There are just so many things. We don't have a city solicitor, correct? How many open jobs out there in the city right now? Many, many jobs. I understand the mayor is an attorney. Is there a city solicitor's job that's open? It has been for some time. So she's in the field, and she can't hire a city solicitor. But she's going to go outside and hire a chief for us. Does that make sense? And the comments that we do have a contract. Yes, we do have a contract. We had some negotiations with the team that's on Zoom for approximately three years. And only when we decided to go to arbitration, we got a contract. All the units in this room have to go to arbitration for a contract. We can't sit in a room and talk to each other. It's not done. It's not done with this administration. I'm glad to see the mayor was at least here on Zoom, but she didn't come to any of our meetings. We have to have a back and forth with the administration. So as far as the city solicitor goes, one of the duties of the city solicitor is to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests, correct? Is that one of the things that they do?
[Bears]: Yeah, who does that now? We put one in- Public records officers, Janice.
[Buckley]: Really? Well, we put them in and it went unfilled, as all these other units have in the room. They go unfilled. They have to be, we have to file a complaint with the attorney general's office to get the information. The information that we had to get is for KP law. $825,000 had been expended at that point. was ever on a Zoom call, would anybody like to comment or update that number? Because I'm sure it's well over a million right now. If you want to talk about money and wasting of money. And we've had many cases. How much open litigation is it with the city? What is the value, the exposure of the lawsuits that the city is going to lose in the near future because of their actions?
[SPEAKER_58]: KP Law, I don't know the case that they've won. Can you update that to the chair? Anybody on Zoom?
[SPEAKER_53]: I don't have the answer to that question. I'd love to get it.
[Bears]: I will give the administration- I'd love to get it.
[Buckley]: Another thing is open meeting violation requests. If you're the city council and that's a legal opinion, what do you do? Do you call KP law? Yeah. Why? and clear that they do not work for the city council. Special council, special council status.
[Bears]: The current process is that we reach out to the mayor, the chief of staff, and KP Law when we need legal support.
[Buckley]: Through the chair, so council president's right, if there's an issue right now and we need a legal representation, we don't know, we would have to ask if KP Law was on, and most of the time they're not. So we don't have anybody onsite ready to help us if we have issues, which would put us in some, really bad situations. So it's denying you the opportunity to get a legal opinion, which is denying you the ability to do your job.
[Bears]: It's delaying, I would say.
[Buckley]: Have you got one that was fulfilled?
[Bears]: We have had legal representation at several times when we requested it, yeah.
[Buckley]: All right, well, I'm glad they're being fulfilled. The other thing is taking the chief out of civil service. It's clearly a reaction to the mayor being upset about something. I mean, you have people In this city, in this department, our contract states we will promote by civil service laws and rules. That's what it is, like it or not.
[Bears]: Mr. Jones, you have about 30 seconds.
[Buckley]: Okay. I could be here all night. But the other thing is that when you hire an outside person, which I know the person that she's offered the job to, she's already been somewhere and been let go. people have a buy-in, people that are in this department, in this city, they have loyalty, they have a buy-in, they have institutional knowledge, they have ties to the city. You go outside the city, where apparently that's okay in this administration, there are people that aren't from Medford, and apparently don't care about Medford, have no ties, no loyalty, just a job, when it's over, they'll go, and whatever happens, happens.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. Bowen.
[Bears]: I do have, Mr. Kennedy, if you just give me a moment, we have the Chief of Staff has a hand raised, Madam Chief of Staff on Zoom.
[Nazarian]: Thank you, Mr. President. Several things that were stated I feel the need to address first and foremost We've said many times before here and in other forums one-on-one with city Councilors We're not going to get into a scenario where we get into back and forth discussion on collective bargaining but one thing is very clear and I want to make sure that the council knows this because You know, perhaps the narrative tonight from the union is convenient that we don't meet with the union, but in fact, we do have many meetings with the union on the side. The union meets with our human resources department, the human resources director with legal involved as well. The union meets with the mayor when asked. The union has reached out to the mayor and the mayor has responded. The mayor has reached out to the union in the past. There have been many meetings over the course of my time as chief of staff. So I don't want anyone to be under the impression that there haven't been one-on-one meetings with the mayor during negotiations on the side to try to attempt to resolve negotiations. I realize that was an arduous road, but I just want to be clear about that one fact. As far as how much the city has spent on legal counsel, legal counsel has, the numbers that were presented tonight must be for multiple years. And as we've shared with the prior counsel, I realize new Councilors may not have this information, so sharing for them. I know that existing Councilors have this information, but we have spent approximately $450,000 a year. We also did a survey of 16 communities in our nearby area. And of those 16 communities, we only, We only had our numbers and their numbers. And when we did that, we found that we were the third lowest in total cost. We have that data. We shared it with the prior council. We're happy to share it with this current council. also um many times I know the council knows this but for the purposes of addressing an issue that came up earlier many times council chairs reach out to kp law directly as well not saying that the procedure isn't as was presented again tonight and but we are working with the council I believe I hope the council is you know generally feeling like kp law is responsive I believe they are um And they sometimes go to KP Law directly and schedule dates. And I'm just copied on it. I don't interfere. I don't have anything to do with it. It gets completed. And then finally, a comment about someone coming into this community who's already been let go from another place, that's beyond reality. The reality is we're looking at retired individuals, not somebody who's been asked to leave another community or terminated from another community. We're asking for seasoned professionals. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_51]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. We will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. Five minutes.
[SPEAKER_35]: Good evening. My name is Thomas Ross. I'm a resident of 53 Irving Street in Medford. Long time ties to the city. I've been here over 27 years. I'm also the vice president of the Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts. And before I delve into my remarks, I just want to address a couple of the issues I heard. The mayor made a statement that overtime is out of control. Overtime is out of control, just to reiterate what Bobby Jones said, the city of Medford Fire Department is budgeted right now for 124 firefighters. There are currently 102 firefighters on the job. Those extra 22 firefighters would go a long way to reducing the amount of overtime cost in the city. Number two, I think we're getting mixed up with the sick leave issue and taking the chief out of civil service. Those are two dramatically different things. Taking the chief out of civil service is a reaction to what has happened here. But things are getting out of control because maybe morale is bad. I don't know what the exact issues are. But these two, these are two different automatically. I've been on the fire department myself for almost 37 years. I've been elected union official for over 33 years. I know a little bit about civil service and the civil service process. And right now we're going through the process. What we have to do in order to take the chief out of civil service, the board has to petition the courts, the general courts, Senate and the House of Representatives for a home rule petition. It has to be voted here, then it has to be approved and brought forward and voted in the House and Senate. This hasn't been done. It hasn't been done. It hasn't gone through the council yet. So until then, that is still a civil service position. And the mayor, I wish we had a city solicitor. The mayor has no right to offer that job outside of civil service. And she's already done it. Thank you for allowing me my time to address the body regarding civil service and how important it is to keep the fire chief in civil service in order to be an effective fire chief. You have to have intimate knowledge. Of the city that you were going to be working in in your community and Medford, not like unlike other communities, has unique challenges facing the fire service that require the chief to beware of many things. The layout and the design of the city. all the Title III facilities that house dangerous and hazardous materials. They need to know about large warehouses with heavy fire loads, mercantile as well as manufacturing companies. They also need to know about special buildings, not limited to elderly housing, high rises, schools, bio labs, and of course, let's not forget the large campus that we have, Tufts University, which has a number of hazardous materials and bio labs. Medford also has a very complicated water delivery system that we need to have to provide our citizens with protection with proper water pressure. The way this is set up, the chief has to know how this water pressure affects different fires and how they use their resources. This is something that only a Medford chief that has many, many years of experience is going to understand. They also need to utilize the resources that best meets the demands of the department. And one of those resources is our personnel. The chief needs to have an understanding of the fire company officers and the firefighters, their special certificates that they have their years of experience, their knowledge, the areas that they grew up in, that they have a very intimate knowledge of the areas that they're providing serious service, where they may be working in the area they grew up, and they know every single street, every single building. And the same thing that deputy chiefs, They're working right now. They've had many, many thousands of calls to different parts of the city. They're in these buildings. They have knowledge of the layout of the schools. They have knowledge of the layout of these larger buildings that have dangers in our community. They know what to do. And we need to have a professional, experienced fire chief coming within the ranks so they have that institutional knowledge that you'll never get. You'll never get that from somebody coming from outside the community. in about 30 seconds. Okay, I'm going to finish up. Any chief that works to appease just the mayor, instead of working to keep its firefighters and the citizen safe is going to be ineffective and dangerous. metric fire department is fortunate enough right now to have multiple fire deputies in its ranks that are willing and able to take over leadership roles department. There's no reason other than politics right now to remove this position from civil service. Now's the time for level heads to prevail, put politics aside and open up a dialogue that's going to help resolve the issues that we have between the administration and labor in the city. Not just the fire labor, labor in general. Thank you very much for your time.
[Bears]: Mr. Jones, we're gonna let everybody who's had a chance, we wanna hear from everybody if you wanna speak.
[Buckley]: Just to rebuttal on those comments of the chief of staff.
[Bears]: I'm giving everyone five minutes, but once we've gone through everyone who likes to speak, once we can hear folks again. Is there someone who'd like to speak next? Write your name down, thank you. And if you have spoken or would like to speak, please give your name to the city messenger.
[Buckley]: Bill Young, 110 Lincoln Road, also a member of the Medford Fire Department. Thank you for the council for hearing us tonight. Thank you for everybody for coming, standing up for us. I just wanted to talk on keeping the chief's position in civil service. I thought of three reasons to cover. I thought I was gonna have two minutes, so I put together two minutes of... I appreciate that.
[SPEAKER_19]: Could have went on and on.
[Buckley]: First of all, safety. person at the top makes those decisions. They make policy and it's disseminated through the ranks. And if you have an appointed person to a politician, I just don't have the faith that they're gonna find the right person for that job. As some of these gentlemen said, that it's a, It's everything in this job is about safety. It's the safety of the fire community, as well as the citizens of Medford. That's our priority. That's number one. Number two is integrity. Civil service provides a checks and balances system so that you can make the best decision. It levels the playing field. And I've seen what an appointee can do in this city, and it's not working. We've had issues with different departments. I've had issues with different departments and an appointee is not gonna do the trick. You need somebody who knows the city and can do their job. The third point I wanted to make was upward mobility. It's important to have a person at the top level that gives you something to attain. When you open these books and you start studying, it's a lot of work and And you have to have that one position that you can strive for. And you might not make it, you might not do it. But every day you open those books, it makes you a better firefighter. And I think that would be taken away if this is taken out of civil service.
[SPEAKER_54]: I just want to say, you got one minute, 54 seconds, so you aced it.
[Damon]: All right, OK. Thank you.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: the fire chief position from civil service. Um as a Medford resident and a wife of Deputy Chief William Young, you just met.
[SPEAKER_17]: He I see Like this shows the commitment and the dedication that this family has. However, the current efforts of the mayor wreak the worst kind of backhanded political power play you can make. Her actions are born out of revenge, and it's not what we elected her to do. As a mother of children who attend Medford schools, I recognize there is a movement to eradicate bullying. This is difficult when the nucleus of this behavior happens on a regular basis right here in City Hall. As my mother instilled in me and my sisters when we were growing up, treat others the way you want to be treated. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I please ask you to vote no and help keep the integrity of the Medford Fire Department. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_53]: Who would like to speak at the podium? Do we have anyone else to speak at the podium?
[Bears]: All right, I will go back. We'll go to round two. Well, first I'll go to the chief of staff, then I'll go to Mr. Jones. And as we've noted, all of us would like to not have this be an extensive back and forth, but I will recognize folks for a second time. Chief of staff Nazarian, and then Mr. Jones.
[Nazarian]: Understood, President Bears. Through you, to the council, and to the members of the audience, both on Zoom and present in the chambers. So some things that have been stated, The HR director is on the line, Lisa Crowley, as you know. She can definitely speak to what effect this has because it does not affect the department, but I'll defer to her to make a clear statement about that. What it does is it provides this community the opportunity to provide for a process that is not hamstrung by the civil service process. the fire department employees, not at all, other than that a leadership will be the most qualified in any pool. And that very well may be an internal candidate. None of this precludes them from applying and rising to the top of that process. I can't be on this call and not comment as to the Allegations or or I don't even know what to call them the the comments about the mayor and her Intentions, I i've never worked for somebody who has more integrity than mayor. Brianna lungo kern. I I really truly cannot say that I have worked for somebody who has more integrity than she does I can tell you I can tell you president bears and council members that in my time serving under mayor lungo kern I have found a person who's passionate about moving the city forward, a person who wants to ensure that everyone gets a fair opportunity, that there's equity within the community, and that there's an opportunity to disperse resources in the city in a way that provides services to every piece of our community. It's a difficult job that she has. And I can appreciate that people can easily stand there and make accusations as to her leadership. But does anybody understand the complexity, truly, of the work that she has to do? I'm not sure anyone really does, because I'm not sure anyone's walked in their shoes. Just like I and she probably do not understand the complexity of others and their work. So we try every day to make sure we do those things. We also want to make sure that everyone understands that this is a simple modification. We're looking to remove the fire chief's position. That's all from the civil service process. Allow this community to build a process that's robust and has the control of this community. There are many communities that have gone this direction. Most recently, there have been communities that have gone in this direction. In fact, There are the city of lemonster recently went in this direction november 2022. They removed the captain and the fire chief from the civil service process President Bears if you call me out of order, I will stop speaking. But until then I will continue to speak sir show some basic respect Greenfield recently removed their um police and fire chiefs from civil service. Chelmsford is in the process of removing their deputy fire chief and the chief was already out prior. Needham removed their fire chief. Hopedale is in the process of, Needham and Hopedale are in the process of removing their fire chief. Rentham is removing their deputy fire chief. The chief was removed in 2007. This is not new work. This is an important step to ensure that this community can select the best candidate and a candidate that has opportunities to be selected from a wide range. This would bring any opportunities for review on the process and ensure that this community can select candidates that are also outside of just one pigeon-held, very stringent process. Again, I don't know where this word revenge comes from, but it's so far from the truth. I wouldn't work for a community where my supervisor was seeking revenge on anyone. There is no such thing here. To be clear, I would not put my name in a community like that. And to anyone who thinks otherwise, I'm happy to have a meeting with you because I can't even understand those words. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_53]: Thank you. We can take a recess and folks who want to do outbursts can step out if they want.
[Bears]: Okay, thank you. There were a couple people I saw stand up, which is why I didn't want to do the back and forth, because if we do back and forth people keep standing up trying to rebut each other. I saw Mr. Cormier, I saw Mr. Souza. You haven't had a chance to speak yet, so I'd like to let them go, Mr. Jones, if you don't mind. I'll be brief.
[SPEAKER_32]: Okay, and let's stay with that. Just to the individual that was off at the chief shop was chief in another community, correct?
[Buckley]: Recently has been let go. I've talked to the people under his command at length. I don't want to really talk too much about this other individual because he removed himself, which if I was not concerned, he did the right thing in that in that question for the chief of staff. Have you been with the mayor since her initial election?
[SPEAKER_53]: Mr. Jones, I mean, we're not gonna get in direct questions back and forth. I'm just asking. I mean, I'm just wondering. The chief of staff was not the first chief of staff, no.
[SPEAKER_58]: Oh, okay, all right.
[Buckley]: That seems to be business as usual here. So, and again, I apologize for having to hear these comments, but the mayor wanted to go public with these things, so here we are. The mayor has not been to one bargaining session that I have been at. I'm on the bargaining team. She has not been to one. There has been a revolving door of bargaining people at the sessions. You're going to see, if you talk to every other union in the city, it's the same thing. Business as usual. Nothing gets done until you file paperwork. just a few words about Chief Friedman. Probably one of the smartest guys I ever met. Lived, breathed, and ate the fire department. All he ever wanted to do, 100% commitment to this fire department. Once he came back from meeting with the mayor, he doesn't even want to work there anymore. He's trying to paint it as us. It absolutely is not. Look at the wounded soldiers from City Hall. A lot of turnover. Not in the fire department. Could you please leave the fire department, public safety up to the firefighters?
