[SPEAKER_15]: City Council, April 30, 2024. It's called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor CASSIDY. Present. Vice-President Collins. Present. Councilor LOZARRO. Present. Councilor LITTLE. Present. Councilor SCARPELLI. Present. Councilor STANDARD.
[SPEAKER_03]: Present.
[SPEAKER_21]: President VARCHY.
[SPEAKER_15]: Present. Seven present, none absent. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records 24-085 offered by myself. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we congratulate the Center for Citizenship and Social Responsibility, CCSR students at the Brooks Elementary School for their fundraiser to purchase safety devices for our local United States Postal Service mail carriers. Be it further resolved that we invite these students to the May 14th City Council meeting to receive a citation for their fantastic work. And I also noted that we have a resolution from Councilor Scarpelli, 24-095. Is there a motion to join the two resolutions?
[SPEAKER_17]: Make the motion to join both resolutions.
[SPEAKER_15]: On the motion to join the two papers by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Kiley. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor Kiley? Yes. Vice-President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Yes.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes. I mean, affirmative. None of the negative motion passes. 24-095 be resolved. The city council recognized the amazing work of Samantha McLaughlin and Adam Costello, members of the CCSR and fifth grade students from the Brooks Elementary School on providing safety whistles for postal workers. Councilor Scarpelli.
[SPEAKER_17]: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, this is, um, this is another, um, another process where you see the CCSR program assisting young people with innovative ideas that give back to our community. We had two fifth graders that saw the need after witnessing the holdup of one of the mail carriers on TV, and I believe they took it upon themselves, both Savannah and Adam, two Brooks students, to find a way to assist our mail carriers for their safety and providing them with whistles for, and this is so, it sounds so simple, but it's the minds of great, two great individuals that were raised the right way, that saw a need and they stepped up. In typical Medford fashion, this is what makes Medford Medford, that we have young people seeing the need for something, reaching out to their school and the CCSR to really put something together. And we should all celebrate that. I'd make the motion that we invite them to our next meeting and hopefully give them a citation and really applaud their effort for what they've done. So thank you, Mr. President. I'm sure you have much to say as well.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, I mean, I think you have said most of it, but you know, A, our postal workers are doing incredibly important work that I know lately under incredibly difficult circumstances. So I'm grateful that young people in the city are taking up the mantle of trying to provide some community service. And our CCSR across every school in the district does amazing work. So I want to thank all the students and the educators who make it happen. I do want to go to Councilor Tseng.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you, President Bears, and thank you to both you and Councilor Scarpelli for putting this on the agenda. I think these items on tonight's agenda really show the great work that's happening in our public school system right now. This item in particular, I think, really exemplifies the proactive spirit and the innovative spirit that we see from so many of our students. And I think it really goes, it's, I think it should be noticed, right, that these are our young folks, our young students at the Brooks Elementary School, which kind of like shows us that no matter what age you are, Medford students are stepping up and stepping up to meet the demands of the moment. I think it's also really important to celebrate the CCSR, such a wonderful organization that we have in our schools that allow our young folks to get stuff like this done and to get experience about how to make change and to respond so quickly to events in our community. So really, You know, I want to heap praise on the educators as well, who've spent so much time organizing. I know it's a lot of work. And having been involved in the organization itself, I know it takes a lot of work from both the students and the teachers to really carry through and execute a project like this. So really proud of our students. And I think there's so much more that we can look forward to for the CCSR and our students and all of our students in general.
[SPEAKER_15]: Any further comment on the resolution? On the motions of myself and Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll and we will invite these folks to our next regular meeting.
[SPEAKER_21]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. 24-086 by myself and Councilor Scarpelli, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we congratulate former Councilor Rick Caraviello on the honour of being named 2024 Citizen of the Year by the Medford Chamber of Commerce, and we thank Rick for his decades of service to the city of Medford and his residence. Councilor Scarpelli.
[SPEAKER_17]: Thank you, Council President. This is an amazing resolution. I thought that, you know, if you all leadership, and we brought it up, I just thought that a resolution for a great person, even before Rick Caraviello put his name out there to run for mayor. Rick, as a Medford Mustang and a committed member of this community, with no fanfare. And I think no one really would have known what Rick has done if he didn't run for mayor. And they use it as platforms. And I know Rick, he was very taken back. He didn't want to talk about the things he did, because Rick Caraviello was the person that did everything when nobody was looking. and he didn't want anybody to know. So that's what's amazing about the person. And being named the citizen of the year, I think is an amazing award for an amazing person. So the fact that if I had the opportunity to go to the banquet, listen to him speak, and you see the names on that list of the former, the former, you know, honorees of that award, and you see the greatness. And when I say the greatness, it's just people giving back. It's just people loving Medford, and people giving back to the community, and especially those people that give back when no one's looking. I know we have a few people here, I think Rick Orlando's here, one person is a former award winner. And This is, this is for someone I'm glad Zach brought this up that I'd like Rick to come out and I think we should really honor him, even if I know he's going to be a little bit quicker. He had knee replacement, so he'll get to the, he'll get to the podium a little quicker, but, um, You know, I'm honored to call him my friend. I'm honored that I got to serve with him on this council. And I'm honored that I got to watch him help so many and teach me that selflessness to just give back when no one's watching and see the impacts it made in people's lives. I know that he read a few stories that people wanted to read because of his award. And you realize the impact that that he never intended to make and how moving it was. So to my friend, congratulations. And again, I would love to invite him, Council President, to our next meeting and him and his lovely wife, Carol, because I know that if it wasn't for Carol, he wouldn't be able to do all those selfless things that he's done for this community. So thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comments from members of the Council on this paper? Councilor Collins.
[SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, President Bears. I thank you very much and Councilor Scarpelli for bringing this forward. Former Councilor Caraviello was clearly a man for whom, you know, showing up for his community and doing right by other people was simply a way of life. It was simply his instinct, you know, regardless of, you know, politics. And I know people put a lot of that, you know, especially onto this council and these chambers. But from knowing Rick for a couple of years, you know, I think anybody who meets him knows him. you know, you see his heart on his sleeve. And I think it's just wonderful to see that recognized in the community, you know, the spirit of service by which he's truly lived his entire life in many roles. I'm glad to see him acknowledged. And I will say I miss seeing him every Tuesday and Wednesday in the chamber. So congratulations.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Tsengeed.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you. I'd like to ditto everything that's been said so far. I miss seeing him in the chambers as well. I think it really, I mean, I think all community members can really see how much Rick. former councilor is given to our community, both in his capacity as a city councilor, but also just as a private citizen in our city. His leadership really speaks volumes, especially when you look at the effects of his leadership. When you look at the people that he's helped. For me, Rick means a lot to me, because he was such a mentor to me in the council chambers and in getting involved in Medford politics. He really, I think, showed me what leadership looks like. saying words, he showed me the actions, and he showed me how you build those connections, how you get to know folks who live at home and all the business owners, and how you listen to them more empathetically. And really, I think that spirit is something that's so important to the jobs that we do as city councillors.
[SPEAKER_15]: Any further discussion? I'll just say that I echo my fellow Councilors' comments. Serving with Rick for my first two terms on the Council, some of them with Rick in leadership, through the pandemic, it was a powerful time, an interesting time, and we sometimes agreed, sometimes disagreed, but always got along before and after meetings, agreed to disagree. definitely work together behind the scenes on several projects, just trying to, you know, go at things from our perspectives and try to advance different proposals, work with different property owners and people who wanted to bring development to our community and try to I encourage that in different ways and I know that that was a big passion of Rick's and he is someone who I hope will continue to do that advocacy as a private citizen. I also just have spoken to so many people involved with our new Metro Public Library. who are very grateful to former Councilor Caraviello for his work to bring that library to our community, work with the Library Foundation, along with many others. And he really was a leader of that, and we have now a beautiful public library, and at a very reasonable cost to the community. So it was a great accomplishment, and I know that he's very proud of it, and we're all very grateful to him for his work. Any further comment on the resolution? Seeing none, on the motion by myself and Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor Callaghan? Yes. Vice-President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro?
[SPEAKER_19]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor Lennon? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: Councilor Sands?
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, I mean affirmative, non-negative, the motion passes. We're going to have a packed list of invitations for our next meeting because our next resolution is 24-098 be it resolved by Councilor Tseng, be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate the Medford High School Orchestra on winning a gold medal and the Medford Middle School String Ensemble on winning a silver medal at the prestigious Massachusetts Instrumental and Chorus Conductors Association Concert Festival. Councilor Tseng.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you so much President Bears. As many of us know, Medford is home to one of our state's strongest music and arts programs in our public school system. Thanks to the leadership of many teachers, one of whom I know very personally, Miss Sophia Chang, she has developed this program at the middle school and high school levels of a string ensemble and the string orchestra program where students are really learning top level skills in arts and in strings playing. I've had the opportunity to listen to high school players from around the state, working with a lot of them, teaching them, playing with them, and truly Medford has something very, very special. I'm so, so happy that our orchestras won awards at the MICA Festival, which is a festival I played in a long, long time ago. And it's a very difficult stage to perform on. You're performing in front of a crowd of judges, a crowd of music professionals who are all very well renowned in their fields. And to be able to overcome those nerves, and not only just overcome those nerves, but to win gold and silver medals with a very strict scoring system, I think speaks really highly to the level of our students to compete and to perform on such a really high level. I wanted to amend this resolution to invite the students into our next regular meeting on May 14th to receive citations and to invite them for a short performance for the City Council if the Council will indulge the orchestra.
[SPEAKER_15]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilor Tseng, any further discussion?
[SPEAKER_21]: Second.
[SPEAKER_15]: Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Seeing no further discussion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor Kelly. Yes. Vice-President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. Councilor Kelly. Yes. Councilor Stroud. Yes. Councilor Sands.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, I move the affirmative. None of the negative motion passes. Records. The records of the meeting of April 16, 2024 pass to Councilor Cowen. Councilor Kelly, how did you find those records?
[SPEAKER_05]: I did find one error, which I already sent to the clerk. Do I say what that error was?
[SPEAKER_21]: I can say what the error was, because I already fixed it.
[SPEAKER_05]: I do remember, so.
[SPEAKER_21]: I had you moving for approval on something, and it was actually Vice President Collins who had moved for approval on it, and I fixed that. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_05]: Aside from that, I found the records to be in order.
[SPEAKER