[SPEAKER_58]: And one question, people are gonna hire a chief for us. Does anybody know what our schedule is? Somebody who's gonna pick the chief? What's our schedule?
[Buckley]: Personnel director, KP Law, the mayor, what's our schedule?
[Bears]: We're not gonna go into the direct back and forth, but I appreciate the question. I don't think anybody knows.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: I'd like to alternate. Thanks.
[Eleanor O'Leary]: I'm Eleanor O'Leary, 30 Norwood Circle, Medford, Mass. I am Secretary of the Teachers Union. I would just like to state to the Chief of Staff, I sat in numerous negotiations for a few years, and we only saw the mayor once when we went to operation. So I'm sure I'm just wondering where this mayor was during our negotiations and where the school committee was during negotiations. They never showed up once until we were told we were going to arbitration. So I would like to know where you say you met with the unions numerous times. I sat in on every negotiation and no one sat in with us. Thank you.
[Ricky Cormio]: Ricky, call me at 150 Middle Six Ave. I don't know much about this issue. I'm not a firefighter. I didn't even know much about it till tonight. But from what I've heard, it just sounds like this is a punishment. It sounds like something happened that the mayor thinks happened anyways, an organized call-out, and now they're being punished by removing the top position in the departments. It seems like a pretty significant punishment. and just being trying to pass it off as we're trying to broaden our search and make it more available for more people. But it's ultimately, it's just a punishment. And even most of your questions that revolve around, was this because of a sick call? Was this an organized call? Is this the appropriate punishment to remove the chief to have to go to the state house and have a home rule petition and completely remove a position? That's a pretty significant punishment for a couple of guys calling out one day. Like, I don't understand. It doesn't make sense. Seems really a really tough punishment to lay down. Treating them like children, basically. Grown men and women that protect your city every day and you're treating them like children. You did this bad thing and now you lose your chief. That's crazy. Thank you.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: anyone who hasn't spoken yet?
[SPEAKER_54]: I don't think you have, John. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Buckley]: John Souza, 359 Winthrop Street. I wasn't originally gonna speak on this particular topic, but I think, you know, luckily, Ricky and Eleanor gave a resident's perspective on the matter. But it clearly seems, and I've heard a word that doesn't really sit well with me that was used earlier, control. This is a department that does not need to be controlled. That is an unnecessary response to a situation that simply takes place in all facets of employment. People get sick. Again, we are muddling two separate issues into one. So because control cannot be had, we will now take control. I disagree with this fundamentally. And I think that this council specifically needs to understand, they need to deeply understand that a vote yes here is a direct slap in the face of the entire room and the people that support this city.
[SPEAKER_52]: Thank you. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_54]: Is there anyone who has not spoken yet who'd like to speak before I come back to someone to speak a second time? Mr. Merritt, go ahead.
[Bears]: Mr. Merritt, name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Merritt]: Sure thing. Nate Merritt, 373 Riverside Ave. I have to agree with the last speaker, and that was my comment. Sorry, this is so full that we got another separate room watching on the video.
[Bears]: Glad we could do that.
[Merritt]: Absolutely. When I'm starting to hear questions about, well, how would you guarantee, how would this, how would that? The position of fire chief is it's a leadership position, but it's not a dictator and it's not a king. Okay, all the men and women here are going to work for that person, and they give orders on a fire ground. But you know, there's the emergency time, there's incident, you know, commanders and management that happens, versus them, there's the administrative and personnel side. So let's say hypothetically, that whatever happened with sick time, this and that happened again, do you expect the fire chief to be able to sit there and unilaterally go, you're fired? Does that happen? Does that happen in any leadership position that you know of? And through the chair to Councilor Leming, I mean, do you think that happens in the military? I expect you know the answer. It doesn't. So it's kind of a conflated issue. Whatever happened with sick time and this and that is completely separate from what to do with civil service. This seems very reactionary on its face. And you all know me, I've been here for over a decade. I try to weigh in with logical, you know, logic on some of these things and be very balanced. This appears and smells reactionary. When do you install a sprinkler system in a building, before or after the fire? They know the answer. You do it before the fire. So if you're putting out a fire now, right, it's kind of too little too late. This is the wrong time for this particular topic. It doesn't mean you shouldn't necessarily address it in the future. But why are you doing it now? Because the opportunity presented itself? Well, okay, but now's not the time. When would you rather buy a car? Do you buy a car when your old one's crapped out or do you proactively think, you know, maybe I should upgrade while I still have wheels? So before you make your decision, reactionary, maybe consider this in a proactive manner, maybe revisit it and table it, but now is not the time. This stinks to high heaven. Thank you.
[Bears]: Nate. Hey, Nate. Could you just put your name down? We have a sign in list for this one so we get the records right. The clerk's not here tonight. We have assistant clerk Sylvia DePlaza. Thank you. You haven't spoken yet, Ms.
[SPEAKER_54]: Ellis, so I'd like to take you first. I'm trying to be quiet. We'll go to you, and then we'll go to Jess Healy on Zoom.
[Bears]: I'm keeping a stack in my head. We also have the chief of staff who wants to speak a third time, but we'll let him speak a second time.
[Clerk]: Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Reporter 1]: Thank you. someone to stand up here and lie and state that the mayor attended meetings and negotiations with the union. She came once. She tried to say she came more than once. I stood in front of the school committee and read an email where she admitted to doing that. So please stop lying to the public and to us. The word control. How dare you use that word? We want to get control? You want to control the unions? Is that what this body is about? Is that what we're doing here? We want to control Mr. Beers? You know me, and you know me well. I know you did not. But the word control? We want to control the firemen! We want to control the teachers! We want to control the police! The custodians! We still don't have a contract! The cafeteria workers who still don't have a contract. And what did you, the school committee do? Oh, they made sure they got their raises, didn't they? And we have labor with no contracts.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: How dear and how insulting is this?
[Reporter 1]: I have lived in the city since I was in the second grade. And I really am ashamed to say that this is my city and my hometown. I am beyond ashamed. We finally, the pet group, are meeting with the mayor on March 6th. Your whole pet group, which is the insurance. We've been negotiating with our insurance contract. Of course, we're under Chapter 19, so it just rolls over, okay? But we are finally meeting with her on March 6th, because we demanded it, finally, for the first time. So please, stop insulting us, stop lying, and stop pretending. We took a vote of no confidence on this mayor. Is the next vote of no confidence from every union going to be on the mayor, the school committee, and the city council? Do what's right. You were elected to represent these people. Do what's right. That's all I have to say.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: I'm gonna go to Zoom real quick. I'm sorry I can't delay any longer.
[Bears]: We're gonna go to Jess Healy on Zoom. Jess, please give your name and address for the record, and you have five minutes.
[Haley]: Jessica Healy, Four Lock Road. I'm following up from Ms. Douglas, who was my teacher in eighth grade. She taught me that it's okay to speak up. And I just wanna say that I'm ashamed with this city. trying to tell our men and women who protect us every single day, put their lives on the risk. And our mayor wants to tell them what's best for them is not okay. They need they know what the best thing for them is. I personally did not know much about this topic until I watched the meeting tonight. And for people to say that the mayor is amazing, and she's doing all of these things. Clearly something is not working. If all of these different unions are having all these different issues with her. So please respect the firefighters. They fight for us every single day. They protect our families. And when we need them, they're always there. So please support them and what their mission is tonight. Thank you.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: for the record. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_35]: Yeah, Thomas Ross 53 Irving Street. Thank you. Thank you for watching me for a while. One more bite of the apple. Of course, I forgot to mention a very important topic is the city ordinance. And if you want to write this down, so you guys can look it up. It's section 42 dash 38. It says appointments to the department shall be made in accordance with civil service laws and rules and all promotions, all promotions shall be appointed from within the ranks of the city fire department. It's in the ordinance, and in order to even move forward, with the petition, you guys technically if you had a city solicitor should be making a ruling, whether you can even move forward with the whole without changing, changing the city ordinance, so that may have to be voted on before we even move forward with this petition. All right. Secondly, I'd just like to address real quick, some of the Councilors had some concerns about these people really sick. Well, no one had to provide any sick time, where our doctors notes, but we are in the middle of cold and flu season. COVID is still rampant. We have new respiratory virus viruses going around. And sometimes firefighters have to take care of family members. We have a number of family members that could have, you know, sickness and they have to take care of them. How do they come back to work? Why do they go back to work when maybe their wife or their other spouse or somebody had able to come in and provide some extra help for their children. I mean, if you look at this at first glance, you're making assumptions. And I don't think we should be making assumptions and automatically saying these people are doing something nefarious. You're taking a very simple, simplest approach. And I think that we need to rethink that. And this is two separate issues. The fire department sick problem. and taking the chief out of civil service if we even have the ability to do it now. But I think that we should take a deep dive into the city ordinance and find out if the mayor actually has a right to send this petition to our city council and ask them to file for a home rule petition because it may be out of order and maybe we really do need a new city solicitor. Thank you for your time.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: to anyone who'd like to speak for the first time.
[Bears]: Mr. McGilvery, you haven't spoken yet. I would have known if you did. If you could just leave your name with Larry, thank you. Five minutes.
[SPEAKER_32]: Harry McGill before Piedmont Road, Medford. Currently, I'm a police officer. Before I was a police officer, I was a firefighter. So I've worked both sides.
[SPEAKER_35]: I know that when you're a police officer or a firefighter and you're out on the road or you're at a fire scene, you depend on leadership to keep you safe. And leadership needs to come up through the ranks.
[SPEAKER_32]: People coming in from the outside don't don't know Personnel they don't know the layout of the city and this has all been said but The rank-and-file need to have confidence in their leaders.
[SPEAKER_35]: I've been on fire grounds with these guys and they're competent You want to do a worldwide search?
[Castagnetti]: Well, here's your worldwide search it ends right here so
[Buckley]: We live in turbulent times, and any day, anything can happen now.
[SPEAKER_35]: We live in turbulent times, and when chaos, when we're dealing with chaos, we need steady leadership. And steady leadership is right here in this city. I know we have it on the police department, and I know the firefighters have the same steady leadership.
[SPEAKER_32]: Promote from within.
[SPEAKER_35]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_54]: Luis Pacheco on Zoom. Name and address for the record. You have five minutes.
[SPEAKER_45]: Good evening, City Council. My name is Mark Pacheco. Luis logged in as my wife. Just wanted to say a few things from my perspective on this. I had 31 Calvary Street. I've been a resident homeowner for 14 years in Medford. Someone that works for a state agency that routinely works with the fire department. at my work, working with significant incidents. Probably no one on the city council will ever have to deal with bomb threats, significant safety concerns. Having that continuity of firefighters is important, not just the rank and file, but also as the other agencies that work within these departments. For me, my perspective is to work with the current chief, we had a significant incident in the municipality where I work. And I have worked with him since he was a lieutenant. So his his institutional knowledge of that building, how to work with me, that matters. And that's something that city council should really keep in mind when they make their decision about this. The fire department, secondly, the fire department is a brotherhood that no one on the city council will ever understand unless you work directly with them. To take that chance for them to move up to a level to reach the pinnacle of their career and take that from them just to have a candidate from outside of the department. I think you're going to lose and miss the really the big point of this if you really should consider that. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_53]: anyone who hasn't spoken yet who'd like to speak.
[Bears]: Is there anyone who has spoken once who'd like to speak again?
[Buckley]: There's another gentleman behind Councilor Bearsley, President Beasley.
[Bears]: Sure.
[Buckley]: Come on up. Come on up.
[Bears]: Welcome, thank you. Name and address for the record, you have five minutes.
[Henry Milorin]: Joe Spinelli, 340 Salem Street, Medford Fire Department, Vice President. I wasn't gonna come up tonight and speak. One is I'm not a good speaker, I don't enjoy it, but I couldn't listen to this without bringing up a couple of things.
[Buckley]: And I actually wanna thank the administration for almost making this vote pretty simple for this council. They start off with transparency. That's what this city ran, that's what this administration ran on.
[SPEAKER_35]: And the first thing she does after this incident that she says happens, decides to take the chief out of civil service.
[Patrick Kierce]: Within two weeks, she finds somebody. I'd love to know what the background on that person was, when she had 20, 30 year deputy chiefs sitting there, waiting to step up and be in charge of the city.
[SPEAKER_35]: but find somebody in a week and a half. They talk about a pool. She said it would be fair. We all heard that. It would be fair.
[Buckley]: How fair was it when they went behind the backs of the fire department and this council and the city to appoint somebody and not ask one other person to be involved in that? Not one deputy chief was part of that interview process, were they?
[SPEAKER_35]: I think she made it very simple on how she's going to act with this new power and this new leadership she says she has. We know what this is. This is control. This is wrong. And I think you guys know how to vote on this. Thank you.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: Would you like to speak first or second time?
[Bears]: You can come up if you'd like to speak. Name and address for the record you have five minutes.
[SPEAKER_42]: My name is Marie Masio, I live at six coverage treatment wasn't here tonight because of the firefighters but I'm listening to everything being said, and I feel you guys elected officials of the city of Medford. And I've lived in Medford for 61 years. And listening to all of this, I feel that I want to know that the fire chief of the city of Medford has a good knowledge of the city. And for me, we are in really challenging times. And if something's going to happen, I want to know that the chief is somebody that I can feel confident is really going to take care of all of us. I think that it should be somebody that comes within the fire department. And that's my personal opinion.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: I appreciate it, thank you. The boss had some line blocking.
[Bears]: All right, anyone else who'd like to speak for the first or second time? I'm gonna go to the Chief of Staff for the third one. I'd really like to keep it to three for everyone. I'd like us all to respect everyone who's spoken, even if we disagree with them.
[SPEAKER_52]: Madam Chief of Staff, you have five minutes.
[Nazarian]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. I will be brief. I do have a number of items, but I will go through them quickly. Um, as stated by the mayor at the start of this call, or the start of this meeting, uh, on this topic. Our legal counsel attorney Brian Mazer is on the line and I welcome and I encourage the council to speak with him this evening regarding the authority that this council has to move this resolution. The second item is to be clear again, it's been stated, but it should be restated because I think we're getting a little lost in some of the nuances here. This request to the city council is because there is a vacancy pending, like imminent vacancy. That is why this is before the council. This wouldn't be before the council if there wasn't a vacancy. So that I just want to be explicit on. If for some reason, my comments were perceived to refer to other unions, when I was saying that the mayor has met with the union, I was referring to the fire union. I was never attempting to describe or capture other union negotiations. I do take exception. I'll circle back on that in a moment about other unions, but I want to be clear with the caller on zoom and the members of the public who spoke. I wasn't attempting to speak to other union negotiations. I was referring to the fire union. And I will circle back on this. But I do take significant exception with being called a liar. I even think I may have stated earlier on this call that it was the Lemonster fire chief and fire captain. If I stated that, I was incorrect. I meant to state police chief and police captain. That is the type of person I am is I restate statements, if I believe that I may have made a mistake, or may have attempted to mislead unintentionally. So to be clear, that that's, that's who I am. That's who the mayor is. But also getting back to union negotiations, there are so many nuances to this process as it relates to school union negotiations. The mayor is not the chief negotiating officer on the school side, as I'm sure the city council knows, but for members of the public. The mayor is one member of the school committee, certainly the leader as the chair of the school committee, but the mayor doesn't unilaterally, it would be inappropriate for the mayor to be at negotiating sessions because of the structure of the school committee. The school committee is a seven member uh, body seven member body, unless they were to vote to allow the mayor to sit in on all negotiations and then that were to somehow be, um, appropriate in accordance with the school superintendent, those things, that is not how this works to be clear. So, uh, furthermore, there's other note, um, nuances to this process. The chief, the mayor is also not the chief negotiating officer on the city side. That role falls between the chief of staff and the HR director who have always been at the table. At least one of us. And furthermore, the mayor does have union negotiations on her calendar on all city-side negotiations. She may have them on the school side. To be honest with you, I don't know. She maintains her own calendar. But I can tell you as a fact, because the HR director and I put them on her calendar, she is almost always on call. She is almost always in the room with me and the HR director when we caucus. We are there. We just may not physically be in that same room. But this is a typical negotiation process. And our HR director can back that up based on her experience in other communities. And finally, I will reiterate, no one's taking anything from the department if this were to move out of the fire chief position, were to move out of the civil service process. Union employees, members of the department would very much have the opportunity. A fire department employee who rises through the ranks and ensures a clean slate and does a good job. I mean, that doesn't even mean that the person doesn't make mistakes. We're all human. We make mistakes and our office understands that. but has to be with integrity, has to do the job, you know, with the kind of integrity that this community deserves. That person can very well make fire chief with or without civil service. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_54]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. Is there anyone, members of the public who hasn't spoken yet who'd like to speak?
[Bears]: Seeing none, I will go to the podium. Mr. McGilvrey, just give your name and address.
[SPEAKER_35]: Thank you. Harry McGilvrey, 4P Mark Road. So if the city is going in that direction to take the fire chief position out of civil service, I think it's a fair question.
[SPEAKER_32]: Are we taking the police chief out of civil service also?
[Scarpelli]: Because
[SPEAKER_35]: Chief, and I'm probably gonna get, you know, ragged on when I get back at the station, but our chief's doing a heck of a job, and he's really, you know, brought this department along, and he's a civil service chief. So I think it's a fair question, and I think that the council is obligated, if that's the direction the city's going, I think there's an obligation to the city to answer that question. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_53]: Douglas.
[Bears]: Thank you.
[Reporter 1]: Thank you.
[Bears]: Me too.
[Reporter 1]: I know, I know. I know. That's what I'm saying. I've been here really third grade second, second, third grade went to the public schools went to went to public schools, teacher at Wesleyan University, very proud of the city, but not so much anymore. I'm not going to pretend. So I want to set the record straight about who negotiates with the school department, and it's not the superintendent. Our contract is signed by the mayor and I are the two signatures on there. She is the chair of the school committee. It is her responsibility to determine who negotiates. Now, can she appoint someone? Absolutely. But there have been multiple times and multiple places where it is stated she has been in negotiations. Now, she may be in a back room, but I don't know that. OK? Or she may be on a phone call, but I don't know that. We let it go to mediation. You wanna know something? The teachers won in mediation. And we're probably the first union ever, ever, to not have to pay one dime to the mediation. The city paid it all. Thank you.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: Anyone else who hasn't spoken yet?
[SPEAKER_53]: If anyone else who hasn't spoken would like to speak. Seeing none, Mr. Buckley.
[Buckley]: Walter Buckley, Liberal 1032 president. I just want to end with this. The mayor and the chief of staff was on transparency in this pool of people that are going to be interviewed. And she said, if you have a clean slate and all that stuff. Billy Young's here, I know he has a clean slate. Danny Shea's here, he's got a clean slate. Tommy Brennan's working right now, he's got a clean slate. Todd Evans worked yesterday, he's got a clean slate.
[SPEAKER_58]: Frank Gilberti, he definitely got a clean slate.
[Buckley]: Was she discriminating against our members by not interviewing them? She likes to throw discrimination around and equality and all that stuff. I believe she discriminated against our members by not even telling them. And I believe she just, excuse my language, crapped all over you guys by going behind your backs and trying to hire somebody without your vote. Think about that.
[Bears]: The hand is gone. If you would like to speak, please raise your hand again. In the meantime, I'll go to just Healy on zoom name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_53]: You have five minutes.
[Haley]: Jessica Healy for lock road. I'm sorry, I just had to say, following what this gentleman also just said, the way she put it stating that you know, firefighters that are already been in Medford for probably 30 plus years protecting us day in and day out, that if they have a clean slate, they're also eligible. But are we saying that we don't have those type of firefighters here in Medford, and that we have to outsource and that's the only way we're going to get a great chief. I find that very disrespectful to our firefighters who've been in Medford for 30 something years. You're going to tell them that no, sorry, we're going to go out and find a new chief, someone who's going to come in know nothing about the city and not know how to protect us properly. Because like they stated, you have to know a magnitude of different circumstances. But I feel like they're pushing down the firefighters that we already have that are amazing. And that would be able to be promoted to chief. But they're just pushing it out as already finding someone within a week and a half and not looking within our own department. It's disrespectful. I just had to say that. And I appreciate all the firefighters that are there tonight. And we all thank you for everything you do.
[SPEAKER_53]: name and address for the record. You have five minutes.
[SPEAKER_63]: Hi, Kathleen St. Germain, 34 Harrison Street, Medford. I just want to say coming from a family of fire and police, I can't tell you what a great job these firefighters do in our county, in our city. And I want to say thank you for that. And I really hope that the council thinks very hard about this and does not vote in favor. We need to have the civil service process in order to keep it fair and consistent going forward. That's all I have. Thank you.
[Bears]: Any further public comment? Mrs. Lonergan, name and address for the record, please. Uh-oh.
[SPEAKER_57]: I just have two questions. I know that you're in the service for a minute. You have a rank, right? You have a rank in the Navy? You have to go through the process to reach this point that you have a rank. How come you don't feel that they don't deserve the same as you have?
[Bears]: If you could keep it brief, I would like to learn quite a bit.
[Leming]: I'm only an ensign.
[SPEAKER_47]: I don't care what you are. Your goal is to be an admiral, right? At some point in time. And you know you have to work yourself up through that rank to become an admiral or whatever you are. And I just think it's unfair for you to state that these guys don't deserve the same same with the stability that you're getting, or what you're open to, or opportunity to do it. So that's my other, my second comment is, if a police chief is brought in, he's obviously served many years in whatever community he's in. Now we hire somebody from outside. Are they gonna stay three years or five years? Do we give them a pension? That's a big deal to me.
[SPEAKER_54]: I can speak to that.
[Bears]: My understanding is if they had already had enough credit, then it would add to their credit, but if they... I don't see how it would be possible that someone would start at zero years as a chief of fire in the state, so... Fair, fair point, fair point. Thank you. All right, any further comment from members of the public?
[SPEAKER_54]: Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Patrick Kierce]: Patrick Kearse, 178 Woburn Street. President Bearsky, I want to ask the committee a question, if they can answer it. Is anybody on the committee born and raised Medford?
[Bears]: We're not going to, we can't just ask those questions.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: to say why that's not a valid question.
[Patrick Kierce]: Some of the people on here said that we voted for them. Not all of us voted for them. I'm just trying to figure out who here lives in Medford? Do they pay property tax? Do they pay property tax?
[Bears]: Have they been in Medford for two years? The qualification to be a voter is the same as an elected official. Everyone here is a registered voter in the city of Medford.
[Patrick Kierce]: Have they been here two years? Five years?
[Bears]: Answer personal questions.
[Patrick Kierce]: Well, my question is, I've lived here for 50 years. I work in the town. I pay property taxes. I have firefighter friends in this town that have worked for this town for over 30 years. Now, all of a sudden, people are going to be coming in here and they don't get elected by everybody. And that's the problem. Many more people should vote. So we know who gets into office. But when people up here tell me that they were voted in, they weren't voted in by all of us, maybe some of us. But I'm just trying to say we are I'd like to know how long you've been in Medford, what you have invested in Medford.
[Bears]: I think many, many, many people know how long I've been here. I'm not going to ask any of my colleagues to respond. Well, Ms. Douglas is one of my great teachers. And I respect that. And every person who is a resident of the city has a voice and a vote. And we have a majority vote.
[Patrick Kierce]: But then you're going to go outside of Medford, when you have so many employees of the fire department. I'm not even here for this.
[Bears]: That's fine. I respect your opinion. You can continue to speak. But we're not going to be obligated to answer your questions. You should be. You work for us.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: We're not.
[Bears]: So thank you.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: I have a question for you. Yes.
[SPEAKER_53]: Seeing none, I will go to Vice President Collins and then Councilor Scarpelli. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I see there are a couple hands still raised on Zoom. I'm happy to defer to those.
[Bears]: Sorry, I think these have been raised for a while.
[Collins]: I think Director Crowley is waiting to speak, and I see a hand that looks new.
[Bears]: Director Crowley, would you like to speak? I'll ask you to unmute.
[Lisa Crowley]: Thank you, President Beas. Through you, to the council, to everybody out there, I just want to clear up a few things. I think the chief of staff and others have stated this already. We're not, truly we're not trying to block a firefighter, a captain, a deputy chief from becoming chief. We're trying to open the pool up, which would actually open the pool up to our firefighters. I believe the mayor stated a little while ago that four deputy captains had to apply for the job, and then only one took the test that blocked the captains. In this process, those captains would have also had the opportunity to take a shot at the captain's position. It's not my intention nor do I think it's the administration's intention to block any of our current personnel from the position. We just want to open it up so that it's fair and that the, I'm sorry, deputy chiefs, not deputy captains. And I want to make sure that even our captains or whoever else might be qualified on the force could actually go for the position. We're not trying to hold anybody back. That would never be my intention. I've worked in HR for many, many years, and it's never been my intention to hold anybody back. We're just trying to open up the field so that more qualified people could go for the job. There's no control. We're not trying to control anybody. We're just trying to control a process like we control any other Hiring process is checks and balances along the way and I'm sure if we got to that point. And the council voted on that to go to that point. We would have members of the department help us with the decision. I believe. Somebody had said, we don't know your schedule. Absolutely right. We don't know your schedule. I've never stood in your shoes. I have nephews who are firefighters. I have nieces and nephews who are police officers, never stood in their shoes. And I understand the job you have in front of you. But I just want to make sure that you understand that it would open up the field to more of you to be able to move forward. whether it's inside or out, you would not be precluded from this process, nor would we want to preclude you from the process. So I just want to make that clear. I understand the job they do. I think they do a fantastic job. I have not been with the city for a long time, but I'm looking forward to help move the city forward. Working with the fire department, I've had great conversations and I'm hoping to continue those conversations. My door is opened. All day long, anybody wants to come in and have a conversation, I'm always open for that, but we're really truly not trying to preclude anybody from taking a position as chief. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_51]: Thank you, Madam Director.
[Bears]: I'm going to go to the podium, then I'm going to go to Melissa Tobin on Zoom, then Mr. Pacheco on Zoom, then Councilor Collins, then Councilor Scarpellilli, then Councilor Callahan. Name and address for the record, please.
[Ellyn Lavecchia]: Ellen Lovecchia, 27 Ramstad Road. I wasn't here to talk about this, but I couldn't take it anymore. Let's get real. Does this come across to you as authentic? What the chief of staff is saying and what this person is saying, does that come across to you as authentic? Does anybody in this room believe what they're saying?
[SPEAKER_44]: That's number one. Number two, their only argument The only argument they have is that no one in this world who does the job every day understands what they're trying to do for us.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: None of us understand. None of us get it.
[SPEAKER_44]: They think those two get it. Those two get it, I guess. But none of us do. So those are their two points. They're in a dick. They're disingenuous. And they're telling these people who do the job every day that they don't understand. And it doesn't affect them. They just don't get it.
[SPEAKER_51]: Melissa Tobin, name and address for the record. You have five minutes.
[SPEAKER_12]: Hi, my name is Melissa Tobin. I live at 97 Taft Street in Medford. And I was just listening in tonight to see, and after listening for the past three and a half hours, a lot of light has come. A lifetime Medford resident, I own a home here. In taking a step back from all this, we've had a process for years with the civil service exam and it's worked. And right now we're trying to change something that's not broken. So why are we using our resources and energy to attempt to fix something that is working? So my first point. Second is the chief of staff mentioned various communities in the Commonwealth that have gone away from the civil service exam. She stated that they were surveyed about what they have done. It's very hard to look at some of those communities because they're not like Medford. So I think we need to take that off the table because they are not apples to apples. And until you can compare a Medford to a Malden or a Somerville or a Cambridge in what they're doing, that should be a baseline. I also ask the council to take a step back and really look, what is the root problem, the root cause of this problem? There's lots of issues going on, whether it's this, they're saying the fire department had like a sick out, The civil service exam, you're bringing the two together and they need to be two totally separate issues. And I stand with the firefighters, keep the process as is and let the civil service exam do its job. And my last question is, why is there only four? They mentioned that four people signed up for the test, but then only one took it and there were other qualified candidates in the pool. Why isn't it open up to all within the fire department or any other unions moving forward with promotions?
[Bears]: Um, to the last question, I think the reason that it is the way it is because of the civil service process.
[SPEAKER_53]: So I'm sitting just answering factual questions. Okay, thanks.
[SPEAKER_12]: Is that something that you could get back to the community on about why? I'm sorry. Okay.
[Bears]: Sorry, Miss Tobin, we can look into that and we can try to get the answer to that question.
[SPEAKER_12]: I hope you can get the answer, not just try, because I think it will be very helpful for the community to see why it's not possible. Because right now with the civil service exam, as long as you meet the qualifications, you can take the exam. And right now, you're limiting this pool of candidates that may feel that are probably qualified for some of these jobs and you're not allowing them the advantage to take it.
[Bears]: Thank you. We're going to go to who I think may be Luis Pacheco now on Zoom.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes, thank you. Luis Pacheco, 31 Carberry Street. You know, as I sit here, I was there earlier and then I came home and I continue listening. And I just think how undermining this whole entire process has been. You know, you you want to open it up to everybody else, like Crowley just said, but you never spoke within. A leader speaks within. They speak within their police department, their firefighters, their schools. They ask what they want. They ask what they need. And it's been opened up to somebody else to take a position that was a week ago. but yet the firefighters are sitting here and they're blindsided. Communication is so huge. And this is so disheartening as I grew up in Medford and now I own a house in Medford and I'm raising kids in Medford and I want the city of Medford to continue to bleed Medford. And I want people that are born and raised here to continue to work within this city. And this is so sad. This is so disheartening to see that nobody knew. The mayor, the city councilors have conversations. There's a process. People have put their lives into working for Medford and nobody thought about like pausing the button and having larger conversations, bringing it to the leaders to bring down to the workers. This is absolutely disgusting to hear what's going on in our community today. That's all I have to say.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_53]: Jamie. Mr. Thompson, name and address for the record, please.
[Bears]: And if you could just sign in with Larry when you're done. Thank you.
[Damon]: Thank you. Jamie Thompson, 80s Road. Wasn't here originally to talk about this. I am amazed by the debate. I appreciate all the conversation, but you're here to discuss a major change to the fire chief role in the promotion chain for community organization where those people have built institutional knowledge and relationships in the organization and in this community. The conversation about the sick call out has nothing to do with that decision. And if it does, it makes me question based on all this conversation, the lack of transparency, whether this is a retaliatory decision. Thank you.
[Bears]: Lisa, I've unmuted you. You have five minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_46]: Lisa Falanga, 88 Dudley Street, Medford. I just have a couple of comments. I had no intention of responding at all, but after listening, especially to Ms. Nazarian, a couple of things. You know, does she live in the city of Medford? That's a really important thing. I know you're not going to respond to that. You don't have to, but as a council, you need to think about that. Secondly, you know, everybody makes mistakes was one of her comments her mistakes can't kill somebody a firefighter's mistake can Change the course of their life forever. They need to have solid leadership And they have to have faith in their leader And a lot of that comes by built with the come, you know, the brotherhood that they have and the other thing is To be a lawyer, I could go to law school, right? I could go to law school. I think I'm smart enough to go to law school. But I still have to pass a bar exam to be a lawyer. So why wouldn't a civil service exam not apply? I think when you make decisions, you have to make it based on the people who do the job. They know what's right. And the other thing that I was a little perplexed about, and I don't know what the answer is, Um, it said that the firefighters who called out some of them went in and got paid overtime Why would they get paid overtime if it was their shift? That is the most ridiculous thing. I would have heard that is totally mismanagement of funds So, I don't know if that really happened but that's what somebody said Um, but that's something you should really be thinking about who's writing the policies of overtime So that's it. I just think, like I said, Miss Nazarian, I don't think, I don't think she's, of course, she's going to support Mayor LaRonde O'Connor. She works for her. She gets her paycheck. But I think as a council, you need to listen to the people. And I think the people support the firefighters. Thank you.
[Bears]: You may come to the podium, you have five minutes, name and address for the record, and sign in with Larry if you have to.
[SPEAKER_10]: Sure, so my name is Melissa Miguel, I live on Bowen Ave in Medford. Back in 2019, none of you were here, not a single one of you were here. I served on Breonna Lungo-Koehn's transition team, where she promised that she ran on the platform of transparency. I'm here tonight to deal with the other nonsense that you're gonna put forward tonight as a 20 year homeowner here in Medford. But as I stand here listening to the firefighters talk, the bottom line here is there has been zero transparency in this entire process. So I don't know where Brianna is tonight, but I'd like to remind her when I sat with her in 2019, her platform was transparency. So I'd like to see her walk the walk. So Brianna, wherever you are, I know you know who I am. You ran on transparency.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: Let's do that.
[Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else in the room who hasn't spoken would like to speak? All right, I'm going to go to Melissa Tobin on Zoom. This is your second time. Name and address for the record. You have five minutes.
[SPEAKER_12]: Hi again, Melissa Tobin 97 tap street. I wasn't finished previously and I was muted. So that's why I'm back. One of my last points is that as like the city council, you've been elected by all the residents in the city. And there's been a lot of tension, but I ask that we all check our egos at the door and do what's right for our community and our firefighters tonight. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_54]: Councilor Scarpelli has a legal question. This is not my way, steps ahead. All right, we'll go to Councilor Scarpelli with a legal question, then Vice President Collins.
[Buckley]: Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you, Mr. President. If we can ask the attorney from KP Law, I believe the process that We are mandated by law now to have a chief. Now the chief Freeman is gone. This chief that you offer the job to is gone. I want to know legally who was that chief right now? Attorney Mazer, I recognize you to respond to the question. Chief retires tomorrow. So after tomorrow, who will be our chief?
[SPEAKER_67]: Mr. Chairman, through you, upon Chief Reuben's retirement, if the position is vacant, the department does not have a chief. And my understanding right now is that there's no current civil service list in existence for the position of chief in light of the fact that Chief Freeman was the only name on the prior list and he was subsequently appointed from that list and from the test that was administered that led to that list. So basically, you don't have a chief until a provisional appointment is made to that position. And if the position remains in civil service, it would be a provisional or temporary appointment until such time as the city can schedule either an exam or some type of an assessment center through the civil service process. And as a result of that process, a list of eligible candidates would be generated. And then the city would make an appointment from that list of eligible candidates. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Scarpelli or any other Councilors, do you have questions for Attorney Major at this time?
[Buckley]: No, that was it.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment from members of the public?
[SPEAKER_35]: just real quick.
[Bears]: And last name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_35]: Thomas Ross 53 Irving Street. Just to make a comment on the attorney's last remarks. I'm not an attorney, but I'm pretty sure he's wrong. Okay, so what happens when we have a vacancy, according to the collective bargaining agreement when there's a permanent vacancy, and there is no established civil service list, the next senior deputy will shout Whether it's a senior deputy chief, it's a deputy's position that's vacant, a captain's position is vacant, a lieutenant's position is vacant. In such a case, when you don't have a qualified civil service list in place, and we don't right now, the senior deputy shall take over that position immediately. That's in the collective bargain agreement, and it's part of civil service law. I don't know what this guy's talking about.
[SPEAKER_53]: Any further comments from members of the public?
[Buckley]: Just to follow up, if we can, out of necessity of safety for our community, we need some action before 4 o'clock tomorrow when Chief Friedman steps down. We need some action. So we have qualified deputies, I believe. We need answers for this community because without a head at the table, I fear what can happen. So we're talking about public safety, Mr. President. So we need the mayor to respond to this with some sort of letter or communication with the community and what we're gonna do. We have conflicting reports. We have an expert on civil service and rules, and we have an attorney that didn't seem to be too sure. So thank you.
[SPEAKER_53]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpellilli.
[Buckley]: Mr. Jones. On a clarification, there was a City Ordinance that says in absence of the Chief, week or more, the Senior Deputy Chief will be sworn in as Chief. That's a City Ordinance. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_54]: Madam Chief of Staff.
[Nazarian]: Thank you, President Barras. I noticed that Attorney Mazer had raised his hand.
[SPEAKER_54]: I just want to say something before I... And if we could respond to Councilor Scarpellilli's question about notifying the public by 4 p.m. tomorrow. Thank you.
[Nazarian]: Um, president bears through you, uh, certainly, uh, obviously the mayor would need to make an appointment. Um, that would be the only logical thing. Um, this process is going to be one that we're working on. We had been working on it over the course of the time, between the time that chief Friedman had, um, announced his resignation to the mayor and today, um, So obviously, there will be further action. But I do ask that Attorney Mazur, through you, President Bears, if possible, could respond to the issue presented by the last speaker. Thank you.
[Bears]: Attorney Mazur, you have the floor.
[SPEAKER_67]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, through you to the other members of the council as well as those in attendance. The position of fire chief is not a position that's covered by the collective bargaining agreement. The collective bargaining agreement has no authority over that position. nor do any of the members of local 1032. It's a managerial position and pursuant to the charter, which trumps any city ordinances, as it is the force of law, the mayor is the appointing authority for the position of fire chief and all of the department heads under chapter, I think it's 52, you know, of the charter. So while the ordinance may say one thing, the charter, again, if it conflicts, prevails, as it is the force of law, it's a special act that was elected or essentially enacted by the voters of the city. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_54]: Thank you.
[Buckley]: So just to follow up, just to end this, I think that, again, with the question I already asked the mayor, this banter going back and forth doesn't help us. We have people right now that are qualified to step in that role, whether it's the mayor's responsibility or not, or that's her role now, legally or by ordinance, I'm requesting that we please put one of these people in place so our fire department and our city is safe. So thank you, Mr. President.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you to everybody who's spoken. And there's been a lot of members of public service who have spoken tonight and are otherwise here in support. And it's never a bad opportunity to say thank you for your service. So I didn't say it before. Thank you for being here. Thank you for speaking. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us on this. And thank you for your service. Um, we've heard a lot. I'm not ready to vote on this tonight. Um, we have some, we have some, I think we've all, many of us have put forward a lot of questions. Some of them to me have not been answered satisfactorily. Some of them have conflicting answers. I think everybody can agree that this is a serious issue. I want to give it the time that it deserves. I need more time to consider this and evaluate the proposal on the merits. A lot of people have pointed out that this has been conflated with other allegations against the Fire Department. This is a serious paper before us. I'd like the opportunity to continue the conversation in Committee of the Whole with my colleagues and evaluate this proposal on the merits without conflating it with other issues. What we're voting on is a change to the civil service position. I'd like to have that conversation. My motion is to send this to Committee of the Whole, and also to have legal counsel present for that discussion.
[Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to refer to Committee of the Whole and have legal counsel present at the meeting, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Fleming. Further discussion?
[SPEAKER_54]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Buckley]: Thank you. I understand what my fellow colleague is asking, but they're here.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: We're here now.
[Buckley]: To postpone this just pushes this down the line and puts our community more and more in danger. They're here right now. You said that the questions that have to be answered, well, ask the answers, they're here. This isn't something that, this isn't a political game that we can play back and forth. This is something serious. This is something that might have one of our lives to deal with in the future. This is too serious. This is safety for our firefighters and understanding the process we're going through. I think people are very clear. I think, listen, we're all educated people. And I think common sense has to come forward here and understand what we just heard. The points that were made are so moving in the sense that it is two separate issues. And the issues are still questionable. We have a mayor that is historically, everyone, now listen, we all understand this. Historically, the mayor has used her position for what she thought was the right thing to do because she was losing control. Ask Aleesha Nunley, ask Michael Durham, ask other department heads in this community that are gone, good people. Ms. Kibby, ask our elections coordinator, ask them. This is, if you could see it, It's, it's a path that this is now it's playing in a bigger picture. And I don't like the fact that I feel like I'm glanced in because I'm not I'm speaking to from my heart and understanding something very simple here. We have people here that can answer all of our questions. The questions that Councilor Leming brought up, that there is some fraudulent absenteeism, we're not a trial, we're not a jury. That still has to be figured out down the line. What we did here is that we have qualified people in the civil service process that have worked their way to the position and have earned it. Now to look back, they're talking about how the process and how they would do that. They lied to us. If we didn't find out by a firefighter calling me saying that this person contacted them to ask about the climate of Medford, this is why he denied the job that they offered them. They didn't, in true faith, They didn't bring in the deputy chiefs. They didn't bring in anybody else to say, listen, we're looking at this person and this is what's happening. They did it on their own. So what makes you sure? What makes you strong? What makes you give you the common sense to understand that this isn't a political issue? This isn't a control issue. This isn't an issue of anger driven by that, because it reeks of it. You don't have to be a genius to understand this, everyone. We're smart people. We're elected by the people. Now, you can say one side or the other. I'm not. I'm really speaking to everybody. Because firefighters don't knock on the door and say, what political party do you belong to? They kick the door in and they go into the fire. And to question that right now is a problem to me. So please, they're here. It's 10 o'clock. I know we have more important issues. We have issues to follow. But they're here let's ask the questions and get to a resolution so tomorrow the mayor understands that she has to figure out a way with her team to work with the civil servants that are here that have worked their tails off to earn the right to be the next chief of Medford and that's it. I'm gonna end with this. Because the mayor doesn't she said publicly that she doesn't understand that this is a divide. Of course it's a divide. Because honestly, between my relationships with my colleagues, if you can't see the common sense behind this, it has nothing to do with our political ties. If we can't see the common sense with this, guys, this is what divides us. This is what's dividing the city. And if she can't see that, come on outside. They're still out in the parking lot waiting to get in. And that says a lot. And to the rest of the people here, I'm going to pander a little bit. But where were you on November 4? want to talk about it now, we'll stand up and understand. This has been a pattern for the last four years. Okay, so we need to figure out as a community and a council for this one issue. This is all it is. It's one issue that we know the answer to. Let's not pander to politics. Let's not take this to a committee. We don't need a committee. We're going to do the same thing again. We're gonna hear it again. Let's help our city move forward and heal from this. Hire the people that are qualified and make everybody feel safe. Because what we don't know, we don't know what they know. We don't. No one can sit here and say that I understand what a firefighter do. No matter if you're a boss, no matter if you're a director, you don't know what they know. And that's what I'm getting out of this, everyone. And it's pretty clear. Please, let's put our politics aside. Let's put egos aside. Let's ask the question so we can get to a resolution tonight, which has to be no. So I make the motion that we deny the mayor's request to take the chief's position out of civil service. Thank you.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: That's a powerhead.
[Callahan]: Thank you, and thanks so much to everyone who has come tonight. I consider myself to be a pro-worker and pro-union person, and I know that there are other Councilors on this council who agree with that statement about themselves. I think the absolute minimum that we can do if we are pro-worker, pro-union people, is to not make this permanent change to essentially at will employment based solely on flimsy corporate arguments and a totally unproven allegation. So from the arguments standpoint, I have heard a number of things tonight. and things like this process should not be hamstrung by all sorts of bureaucratic blah blah blah. It sure is real simple when you can fire anybody for no reason and Process is something that helps us have good democracy. It helps us have good workplaces. I do not think that this argument of needing to have a quick process is one that I would agree with or that vibes with me. This idea that we need leadership that is most qualified, that we're going to find the best candidate. I talked at length with firefighters who described the process, the civil service process, and believe me, Having a mayor select someone is not merit-based. If you want the best candidate or most qualified candidate, then you're going to go with a civil service process because that in fact is totally merit-based. And this question that this decision does not affect other people in the department is, frankly, totally not true. It is true to say that it does not remove those other people from civil service, but it totally affects them, aside from the fact that all these promotions, you know, would, you know, waterfall down. and affect a lot of people every time there would be a new fire chief. That, of course, is true. But if you want to know if it affects the department, look around the room. It affects the department. Why else are all of these people here? And as far as the allegation, you know, I am very concerned that we are being pushed into this decision based on a totally unproven allegation that the mayor herself says she doesn't even have any idea why these people would do a coordinated sick out. Now, people don't do a coordinated, like, they don't through their union coordinate to all be sick at the same time without a demand. You don't, like, that just isn't the thing. And the other thing about being sick is that, you know, diseases are contagious. Right. So people all get sick at the same time when they work in the same place. That is normal. And you can think what you want about that particular instance. But whatever you think, there is no proven anything going on here. And this is not the time for us to make this kind of decision. It also I really have to urge Councilors to understand that there is not one firefighter that is in favor of this. And I am, again, as I said at the beginning, really boggles my mind how we could possibly improve our fire department with leadership that they themselves will refuse. It simply does not make any sense. So I am not in favor of this, and I don't think that it helps us to move this to a committee where we'll discuss it more. I have made my decision. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_53]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. There's two motions on the floor. Is there anyone Councilor would like to speak? Councilor Tseng? President Bears?.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Talking to people coming in here today, I said that I had, as I said to the union reps, I have questions about this proposal. I have points where I'm not very happy with how it's presented. I think coming out of here tonight, hearing from the perspectives, those questions still exist. I think Councilor Callaghan is making important points about how reform has to be complete, comprehensive, that we need to take our time with any policy issue that comes before us. There are really great questions that the union reps have brought up tonight, legal questions, technical questions that I think need to be answered with time. And as residents have stated, this particular timing is questionable, it's difficult. But taking our time with it, as a resident supporting the firefighters said, tabling it, postponing it, moving it to committee is something I would be comfortable with.
[SPEAKER_54]: Thank you, Councilor Schell.
[Bears]: We have a motion on the floor. We have motions on the floor. We're going to take the motions at this point.
[SPEAKER_54]: We've had public comment, Mr. Chairman.
[Buckley]: I'm just here to answer whatever questions you have.
[SPEAKER_54]: Unless there's a motion to reopen public comment.
[Buckley]: Mr. President, I think that we have two councils that are very capable, and we have the people tonight to answer these questions. So if we can, I would recommend that we do reopen. Just have them answer the questions that maybe can move this forward. If in a month or two months, the mayor wants to revisit this process, she can. But right now, we're in a tough situation right now. So this is why I think it needs to be something that needs to be voted on tonight. So if we can, reopen it, please. And give them the answers. Ask them the answers. Ask them the questions. Let's get the answers that we need to make a decision. We're educated people, everybody. Come on.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: We don't need that. It's a pandemic. It's dangerous.
[Bears]: do councilors have questions at this time to ask of the city administration or other parties?
[Buckley]: Whatever you want to ask, we're here to answer. That's why we're here.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: I have questions for the administration, but I don't think this is the venue. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_54]: All right, we have two motions on the floor.
[Bears]: One is a motion by Councilor Collins to refer to committee, seconded by Councilor Leming. Second is a motion to reject by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by?
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: It's Councilor Collins, you can unmute and then speak.
[Bears]: Oh, you cannot be. Please respect the meeting.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: Councilor Callahan.
[SPEAKER_54]: I second Councilor Scarpelli's motion.
[Bears]: pursuant to Robert's rules, a motion to refer to committee takes precedence over a motion on the main motion, so we will take a vote on the motion of Councilor Collins to refer to committee, seconded by Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Callahan?
[Callahan]: No.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Vice President Collins?
[Callahan]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Lazzaro?
[Reporter 1]: Yes.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do.
[SPEAKER_53]: Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do.
[SPEAKER_54]: Yes, I do.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes, I do
[SPEAKER_54]: Motion by Councilor Scampalli to take a recess of how long? Five minute recess, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, Madam Clerk please call the roll.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: Senator Kelly, on the vote to recess, do you have a vote? Yes. Yes, really, yes. Vice President Collins? Vice President Collins?
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: Vice President Collins? Yes. Yes, we are taking a five minute recess Thank you, Sherry.
[Bears]: 24-043, request to approve Fiscal Year 24 Community Preservation Fund Annual Application Appropriations. We had a meeting on the 10 appropriations at 6 p.m. They are one, 69,000 from the CPA General Reserve to Housing Families for Homelessness Prevention Pro Bono Legal Services Program. Two, 50,000 from the Historic Preservation Reserve to the Cemetery Division for the Oak Grove Cemetery Access Road Study. 3. The appropriation of $200,000 from the CPA General Reserve to the City of Medford Cemetery Division for the Oak Grove Cemetery Access Buildings Restoration Project. The appropriation of $229,000 to the Logan Park Play Area Project, $10,000 for the Salem Street Burying Ground Conditions Assessment, $205,525 for the Tufts Park Basketball Court Resurfacing, $106,625 for Capen Park Basketball Resurfacing, $99,965 for the Mass Brooks Estate ADA Pathways and Parking Improvements Project, $98,275 for the Brooks Estate East Elevation ADA Improvements, and $4,800 for the Cross Street Cemetery Conditions Assessment. At this point, I will recognize Teresa DuPont, CPA Manager, if you want to give us your presentation, and then we can hear from Councilors, and then we can move to a vote.
[DuPont]: Certainly. Good evening, councillors, members of the public. Thank you so much for sticking out with us. My name is Therese Dupont. I am the community preservation grant manager here in the city of Medford. Tonight, we have 10 applications for community preservation funding. These were part of our annual funding round. So we are now at the final step, which is to hopefully gain approval from this honorable body on each of these applications appropriations. happy to answer any questions that folks may have on individual applications or the process itself.
[Buckley]: Thank you, Teresa. I just have one. Everything everything seems in order. And I think that we should all support just one question. I know that the question that was that the housing, the housing family, the proposal for what was that? pro bono legal services. The house is 69,000. I was under the impression that Ms. Cameron said that this is funding for paying rents in the rears. But somebody sent a message saying that on the application, the Housing Families Homeless Prevention and Legal Services Program provides legal assistance and rental assistance to the residents of Malden, Medford, Everett, Pueblo West as legal assistance services include representing families, rental assistance, administering. So the question is defined, is this for rental assistance? What she's saying is this for legal services, because I think that was one of the questions some will be brought up. They just want a clarification.
[Bears]: Thank you, Teresa. If you could answer that question.
[DuPont]: Yes, and I won't mute myself again. Sorry about that. This is for rental assistance for residents facing arrears and potentially eviction. So this is for rental assistance. I believe in the application, some description of the entire body of housing families work may have, you know, It ended up in the application as a description of the organization. So I can see where folks might be confused, but it is for rental arrears.
[Buckley]: Okay, thank you for the clarity. I would move approval, Mr. President. We've already had the meetings and talked about all these projects in length. I think that they're all super, super successful for our community. I think we'll benefit from these projects, and I would move approval.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by... seconded by Councilor Tseng. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Callaghan.
[Callahan]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Yes. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Councilor Lazzaro.
[SPEAKER_52]: Councilor Lazzaro is temporarily absent.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Levy.
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes.
[Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes and the appropriations requests are approved. Thank you, Teresa. 23-411, planned development district special permit, one and three to 20, walk-in court. Public hearing notice, Medford City Council, February 20th, 2024, one and three to 20, walk-in court. The Medford City Council will hold a public hearing on February 20th at 7 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, and via Zoom relative to an application for a planned development a special permit, and site plan review submitted by the Medford Housing Authority for the demolition of all existing buildings on the site and to be replaced by a mid-rise building with 198 apartments for elders and seniors, and four buildings with family units, 24 units in a low-rise building and 16 townhomes in three buildings. The zoom link to the public hearing will be posted no later than February 16 2024. The full application materials can be viewed in the Office of Planning Development and Sustainability City Hall room 308, or on the city's website at www.medfordma.org slash department slash planning dash development dash sustainability by clicking on current CD board filings. So how we're going to take this is we're going to hear a presentation by the petitioners, and then we will open the public hearing after that. So if the petitioners from Medford Housing Authority would like to come up and present the project, and then we will open the public hearing. I can share the presentation that you guys have. Just let me know what slides you'd like to be looking at. Sure, are you on Zoom? You can either email it to me or get on Zoom, whatever's easier for you. Sure.
[SPEAKER_57]: It's ifares-ma.gov.
[Bears]: It's going to take a minute. If you would like to say something before we start the presentation.
[SPEAKER_32]: My presentation is going to be mirrored by the slides. OK.
[Bears]: It's going to take a minute here. Could you provide a pre-verbal introduction to the project? I could also share the presentation I received earlier. Sure.
[SPEAKER_32]: All right, where would you like me to go first? Okay, we can start right there. Great. Good evening. My name is Jeffrey Driscoll. I'm the executive director of the Medford Housing Authority. I'd like to thank the city council for allowing us to appear before you tonight, and also thank the members of the Medford Community Development Board. for a meeting with our MHA team and their comprehensive review of our application at our meeting with them on February 7th. We are here before you to describe the site plan review and special permit application today. If you could go to slide number, we've streamlined this because of the hour. If you could go to slide number six, please. go. An overview of Walking Court redevelopment goals of the project. This picture shows an elevated view of the corner of North Street and Auburn Street, showing what the proposed development will look like, with a senior mid-rise building toward the south of the site. The building is a six-story building with the first story being podium parking, and some community and administrative spaces, and then five floors of residential apartments. There's a smaller mid-rise building, which is four stories, with the first floor being podium parking, or possible podium parking, some community space, and then three floors of residential units. Then three townhouses that directly abut the typical two family homes in the neighborhood, the height of the townhouses will be similar to those neighborhood houses. Next slide, please. This slide overview of a walk in court resident and neighborhood engagement process. The resident engagement process started in late summer, early fall of 2022. We've had an active and well attended engagement process. We held eight resident meetings, each one of those dates where there was a resident meeting. There were multiple meetings in order to accommodate the number of residents at the site. And there were five neighborhood meetings. For all of the meetings, we sent mailings to the property owners. the owners that abut the walking court property and those beyond 400 feet. We also delivered flyers throughout the neighborhood where the blue area shows past the 400 feet to houses and more traffic to areas as well as posting notices on the poles. The MHA has met with a variety of city departments, fire department, building department, DPW, engineering, and also attended a number of public meetings held in relation to the community preservation funding that we received and zoning we received in the fall.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: Okay, go to slide 32. Great.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Good evening, President, Chair, and members of the City Council.
[SPEAKER_40]: My name is Hannah Kilson of the law firm of Nolan Sheehan Patent in Boston, Mass., and I am counsel to Medford Housing Authority. Continuing with the presentation, I'd like to make two points to begin with. One, we've asked our development team, they are also on Zoom watching us, and we're doing a much more truncated presentation, but they are available to engage in any questions that are presented by you. As you can see, we are here with the PD for the issuance of our special permit to show that we are in compliance with the PD3 special permit requirements that are set forth in the zoning ordinance. The ordinance establishes four criteria that need to be considered by this board in issuing the special permit under the PDD-3. One is that the site development and use plan that was submitted as part of our application is substantially conforms to the preliminary plan. It does, and it only has insubstantial differences, and I'd like to highlight those insubstantial differences. As was noted, this site will have five buildings on the site. Building A, can you move to slide 25? We'll have five buildings on the site. Building A, six-story, 198-unit senior disabled housing. Building B, which is a four-story mid-rise family units, and four townhomes, C, D, and E, which will contain the balance of the 16 family units. The only difference between the preliminary plan and the site development plan that was filed with our application and use plan that was filed with our application is changes to building A. The width of building A has been reduced by three feet six inches from what was originally proposed in the PDD submission. The building square footage has increased by one percent. from the PDD submission to the special permit plan application, and the total gross floor area at the site has decreased by about 2%. These changes are insubstantial, and the other related changes are to usable open space, which has also decreased by about 4%, and landscape open space, which has increased by about 4% as a result of changes between the two plans. So the site development and use plan is substantially conforms to the preliminary plan. The third criteria that this council needs to consider is that the project meets the special permit criteria that is set forth in the zoning code at section 94-11.6.2. Those six criteria are social economic and community needs size scale and design traffic flow and safety, public utility and services impacts on the environmental condition and compatibility with the city's comprehensive plan, and the city's housing production plan. This project meets the social, economic, and community needs of Medford as we are preserving 144 units of existing deeply affordable housing for low-income, senior, and disabled households, while at the same time adding 94 new additional deeply affordable units in a transit-rich neighborhood and creating a range of housing types, from elevator-accessible, small family units, and family units. As noted before, the size, scale, and design of Rockling Court has been intentionally and carefully developed to be responsive to the larger neighborhood. No, that's okay. So let me say on the size, scale, and design. So as you all know, the boundaries, the neighborhoods that abut this parcel, the Southwest Corridor by building A, that is an industrial area. And so our largest plan building has been located in that proximity, close to the traffic area and an industrial zoned area. to the rest of the project where we have Whole Foods. That is where we situate our building B, our four-story family unit plan. The north and the east boundaries of the parcel, they abut residential settings, and that's where the three townhome buildings are situated. So the size and scale and design of Auckland Court has really been responsive to the larger neighborhood, trying to create a welcoming and pedestrian-friendly neighborhood through the using of planting, trees, and by installing certain kinds of pedestrian safety measures. So traffic flow and safety, what is up before you on the screen, shows the traffic calming measures being utilized at Auckland Court to ensure that we have safe flow of traffic through the site by the use of gateway entries, midway entries where we have raised sidewalks. We're utilizing the speed tables that you can see in the lower left corner. And you will see a narrowing of the roadway through the development and with a curvature in order to reduce speed of traffic as it flows through. The next criteria in the review of a special permit is public utility and services. Our consultants, Fuss and O'Neill, have engaged directly with the city engineer, DPW, to ensure that we have readily available and sufficient public utilities in the area to support the project without undue burden on the existing structure. Impacts to natural environment. This development has really been designed to be sustainable and resilient. We're meeting both the state and the city's sustainability requirements. We will have enterprise green community standards. The electricity is being utilized for heating and cooling and we are developing this project in a way to be solar ready. We are working to reduce the carbon footprint of the buildings by this use of solar and electricity for heating. In addition at the project, we would note that there will be tree removal as a part of this development. Currently on site, there are 52 trees. As part of the development, 12 of those trees will be removed and they are pear trees and they will be located in other parts of the city. eight of the mature trees will remain. The remainder of the trees will be removed, but they will be replaced such that our net trees added to the project will be 26. We will have 78 trees on site when the project is completed. Additionally, the Medford Housing Authority has agreed to make a payment to the City of Medford of $50,000 to be paid at the time of the issuance of the building permit to be utilized by the city for further tree enhancement and development throughout the city, and we're asking today that that in fact be a condition of our special permit issuance. The last special permit factor that we'd like to note is that the project must be compatible with Medford's comprehensive plan and housing production plan. These plans really focus on the critical and urgent need in Medford for additional affordable housing. And the housing development plan includes specific references to the need to redevelop Walkling Court. The development of the buildings and structures at Walkling will help satisfy the city's objective of more than 600 new units of affordable housing over the next three fiscal years. So those are the criteria for the special permit. The last piece that needs to be considered, sorry, it's not the last, my apologies. So the special permit criteria, as you know, is that the adverse effects of the project do not outweigh the beneficial impacts. And we really do believe that that is clear here, that we've demonstrated in this discussion the beneficial impacts of the development to bring more affordable housing, to improve the movement and the use of the site, The other standard that we need to satisfy as part of our permit request is that the project meets the standards of approval set forth in the site plan provisions of the ordinance. And we believe that has been demonstrated by the CDB's issuance of their approval with recommended conditions at the meeting on the 7th of February. The last element of the special permit criteria under the PDD3 that needs to be addressed is that the site development and the use plan incorporates the recommendations of the CDB. We have worked with the engineering, has worked with the city's engineer to incorporate many of the recommendations already into our plans relative to stormwater and sewer. We have agreed to to in consultation with the traffic department and the DCR to reach agreement as to the conditions recommended relative to the crosswalks and the intersections adjacent to the parcel. And we would ask that all of those conditions that have been set forth and given to you by the CDB would be incorporated as conditions of this special permit to be satisfied prior to the issuance of the building permit for the project. And with that, I will conclude my remarks.
[SPEAKER_47]: And so if we could go to slide 33.
[SPEAKER_52]: Slide 33. Thank you for bearing with me.
[SPEAKER_32]: As Executive Director, I'm cognizant of the impact the Housing Authority can have upon the community. The Housing Authority has provided a lifeline for low-income individuals and families who in many instances face housing insecurity and homelessness. These are issues that we deal with on a daily basis and through our efforts and the skilled designers who have assisted us to get to this point, we're happy to be here, which will hopefully allow us to carry on with our mission. Our efforts go beyond what a housing authority would ordinarily be undertaking. We're one of the more progressive agencies in Massachusetts and beyond what we're doing at 121 Riverside Avenue by adding 22 units to a 200 unit development. This is a $146 million project. The redevelopment of Walkland Court, which has traditionally been thought of as the poor sister of the housing authorities, is what sets the Medford Housing Authority apart, as we are not looking to only maintain our units, but to extend those beyond what most housing authorities today can do, and that is to increase the amount of affordable housing in the city of Medford. The Medford Housing Authority will preserve 144 existing deeply affordable units, as was stated, for low-income seniors and disabled individuals. We're not capable of currently providing adequate assistance and housing services to individuals who are there at that site at this time. The authority has attempted through years of limited funding to maintain Walkling Court, and Walkling Court, though, is in a much better condition today but does not compare with the Housing Authority's federal developments. We're building units in a transit-rich community, as was stated, within walking distance of the Tufts Green Line stop nearby. We are looking to provide accessible family apartments through the inclusion of an elevator, accessible family apartments in housing industry. It's extraordinarily rare to find accessible units on the private market, never mind in public subsidized housing. It is in dire need of being provided. We're addressing climate change, meaning state and city sustainability requirements, enterprise communities, improving energy efficiency, ventilation, stormwater management, removing hazardous waste on the site, as well as HVAC improvements. The goal of the Housing Authority is to affirmatively impact the lives of our residents, both those who reside at this property today and those who will reside at Walkland Court sometime in the future. Remember that elderly or disabled resident or family who one day may reside in these new apartments may be someone you know or may be a neighbor or even a member of your own family. integrating walk and court into the neighborhood. Medford Housing Authority wants to be a good neighbor. We've taken great strides in attempting to take into consideration the comments and input from the community. Our design team has received and incorporated recommendations on street design and site density from the fire department. We've had numerous discussions as far as the landscaping, and we'll attempt to save as many of the trees as possible, as was earlier stated. We will continue to work with the city departments through design and during construction. The economic benefit is that $166 million in local economic activity through the construction will be generated, which will support up to 968 jobs. With the contribution of the city, this has enabled the Housing Authority to receive millions of dollars in projected and committed funding from the state. That commitment is over $25 million at this point in time. Walkley Court is presently a polling place. Walkley Court will continue to be a polling place and will be for the upcoming March 5th election. The facilities will have a community room which can hold an estimated 150 to 200 people and can be used by the local neighborhood and by the community at large. So the aspect of being a good neighbor is important to us, and is one of the reasons we've had numerous meetings with residents, neighbors, and city departments, as well as interest groups. On behalf of the Medford Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, our employees, our residents, our current residents, and those who will one day live in one of these apartments at Walkland Court, I thank you for the opportunity to come before you tonight and ask for your support. Again, thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Director Driscoll. Thank you all for the presentation. Thank you for bearing with me. We have considered this at this point several times as a city council. We passed the PDD3 zoning and a number of other things. So when we talk about an abbreviated presentation, we have seen this presentation several times at this point. We're well aware of what it contains. I have one technical question for you, and then we'll open up the public hearing. is the $50,000 for the tree fund, or for trees. We'll leave tree fund for another day. Is that a condition of the Community Development Board recommendations? Okay, so we'll need to do that along with the Community Development Board recommendations. Thank you. At this point, do councilors have any questions for the petitioner? Any comments they'd like to make to Vice President Collins?
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you so much for being here. As President Bears said, we've had this conversation many times before. I think this is one of the first things that, I think this was the subject of one of my first committees of the whole in my first term. It's been great to get to know this project very well through our various meetings about it as it's gone through its various approval stages with the CPA, the CBB. It's exciting that we're getting to this stage and this very long, very considered process. Obviously, there's a lot to talk about here. There's been a lot of detail. It's baked into the process. But for me, still the most compelling thing is preserving those 144 existing deeply affordable units, adding 94 deeply affordable units to our community. I think I said this the last time we talked about this, but it is so incredibly rare that we get the chance to make a double digit percentage increase towards our known affordable housing goals in the city, especially when we're leveraging funding that comes from outside of our community, our community. It's, it's such a rare opportunity I know it's a value that shared behind this rail throughout so much of the community. And it's so important not only to be increasing affordable housing in the community but really excellent, dignified, affordable housing for people at all stages of life. This is an area where I think Medford is really leading, and thank you so much to your leadership on this and making sure that this project is shepherded through. I don't have a lot of questions because I've had the opportunity to ask you tons of nitty gritty questions before. We haven't opened the public hearing yet, so I'll save my motion for later, but thank you so much for being here. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_53]: Yeah, I can.
[Buckley]: Thanks. Thank you. And again, thank you for all you know that you've been in front of us many times and tonight wasn't an easy night, and appreciate you sticking through it I know that I think the biggest, the biggest feedback we get, there's always two sides and in talking to residents that are actually living in the court right now, and understanding the quality of life increase that they're gonna go through, I think really weighed on me. And I think that as we move forward and we talk about affordable housing and having family affordable housing, I think that's something you don't see too often, especially in such a dense community. And I think that the phone calls I received from a lot of people that were against it, I don't think they're really against the process and understanding it. From what I heard really was a lack of really understanding through communication on the city side. Something that I think that even if things don't go right, we have an opportunity that I've heard over and over again with traffic. These are the biggest concerns that I hear is that in the neighborhood, in a densely populated area, that's the biggest fear they have and what's happening in that area. Now that existed way before this project. But I also give us, there's an opportunity there as well that as we move forward with this project, and we have families and we have a place that everybody can use like you've talked about, and I think that revisiting the different traffic flows and making sure that We're there for the members of the community that are concerned about that. And again, like I said, I think my concern more isn't really with you. It's really with the lack of communication or the lack of response. See, I come from a service industry. So an understanding when somebody doesn't like something, All they need to do sometimes is just pick up the phone and talk to someone. So even if it's the same person 55 times I'm sure you guys have heard that. So and I think that that's the issue that I have with our administration that I find it a little lackluster and I and I hope they would work on that but other than that. you know, it's, everything isn't most popular for everybody, but I think this is a project that really will, it's really thought through in the process that really would enhance the people, like I said, that live there now and really build their quality of life, what they deserve. So thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further questions? Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: I, in a very similar manner as Council Columns and Councilor Scarpelli, want to thank you for the time that you've put into this project, I know it's been years. I think very importantly, you've put a lot of time to get to know the community to talk to the residents. to, you know, sometimes you don't see eye to eye with them on things, but you talk and compromise and have made adjustments. And I think that's really important. You've coordinated a lot with city staff in a way that we wish every project were done in that manner. And I think it's really important to underscore how rare it is for our city to have this opportunity. I think any municipality in Massachusetts would be kicking its heels to get at this opportunity and the opportunity like this to increase its affordable housing stock. to better the living conditions of the seniors. I think it's really important to talk about how there'll be better ventilation in these buildings, there's better noise guards against outside noise in these buildings as well. There's more space, there are elevators. seniors can get the care that they need. When, you know, Walken Court, when it was first designed, was state of its art. But, you know, time changes, and needs change. And as those needs have changed, I'm very happy to see that the MHA has taken that into account. I know it's not been the easiest process, and I know that, as Councilor Scarpell mentioned, there are still residents with some concerns, but I think you have negotiated in good faith. to address those concerns. And I'm also very happy to see that, to see the 50,000 in tree mitigation agreement that you've reached with trees, which I think speaks to that good faith negotiations.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments by members of the council? All right, whereas this is a public hearing, I'm going to open the public hearing to comment. People can give comment, put their comments on the record. They can comment that they're in favor, they're against, or otherwise. So I'm opening the public hearing now. If you'd like to speak regarding this project, you can come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom, and we will recognize you. If you are in the room, I do ask that you just give your name and address to Messenger. Lepore, Lepore, who hates when I call him that, to Larry. Name and address for the record, please.
[Ducey]: On February 7th, the Community Development Board had a hearing about this. I don't have email, I don't have a computer, so my comments have to be made either in person or via letter. I type a letter. On February 7th, I actually brought my comments in the letter to City Hall. I happened to bump into Chairman, President Bears, and I handed him his, and I also told him that I was going to bring copies for the rest of the council to the clerk's office, which I did. in speaking to one Councilor, they did not receive my comments yet. Either they didn't pick them up or whatever. So I don't know if the rest of you got my comments or not. But I wanna explain what happened on the Community Development Board meeting. They, First of all, they changed the meeting. It was supposed to be held two weeks prior. They had to send out a new notice. And in that notice, the first notice said that you could respond by email or by voicemail. Then they had to redo that because they didn't accept voicemails anymore because once before on a October 4th meeting, they accepted voicemails, but then at the very end, they said there were five people who claimed that they were not gonna count their comments, even though they had advertised to send in voicemail. Okay, so that's that. So now on the October 4th meeting, we had a meeting, They opened it up for public comments. Three people spoke in person, and then they closed the public comment portion of it. Then Alicia Hunt mentioned that they had received my paper letter that day. And she asked the chair if she had read them, and she said she did not. And the rest of the board said they did not, well, they didn't respond at all, so I would assume that they didn't read them either. So Director Hunt asked them if they wanted to have her read my comments, and they said no. But Director Hunt briefly mentioned a couple of my topics with a questioning inflection voice, which, appeared that she was confused about the points I was raising in my comments. I immediately tried to clarify that. I pressed six because I was on the phone, because I don't have email, and I can't do it electronically, but I wasn't recognized. So my comments that day didn't matter. It was a public hearing, but my comments, they didn't read my letter, and they didn't let me respond when I tried to call in. Okay, that's the first thing. So, if this Council did not receive or read my comments, I know Council did because I handed it to them, then this is the public comment period, public hearing didn't happen because my comments were not heard. I would propose that you not take a vote tonight, because you have not allowed the public to speak, me, and people like me. So, there it is. I mean, I don't wanna go over the points in my letter to you, Councilor Bears. In that letter, I also mentioned that I had submitted a petition back in September, and a letter along with that. So rather than reiterate all the comments in my letter, I just made reference to it, it was on file in the clerk's office. So just for the new Councilors, here's the petition. 1,131 people signed the petition, not because we're opposed to affordable housing, not because we're opposed to them redeveloping Lockwood Court. We in the neighborhood, we know it best, because these are immediate neighbors, are opposed to the design that's being presented. One of the issues is the traffic. They did a traffic study, but it was only three days. I spoke to Todd Blake this morning about this traffic study, and he said that, The traffic volume in our area between 2021 and 2023 has increased 78%. And he said the traffic on Knott Street alone has increased by 20%. Now, the street, one of the streets, the two streets there connecting, going through Welcome Court, exits or enters, I don't know which way they're gonna put the direction, on Knott Street. And one of my concerns was the fact that it would become a very dangerous intersection, given the fact that it's at the foot of the North Street Bridge, which is very steep, and it's a truck road, and the trucks that deliver to Whole Foods, 18 Wheels, and the liquor store come down that bridge with momentum and speed. If anyone from the New Rockland Court presents themselves in that intersection, it would be an accident waiting to happen. So I am proposing, if you all didn't read my letter, that this vote not be taken tonight.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know who said they didn't receive it, but your letter was included in the packets. I watched Larry put them in the folders, so somebody didn't look at them.
[Ducey]: But did you read them prior to tonight?
[Bears]: I read them. You did? Yes. I know. I can't speak for exactly what people have read, but I do know that the material was provided to them.
[Ducey]: But when is that folder provided, tonight?
[Bears]: We received it last Thursday.
[Ducey]: All right, well, I don't know, as I said, how many of them read it. But the points, I don't want to go over all my points in my letter. If they've all read it, they understand what I'm talking about. but there are concerns in the neighborhood for the design that's being presented, for the size of the complex. We don't mind it being for affordable housing. We don't mind it being redone. We are concerned about the increase in, it's a very, you have to, I don't know if anyone's made a site visit there. It's one thing seeing it on paper, But it's another thing actually making a site visit and trying to visualize what it is that they're proposing there. It's really a lot for a small lot with flaws. So that's about all I want to say at the moment.
[Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Tom Lincoln on Zoom next. I also just want to say we did receive two written comments, at least I did by email. I don't know what the clerk received. One from Trees Medford regarding the $50,000 mitigation. They said this is an excellent first step. They made two points concerning the condition. First, that the funds be exclusively to the cost of purchasing and planting additional trees, and they'd like that to be clear in the special permit language. And the second, that the 50,000 represents about half of their estimated cost for mitigation, and that the Medford Housing Authority agreed to collaborate in the search for grant funds. Of course, it is incumbent on the city of Medford to secure full mitigation funding. to address the effects of climate change and the enhanced critical role of trees and climate resiliency and quality of life. I will go to Tom Lincoln on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please, Tom.
[SPEAKER_19]: Tom Lincoln, 27 Gleason Street, the Owl Rizzly. I'm kind of wearing the Trees Medford hat tonight. Council President Zach Baer stole most of our thunder here by reading the letter, but that's okay. moving things along here. First, we want to say, I think I can speak for Trees Medford when working with them on this. We are really happy that this project is adding so much affordable housing, which is certainly a huge societal and community need in Medford and probably just about everywhere else. We look forward to working further with MHA on additional uh, tree plantings, uh, through, uh, 82 and et cetera, uh, on the outside, uh, of, of the project. Um, but it did want to reiterate a couple of things here. One is, um, this project, uh, this tree cutting and the tree planting is really a first instance. Uh, really a test case on the city's, uh, commitment to no net loss of tree canopy. I talked with Aggie Tudin recently. I won't take her thunder either, but I think she's bringing out a report soon on her activities in terms of tree plantings. But the bottom line is that we are still behind the proverbial eight ball. I don't know if you can use that expression anymore, but that is what comes to mind in terms of both the tree plantings, stump removal and tree plantings on that aspect. We at Trees Medford will, I'm hoping, have further proposals along these lines. We really think, as our letter indicates, that making up the rest of the mitigation, which was very carefully calculated based on information from MHA, thank you, Gabe, making up the rest of the deficit, so to speak, in terms of the trees cut, size of the trees cut versus trees planted. This really needs to come with help from the City of Medford. And I don't know what the tree budget is. I'm understanding it's certainly bigger than it was when I moved here 500 years ago. It wasn't 500 years ago, close to that. It's certainly larger than that, but it certainly has not met the actual needs in terms of catching up. There've been many, many street trees cut down because they were all planted at the same time. And there were many years, certainly I think in the late 80s and 90s, maybe beyond, which virtually no tree planting occurred. in Medford. But we're optimistic. We're hoping for bigger and better things here. This is an ongoing process. And again, we appreciate the efforts of the MHA in this regard. Thanks.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Murphy]: Angela Murphy, 16 Codding Street. I live in the neighborhood down the street a couple blocks from Walking Court. I've been there 68 years when Walking Court was originally built. And once again, I want to reiterate what Mary Ann said, that we are not against the proposed redevelopment site. We are concerned with the placement of the buildings on the site and the overcrowding that it's going to cause with all these new residents that are going to be accommodated there. It's a small site if any of you have ever been there, you can see that this site can handle just so much before it gets too crowded. And the placement if the housing authority really cared about seniors and disabled residents that the two six story buildings will house. They would not place them parallel to the tracks with the back units only have an access to a view of train tracks and fumes and vibrations and noise, because knowing from experience that the condos that they built that Wellington up against the green line tracks. They people paid a million dollars there. And upon a person I know who worked in the condos, one woman complained because all she heard was noise, but yet they were guaranteed the windows would be soundproof and cut down on vibrations and things and they don't. So, concern for these vulnerable housebound residents looking out those windows and then they got the building, the six-story building across the other side of the tracks, that six stories are higher elevation, they're gonna be deprived most of the day of sunlight. It's not gonna improve these seniors, all these disabled people's quality of life. They're going to cut down green space, they're going to relegate the community gardens there to a corner of the lot, which is not conducive to growing anything. And the residents there. they're not gonna have sufficient parking, which is gonna overspill these vehicles into the surrounding neighborhood, because they don't account for seniors who do still drive in their 70s and 80s, such as myself and everything, having an extra car. They don't count for all the visitors, the family members who might drive there and visit. They don't count for caregivers who have to drive and park somewhere. They haven't made an account, in my opinion, any accommodations for these people and the people who are going to come to aid the residents there. And my thing is that we're not opposed to redeveloping it, just rethink the proposal. And as far as community meetings and public meetings, I was at a couple of those meetings, and each time I was verbally berated because I asked too many questions they didn't want to answer. And that was to one point where I was afraid to walk out because my vehicle was parked at Whole Foods next to the vehicle of the housing authority employee who berated me during the meeting was parked next to me. So I kind of held back and did not go to my cop and everything. It's not... a good plan. It has lots of flaws. If a thousand people in the surrounding community, including some residents who are afraid to voice their voice from walking court, are opposed to the placement in this proposal, they're pushing down our throats in this neighborhood. They need to rethink it. We need to be heard. I was on the phone two and a half hours at that meeting that Marianne was talking about. Not once was I unmuted. Not once was I recognized as being a public person who had, I had to write a letter and take it the next day and hand it to the development board to tell them what I wanted to say on the phone that night. And all they talked about was a conference or some kind of committee meeting they had to go to. They did not want to address anybody who may have had a comment opposing the current proposal. So please, I ask again, you do not vote on anything tonight considering what they're asking for. and tell them to reconsider and go back and look at what they proposed and see if it's the right proposal for that particular complex. It needs to be the beautiful, suburban, serene senior community that it was meant to be when it was built originally. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_51]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Navar on Zoom.
[SPEAKER_07]: Name and address for the record, please. My public comment is that I support the project. It shouldn't be downsized. If you were to respond to concerns by overcrowding, by downsizing the project, that would mean you're building less housing. And the people who live there, they would, you know, they'd either be homeless, have to leave town, Or perhaps, ironically, they would have to actually overcrowd with more roommates in some other unit somewhere in Bedford. There's not really many other possibilities. So I don't think that's the way to go. That means you're helping less people, you're achieving less housing, if you were to go that route. But it's an important project as is, and I hope the city council approves it. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to anyone in the room who would like to speak. Mr. Cross, name and address for the record, please.
[Krause]: Oh, is that on? Sorry. Thank you. Ken Kraus, my home is at 50 Mystic Street in Medford, about four and a half blocks from the Walkling Court, albeit on the other side of the Mystic River, Mystic Valley Parkway. I just wanna register my support for the project as it was presented, as I did at the Community Development Board meeting on February 7th where the first speaker's letter was acknowledged at that meeting and summarized and shared with the board just for the record. Reworking of Wapping Court is decades overdue. Some of the building is still in its original condition for the 1960s. It desperately needs to be brought up to the standards that people who live there deserve, particularly with regard to accessibility. As I mentioned, there's no elevators in the buildings at all. I think I'm especially excited about being able to add more units more affordable housing units as was mentioned, very rare community has an opportunity to do that with an existing site, especially excited about the addition of family housing as well the family component. which is in bad need in the affordable family units. And it'll add vitality and vibrancy to the neighborhood too, in a way that traditionally with complexes more geared towards seniors and people with disabilities might not have as much of. So I'm excited about that as well. I do think the, issues that have been brought up are sound ones that have been taken into consideration by the developers. I think that the concern about parking is a little overstated in traffic just because the nature of the people that live in these type of facilities are not particularly car dependent. So I think that is, there's plenty of plenty of parking to accommodate the needs, though I think it would be wise to continue to find ways to accommodate people to get to and from the facility, and other means they didn't mention it but there's a large bike parking facility there for residents who can bike and guests as well, but look to make shuttles available to the nearby transit stations. We continue to advocate for the not elimination of the 94 bus that goes by there. So the more we can do to improve conditions for bicycling and walking and shuttles and other ways to get to and from the facility will be helpful. So I just want to register my support again and urge approval for the paper that's in front of you.
[SPEAKER_52]: Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go to Carol on Zoom. Carol, name and address for the record, please.
[Kaskowski]: Yes, my name is Carol Koskulowski. I live at 624 High Street. I'm mindful of the time. I just wanted to voice my strong support for the proposal and for the project. I am in support of both preserving and adding deeply affordable housing. I appreciate the accessibility accommodations that are built into the proposal. And I think it is a good move for the city of Medford. It's a unique opportunity that we should support. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Carol. Mary Ann, I'm going to let people who haven't spoken yet speak. So if there's anyone who'd like to speak in the chamber, and then there's one more person on Zoom, then I can come back to you. Name and address for the record, please. And if you could leave it with the messenger, thank you.
[SPEAKER_64]: Steve Dougherty, 55 Horn Avenue, Medford. Tonight's, as you can tell by the color I'm wearing, I wasn't here for this issue, but it looks like an interesting project. But given the state of the economy these days, how is this being funded? Can someone address that?
[Bears]: That's a complicated question. There's a, I don't wanna speak for Jeff, but there's a lot of variety of funding, a small amount from the CPA, 800,000 of $145 million project. There's low income housing tax credits. There's some state aid, maybe some ARPA.
[SPEAKER_09]: I don't even know pretty much covered the rest the bulk of the money is coming from outside of Medford we've been relying on the CPA funds to get the project started in all there'll be 1.95 million of CPA funds, but for every $1 CPA funds, the housing authorities levering $58 of other resources primarily a combination of state and federal housing resources that will support the renovation be about $85 million in construction, but $116 million in total. But it's a combination of federal low-income housing tax credits, Section 8 vouchers, some debt supported by the Section 8 vouchers, and as Executive Director Driscoll mentioned, we've received over $25 million of awarded funds from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities to redevelop a property because of it being state public housing.
[Bears]: So mostly state and federal, and it sounds like only 1 to 2% city.
[SPEAKER_09]: Correct.
[Bears]: All right.
[SPEAKER_09]: And so the CPA was only able to fund less than 2% of this project, which I think is an ideal outcome for the use of CPA funds in terms of return to the community.
[SPEAKER_52]: Thank you.
[Bears]: I'm gonna go to Alex on Zoom. Alex, name and address for the record, please.
[Lessenhop]: Alex Lassenhop, 30 Right Ave, Medford. I would just like to express my strong, unreserved support for this project and echo some of what Councilor Collins and other supporters, well, I won't speak for Councilor Collins, but some of what she said resonated with me as well as public commenters who have spoken up in support. This is an extremely rare opportunity that we do not often get in Medford or anywhere in the state of Massachusetts to fund the preservation and addition of deeply affordable housing units for disabled seniors and families. I would just urge the council and everyone there to take advantage of this opportunity, approve whatever is needed for this project. It will be a great asset to our community. Thank you very much.
[Bears]: Thank you, Alex. Anyone else in the room who hasn't spoken yet on this topic, would they like to speak? come to the podium, name and address for the record, please. I got two of you. Who wants to go first?
[SPEAKER_52]: All right.
[SPEAKER_65]: Gianna Spontanetti, 126 Lincoln Road. How do you expect to fund the 2%? Can we elaborate on that from the state? I mean, from the city?
[Bears]: The city funds have already been approved from the CPA.
[SPEAKER_65]: Okay, so is that coming from the homeowner when they sell their home?
[Bears]: It's the Community Preservation Committee. It's already done. It's the 1.5% CPA surcharge that's matched by state funds. It goes to fund affordable housing, open space and recreation, and historical preservation. It's been in effect for about seven years.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: Oh, okay.
[Bears]: I'm actually going to go to Zoom and link them back to you. Roberta Cameron, name and address for the record, please.
[Cameron]: Roberta Cameron, I'm at 12 North Street, and I would like to, as a very close neighbor of the Wakling Court Housing Development Project, I would like to express my full support for this project. I think that this is going to bring much needed improvement to the quality of life for Wakling Court residents and I am impressed with the community engagement that occurred during the planning of this project and I've seen how the neighborhood has been responded to in planning the project and I feel that this development really fits in into the neighborhood. So I appreciate the work that went into developing the design for this project. And I think that it will, I'm excited by the opportunity to add additional senior and disabled and family housing to the neighborhood. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_52]: Thank you, Roberta. Name and address for the record, please. And thank you for logging in with the messenger.
[SPEAKER_20]: Andrew Bankson, 11 Hastings Lane in Medford. And just real quick, I just appreciate what y'all do. And through all of this, it's really amazing how y'all keep your composure. It's pretty remarkable. I don't think I could. So as an architect who only works in affordable and supportive housing, I strongly support this project. 200 and how many? 38 units? It's incredible to see that could happen in one project, and it looks like a really beautiful project. So thank you, and I support the project.
[Bears]: Thank you very much. I'm going to go to Zoom. I see Director Hunt. Name and address for the record, please.
[Hunt]: Good evening Councilors, thank you very much, Alicia hunt, the director of planning development for the city of Medford. I just thought I would chime in, so that you have it on the record that we as the staff planners for the city feels very strongly this supports our goals and the housing production plan and our comprehensive plan. And this presentation didn't get into it, but we also feel that it supports our goals in climate adaptation for the city with all the very energy efficient buildings that they are going to be building as part of this project. So I just wanted you to have that officially. And then just to mention that if there's any questions about the procedures and what needs to be voted on this evening that I am available if you need any guidance on the technical piece. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_52]: Thank you, Director Hunt. Any further comment than during this public hearing on this special permit for Wakling Court? Mr. Ducey?
[Ducey]: You're introducing two non-straight. I just want to correct the record. Mr. Crouse did not see my letter, so it was presumptuous to him to say it was summarized correctly in his comments that he just made. So I just wanted to set the record straight on that. and the fact that the community board acknowledged that they hadn't read the comments that were delivered to them that day. Even though Director Hunt basically just bullet-itemed the things that she thought should be mentioned. But she didn't explain them, or she didn't read them, and they didn't want the memo read to her, read to them. So, there it is. And I don't think the traffic study that was done was actually complete. It was only done for three days. And I don't think they captured enough correct information in three days. So I just want to make that clear. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members in person or on Zoom?
[Murphy]: Thank you, Angela Murphy 16 Carding Street. Once again, I want to say that from the beginning, there's only been one design proposal acceptable and presented to the residents in the abutting neighbors and the other community. They haven't even considered any different proposals. All we're saying is that we know walking court needs to be redeveloped. The buildings have left to deteriorate over 60 years. common sense to rebuild them. But why cannot they consider a different proposal that won't overcrowd the site won't have such a negative impact on the surrounding neighbors. I mean 1000 neighbors, both the mothers and surrounding neighbors in the street from winter street all the way down to almost high street in West Bedford. Why are a thousand neighbors who are concerned and want to reconsider another proposal to reposition the new buildings on the site? Can they not leave the nine buildings in the positions they are and go up two floors? and have some similar. No, they want to overhaul the area, put too many people in a small place, limit green space, limit the quality of life for the seniors and the residents in that back building along the tracks, and they don't have any regard for them at all. They're only proposing one set of plans. And it doesn't fit. And if you go down to the site and actually walk it and see it, you can tell. I don't think some of you even know what Rockland Court is, in my opinion. Because to tell you the truth, it's a beautiful community and always has been. And they proposed to build a projects there, a housing projects, not a community. And I'll tell you, within a year, the residents there are going to be sorry they did.
[SPEAKER_51]: Thank you. Any further comment? Mr. Castagnetti? Yes, sir. You have some divine wisdom to share?
[SPEAKER_58]: Just three simple questions.
[SPEAKER_51]: Just name and address, just so we have it.
[Castagnetti]: Castagnetti Andrew from East Medford.
[SPEAKER_51]: Thank you.
[Castagnetti]: Three questions. What is the total cost of this project?
[Bears]: Um, but to the to the city, I believe the total city contribution is 1.95 million in CPA funding. Uh, the total cost is 100. I get around 140 116,000,016 million and a total of how many units will end up.
[SPEAKER_52]: to 238.
[Castagnetti]: And this is strictly for Method residents, sir.
[Bears]: That I'm, I can't answer I'm not sure how the public housing law works on that, but I do know that all the residents in that development have a right to return to it once it's complete.
[SPEAKER_58]: Is this state, federal, or local?
[Bears]: It is managed by the Medford Housing Authority, but I believe this project is turning it from state public housing to federal public housing.
[SPEAKER_58]: I think I understand. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: Any further public comment?
[Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_31]: Hi, I'm Javier Bellini, 42 Circuit Street. So I was here for a different conversation. But in my observation, it looks like this is pretty much a done deal.
[Buckley]: I don't think anyone's opposed to the project in itself, the concept. I really want to support the housing and city method. I really want to support seniors and those with disabilities.
[SPEAKER_31]: I think a limited traffic study, anybody that really knows the area, it's not,
[Bellini]: have trains at which, if you were walking to the Green Line from here, it's over a mile. From Dix to Wellington Station, we don't see people walking down the parkway in abundance to use the Orange Line and the Commuter Rail in the same station, right? So I don't think we're gonna see that in the Green Line. If there are people who are not really driving, they're not gonna be getting on bicycles either, right? So I think If you have 1,100 people signing a petition in an immediate area, that's a concern. Is it too much? I mean, everybody wants Rockland Court to be redeveloped. It's falling apart. I grew up in the area, and I know it, and that's the case. But is this a case where it's too much on a restricted site? Okay, so we should do the project. However, we should consider is 238 units too much for the site to support? And not disregard that it will put an additional strain on traffic in the area, additional parking in the area. And if you have 1100 people who live in the area, we should probably pause and see what their concerns are. So that's just my thoughts.
[Bears]: Thank you. Did you register your name with the messenger? Thank you. Any further public comment in this public hearing? Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. We have the recommendations of the Community Development Board. We have the request for a specific language to incorporate into the conditions from Therese Medford. And I will go to Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I would motion to, um. Adopt the condition to approve and adopt the conditions recommended by the Community Development Board and adopt the. Um.
[Bears]: I have it here. It's a that $50,000 mitigation payment to the city of Medford by the Medford Housing Authority will be exclusively for the cost of purchasing and On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming, Madam Clerk, please call the roll on the motion to approve and adopt the conditions of the Community Development Board for site plan review, as well as the language around the tree mitigation.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Callahan.
[SPEAKER_52]: I think we've lost Councilor Callahan. Oh, she may be here actually, give me one second.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: You can go through and come back.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro?
[Haley]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Fleming?
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Stephanie Malauulu? Yes. Councilor Sanders? Yes.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: President Rios?
[SPEAKER_52]: Yes, and you can call Councilor Callahan. You call Councilor Callaghan, Sylvia? Anna's back on, did you call her name again? Yes.
[SPEAKER_57]: Is that a yes?
[Bears]: Okay. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes and the conditions are adopted. Good news for everyone tonight, the MBTA left 35 minutes ago, so we will be hearing from the PATI of the MBTA on March 12th at our next regular meeting. Is there a motion to revert to the regular order of business? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to revert to the regular order of business, seconded by Vice President Collins, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Okay. Councilor Callahan.
[Bears]: We're having a hard time hearing you, Anna.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Yes.
[Bears]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I didn't see him. I can't nevermind.
[Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, zero the negative. We revert to the regular order of business. Reports of committees. We have five reports. Is there a motion to? Great. Motion to join and approve motions on the reports of committees. We have the subcommittee on licensing, permitting, and signs report. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: We had a special permit meeting with Council Member Nygaard there and we discussed the signage for the restaurant that is being built in the Felswick Plaza.
[Buckley]: And we had a special permit meeting and we've discussed to eliminate some of the bigger signs and and we give them the opportunity to put in the smaller signs that will be covered with shrubs to allow for easy access throughout the building, the area. So we will be, I believe, meeting very soon with the business owner to approve, so with changes.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, Councilor Leming.
[Leming]: Yes, thank you, Chair. Councilor Newton. Sorry Feedback there. Yes we met. We heard a proposal by or we heard a, um. Presentation by you know, City Council's activities, what we're doing. There was some discussion as to potential avenues, like ways to advertise sort of what we're doing. that we were concerned about. As well as concerns that we could be there could be, you know too many messages coming out of city City Hall. We, um and we ended up passing a motion by Councilor Tseng to give to requesting all the members of the committee to offer. Feedback for their specific ideas about what And we, for the next one, we intend to invite over several folks from City Hall who can, like Steve Smriti, Kevin Harrington, and so on, who can offer other contacts for different outlets. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Public Health and Community Safety, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: Uh, yes, thank you. We met and discussed, um, uh, the governing agenda and what is, uh, will be part of our committee going forward this year. Um, and took some extra time talking about, uh, potential, uh, Medford warming center and what. sort of needs there are that have arisen in the city. I invited Pastor Jerry Whetstone to attend the meeting and he talked about what the Malden Warming Center, he's the executive director at the Malden Warming Center, and what he finds the needs in Malden to be. And we spoke with some members of the Medford Board of Health and Planning Department and talk to just a preliminary discussion of what would be involved in that. And the next steps of that will be discussing space, and also the possibility of doing of exploring it as a joint regional project with Somerville, Arlington, other cities. Um, next steps for public health and community safety committee would be to talk about a wildlife feeding ordinance from Councilor or Council Vice President Collins. So that's on the, the next agenda. And that's, that's it for me.
[Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro, Council Vice President Collins planning and permitting committee.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. At the most recent planning and permitting committee meeting, which is the second meeting of that committee, in keeping with the theme of preliminary meetings, we picked up a two-year-old paper to explore a home rule petition around rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections. This will be the first of many conversations that we'll have on the paper with the end result being a home rule position, not an ordinance that the city council would or could pass outright. So more to come on that. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Tseng, Governance Committee.
[Tseng]: Thank you. For the Governance Committee, we reviewed our governing agenda, talked about timelines for charter review, the intending charter review, and also decided that we will be talking about the Elections Commission at our March and April meetings, and I will be inviting the Elections Commission to join.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng, and I would remind all Councilors, please, if there were motions to amend the governing agenda, please forward those to myself and Vice President Collins. If there were motions to request feedback from members of your committee, please send that by email to your committee. And if there are motions to have city staff or others represented at your next committee meeting, please send emails to invite them or ask the clerk to do that. on the motion of Councilor Tseng to join and approve these five committee reports, seconded by Vice President Collins. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Collins]: She says yes in the chat.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: what she said.
[Bears]: She said, I need a I need a verbal. We can't be typing votes in the chat. So you can go ahead and go to the rest of them. We'll come back to Councilor Callahan. Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And Councilor Callahan?
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[Bears]: Yes, great 70 affirmative. None of the negative motion passes 24-036 resolution to discuss an overgrowth ordinance be resolved by Vice President Collins be resolved at the Public Health and Community Safety Committee discuss an overgrowth ordinance Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. The idea for this ordinance came out of conversations that I had with several members of city staff and several residents over the course of last year. residents were complaining about specific sidewalks and residential neighborhoods that were rendered impassable by vegetation starting on private properties that have grown so long that folks couldn't walk on the sidewalk. I've talked about this with code enforcement, and it seems like there may be a gap in our municipal code that prevents them from having the statute that they need to do enforcement when the public way is impacted by plant growth, essentially, from private properties. So this would just be a really targeted project to make sure that there's enabling language in our code of ordinances so that code enforcement does have the ability to issue warnings and potentially tickets if need be when folks cannot travel on the public way because of stuff coming out of private property. So I would move the question to proceed this along to the Public Health and Community Safety Committee.
[Bears]: Motion by Vice President Collins to refer this paper to Public Health and Community Safety Committee, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Palacios?
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro?
[Nazarian]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Leming?
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Scaffelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes.
[Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative and negative. Motion passes and the item is referred to public health and community safety. 24-041 resolution to develop real estate transfer fee home roll petition. Whereas the city of Medford requires approval from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to impose a real estate transfer fee. And whereas 18 other communities in Massachusetts have submitted home roll petitions to impose local real estate transfer fees. And whereas real estate transfer fees can create a sustainable funding stream for needed housing production and affordable housing production in Medford. by levying a small fee on certain real estate transactions. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Committee on Planning and Permitting meet to develop a Home Rule petition, quote, an act authorizing the City of Medford to impose a real estate transfer fee. Councilor Collins. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli has invoked rule 21, which states that any finance paper appearing on the council agenda for the first time shall be automatically laid on the table when such action is requested by any member. So that is an automatic action. This paper is on the table for our next regular meeting. 24-041. 24-042, resolution to discuss implementation of the Housing Stability Notification Ordinance. Be it resolved that the Planning and Permitting Committee meet with relevant city staff to discuss and evaluate the implementation and enforcement of the Housing Stability Notification Ordinance 22-377. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: So we're talking about the housing stability notification ordinance right now.
[Bears]: So if we could just clear the room, please, so we can continue the meeting. Thank you.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: So this was an ordinance.
[Collins]: This is an ordinance that we passed one year ago, actually just almost exactly a year ago, the Housing Stability Notification Ordinance.
[Bears]: Councilor Collins, it's still a little hard to hear me, just wait one more moment. We can take our conversations outside to the hall, please.
[SPEAKER_52]: Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you. So it's been almost exactly a year since this council passed the housing stability notification ordinance. This is a pretty specific pretty limited ordinance that says when a property owner has a tenant in a building. The city shall develop a document that outlines just very, very basic tenants rights and resources, and the property owner renting to attendants to send that document to their tenant at the beginning or end of every lease. It's not a document that the landlord has to create it's something that they can download off of the city website and make sure that it's conveyed to their tenant this is opposed to. kind of empower people with information, and hopefully answer some questions before questions come up in the landlord tenant relationship. Like I said this was passed about a year ago there's been some turnover in the planning development sustainability office this is the first time we tried to do something like this in Medford so the point of this resolution is to hold a meeting. with Planning, Development and Sustainability staff and some others been working on this in the Office of Outreach and Prevention to check in on how gearing up for implementation and enforcement of this ordinance is going. There are several questions to discuss, including where are we at in terms of developing that document. I know that staff has been running it by legal and trying to get it to a place of completion. Then there's the matter of how to make sure that property owners are properly informed about this. Of course, we have to make sure that we're conveying this in the communication channels to make sure that people really going to hear about it. This is not intended to be punitive. This is intended to be informational. And I know that city staff was looking at very many communications, communication channels to make sure that the folks who need to know about this do know about this. So the point of this meeting is to meet with city staff and say, how's it going? Where are we at in the process? How can we help? So I would move to refer this conversation to the Committee on Planning and Permitting.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. On the motion of Councilor Collins to refer to the Committee on Planning and Permitting. Seconded by... Sorry, what was that, Emily?
[Lazzaro]: I was just seconding it. Can I second from Zoom?
[Bears]: Great. Any further discussion? Any discussion by members of the public? On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Callahan.
[Bears]: Councilor Callahan is absent and we can mark her absent for the remainder of the meeting.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Vice President Collins.
[Bears]: Yes. Do you want to speak? You almost missed it. Mr. Castagnetti, you can come to the podium and give your name and address for the rec.
[SPEAKER_52]: Hey, you leave Larry alone. He's my buddy.
[Castagnetti]: He hasn't had a spoke in four hours. I know. Or five. My sympathies. It's more like six. It's a nasty habit. This is about housing stability, right Councilor? Right. It's a problem. When I get out of, The old high school, 68, it still stands like the Coliseum. You have new high schools going to hell because of the leaks, no one takes care of. It's just sad. You have over 8,000 houses in this community made of wood, over 100 years old. Most of the immigrants bought them, and with low pay, kept them alive without leaks. It's sad to condemn. Picking more buildings like the library, the police station, the fire station cries, the new high school ain't so new anymore. It's sad what we did to our buildings through lack of maintenance. We have this problem, Houston, and it's terrible. Now, when I graduated high school, of course, my father was equivalent to sixth grade in Northern Italy. But I remember they were telling me that this is a capitalistic society and it's based on supply and demand, nothing to do with our president. It's just the way it is. So I can't understand how we have such a housing crisis and a shortage of houses if supply and demand usually dictates when they're gonna build. Something is amiss, maybe government has to be more involved. It's sad. Now, some of us here are paying over $1,000 in rent, maybe $2,000, maybe we go to three, maybe it's four. Since I'm around five. It's horrible. You're gonna be making tons of cash. It's terrible. I feel bad for people. I can't even afford my cigarettes. Camels are $18 a pack. I won't tell you it was 28 cents. 28 cents went to Dr. Nolkemar in 1962. You really care about us? If we ever quit smoking, they want us to quit. We'd have to redo a prop two and a half override. Get my drift? But anyways, I have a solution. I brought this up when you had 50, 60 people When they were being evicted, the developer bought the apartment building behind Gaffey's Funeral, it used to be called, Captain Isaac Hall's house back in 1776. And they were upset, and I don't blame them. After so many years of paying short rent, five, 600 bucks, and they were on the street. I don't know what happened to these people, but they came here that night. You might remember, Councilor, through the chair, Councilor K. Collins. And so we have an expression in Northern Italy, saying, la punda més que la crida. Translation is, on the first of the month, who's laughing and who's crying? You know, but if you don't get in on the action, and I don't have the stones to do so myself until I finally pull the trigger, it's hard to get into the game. When you're talking, you need three, $400,000 salary in order to qualify for a damn mortgage at a million plus. Am I wrong?
[Bears]: You're making $1,700,000. All right, we're gonna keep it here, thank you. Okay. Okay. Andrew, if you could just direct your comments to the chair.
[Castagnetti]: I couldn't help I get it from the gallery.
[Bears]: I hear you. And I apologize.
[Castagnetti]: That's my job. I apologize. My job usually. I know. So anyways, I have a solution, which I brought up after I said, Oh, well, who cries? And I mentioned it, it happens in New York City all the time. For decades, I don't know of one building in this Boston area that uses the co-op ownership method. Do you understand what I'm talking about now? No, anyways, I brought you, don't get offended, the New York Post. It's December's issue. I wrote here, save C page 33, which is right there, for City Councilor Kit Collins. I'm gonna make you get up for a change. Can you give this to her please? It's a story, it's a story. Now he needs the exercise. Let him do his job. Yeah, let him do his job. It's a story kit about co-op ownership in New York City. In a nutshell, I'm guesstimating with my six-year education that you have a million-dollar condo, which means you get to make $300,000 in order to afford it, right? Instead of you paying a million dollars for a condominium in Medford or Allentown or anywhere, with a co-op ownership, you will have that same square footage, around a thousand's average, for a third of the million, $233,000. It's a co-op ownership. You don't own it totally, you own shares. The price stays the same for decades. Good night.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to refer to the subcommittee on planning, or the planning and permitting committee. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Kellogg?
[Bears]: Is absent.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro?
[Nazarian]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Lamming?
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Scapelli? Yes. Councilor Thames? Yes. Councilor Fiennes?
[Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. Madam Vice Chair, if you would take the chair for my paper.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: No problem. Thank you.
[Collins]: City clerk. 24-045 offered by as various council president resolution regarding scheduled annual budget process for FY 2025. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the council president request City for consideration in a Committee of the Whole meeting on Wednesday, March 6, 2024. Be it further resolved that, based on the schedule included in the soon-to-be finalized budget ordinance, the City Council and City Administration will follow the budget schedule for the FY 2025 City Budget. By March 1, 2024, City Councilors submit individual budget recommendations for consideration by Administration and Finance Committee, By Friday, March 22nd, 2024, City Council submits collective budget recommended to the mayor. From April 15th, 2024 to May 15th, 2024, City Council holds preliminary budget meetings with department heads. By Friday, May 31st, 2024, mayor submits comprehensive budget proposal to the City Council. president bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Uh, resolution is pretty self explanatory, but one of the things we've been working on in the former ordinances and rules and now the administration and Finance Committee, um. is the budget ordinance. And the framework of the budget ordinance has us working on the budget significantly earlier than we normally would. We'll have it submitted to us in final form as it says here by May 31st. But also having preliminary budget meetings between April 15th and May 15th before the budget is released, which is new. So we will have input before the budget comes out. and then we can hold further meetings in June as we decide at our discretion of different departments after the budget comes out. But I wanted to make sure, just realizing that we're coming up against it, we're not gonna have the ordinance passed, but we agreed in principle to follow the timeline within the ordinance for this budget cycle. So that requires us to get going pretty soon, March 1, if councilors have budget recommendations, that they would like to send in for consideration. Please send those to the city clerk who will submit it. There's a typo in here. I apologize. It should say under by March 1st 2024 city councilors submit individual budget recommendations for consideration by committee of the whole. So if we could amend the paper to reflect that. We will then have a meeting on March 6th regarding those recommendations. We can have further meetings as needed with our deadline of submitting them to the mayor by March 22nd, and then having preliminary meetings from April 15th to May 15th with the deputants of the various departments. before the mayor submits the comprehensive budget proposal on May 31st. So I think this is a significant upgrade to the past where we've gotten budgets at the end of the day. We haven't had consideration. We haven't had meetings. We haven't had the time to ask questions. We certainly haven't had our recommendations duly considered before the budget was released. So I invite all councillors to submit and we can discuss it. And I am continually hopeful that the administration will meet us where we are on this and help us have a much more robust budget process over four months of where in the past it has happened in four weeks or less. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_57]: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[Buckley]: Thank you, Madam Chair, Vice President. Appreciate the effort Councilor Bears. I know that as the mayor talked to you about what the fiscal outlook so far, I mean, is it something that are we looking to? I don't want to make these, you know, when you look at going through this exercise, I think it's super important because it's a step closer to where we want to be and what we haven't done. But I also realize that I don't want to make it a dog and pony show, or go through the process and look and see what I want to request when we're hearing that we're already 2.4 in the hole, 2.5 in the hole in the school department. So I think it's a good idea. I'm going to follow through with the requests that I'll have. But from what I'm hearing on the state side, Our governor isn't giving a rosy picture of what we'll be getting. And without ARP ARESA, it just, it's frightening right now. I think people need to realize that. But again, what I, what I do appreciate is something that we've talked about for years here. especially when we talk about neighboring communities. I've been in my process personally with my department for the last two months and making sure that our council gets that information so they can make reasonable decisions. So I applaud your effort with that. So thank you.
[Bears]: Just to that question, had some conversations there has not been numbers included those conversations. My understanding is that we are still in a similar place to where we were a year ago with what we were discussing the fiscal 24 budget that fiscal 25 was going to be a cliff year with the ARPA and ESSER funding. I completely understand your point. I think my first hope is we can come up with our initial recommendations and then have discussions while we start to get the information from the mayor. I have heard from several department heads that they did get requests to start putting together their budget. Library trustees had a meeting with the mayor last week. So I think we're seeing some movement there. I think personally, it's just my philosophy. know we all know that we we've had a million times agreed we need five people for a sidewalk crew or whatever you know we know they're probably not going to happen this year but i think it's important to let people know we need it that's just my philosophy but i think more importantly uh if there are positions that are federal funded ARPA funded ESSER funded that we say are like we can't be losing this one those are the kinds of recommendations we may be in that kind of year like we really need one to stay on. And that's a tough, you know, obviously we don't wanna be picking and choosing it, but if that's where we are, that may be the kind of recommendation. I'd much rather be making a recommendation to do something new than save something we already have. But that's, I think that should be considered as part of this process as well. If there's a position or a program that any councilor identifies that is, you know, we really would like to keep it going.
[Buckley]: I think we amend that this just if we can. Yeah, because I think that if we can ask the city administration for the positions that are funded by opera that we possibly lose because the rumor is that the buzz around the city hall was Penelope's position, even though she left. was part of ARPA, and I think the fear of not being rehired might have played an impact. I don't know if that's true, but, you know, these things that we want to get, you know, if we can get that to understand that's to your point, it'll be good to move this forward.
[Bears]: So thank you. I accept the amendment happily to request the list of ARPA positions.
[Collins]: Are there any other comments from my fellow councillors? Any members of the public that would like to speak on this paper?
[SPEAKER_64]: Steve Darby, 55 Horn Avenue Mass. I don't know if it's directly related, but when you mentioned the budget, since as of four o'clock tomorrow, or four o'clock today, the fire department doesn't have a chief. Who's going to submit the budget for the fire department?
[Collins]: Thank you. Seeing no further comment on the motion of President Bears as amended by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Madam Clerk, please call the roll. I'm sorry. Please call the roll. Thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[SPEAKER_52]: Is absent. She is absent.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Leming.
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Scarpelli. President Bears. Yes. I'm sorry.
[Collins]: Six in favor, one absent. The motion passed.
[SPEAKER_52]: I'll take it. Thank you.
[Bears]: Public participation, to participate outside of Zoom, please email ahertabese at medfordma.gov. Is there any public participation on any topic that anyone would like to talk about? We get esoteric here sometimes, thanks to some of our guests. Some of y'all have been waiting forever, so just feel free to let it all out. We do have a hand on Zoom. Alyssa, I would ask that you, I will unmute you, but please give your name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hi, this is Alyssa Scott, 132 Monument Street. And I don't normally attend these meetings, but I attended because someone had posted on a social media page that there would be discussions around rent stabilization, discussions around rent control and transfer fees. Is this something that is on the docket for discussion at some point? Is this something that's already in and play, it's sort of hard to follow as a layman.
[Bears]: Transfer fee was on the agenda, but it was postponed to our next regular meeting on March 12th. Discussions on rent stabilization and other tenant rights and tenant protections is currently in the planning and permitting committee. Do you have a date for the next discussion on that?
[Collins]: Not confirmed.
[Bears]: Okay, so it is in planning and permitting, but we do not have a confirmed date for the next discussion on those items.
[a6yjvy9bets_SPEAKER_05]: That's correct. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment? We have Mike Kroll. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_24]: Hello, Mike Kroll, 32 Right Ave. I actually was attending for the same reason, so a little disappointed that now that it is, what, after midnight to find that we won't be speaking about those topics. how will it be best to keep track of when those discussions will be had in front of the City Council?
[Bears]: So the city council meets every Tuesday and Wednesday. Generally, there are some exceptions to that, holidays, et cetera. And our agendas are available at medfordma.org for the planning and permitting committee. That meeting is every second and fourth Wednesday at 6 p.m. So that is where the rent stabilization petition is currently under consideration. however, no confirmed date for the next meeting. And for the transfer fee, that will be on the agenda for our March 12th regular meeting.
[SPEAKER_24]: All right, thank you very much. Yes, it is.
[Bears]: Any further comments? Yeah, exactly. Any further comment? Probably participation. Seeing none, is there a motion on the floor? Motion by Councilor Collins to adjourn, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll one last time. Bring it home, baby.
[FdTFgwr9fdA_SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Keohokalole. Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Nazarian]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_54]: No, five in the affirmative, one in the negative, one absent. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
|
total time: 5.88 minutes total words: 831  |
total time: 39.32 minutes total words: 7199  |
total time: 12.01 minutes total words: 2238  |
total time: 0.23 minutes total words: 39  |
|
total time: 4.66 minutes total words: 770  |
total time: 4.11 minutes total words: 655  |
total time: 9.03 minutes total words: 1455  |
total time: 13.29 minutes total words: 1788  |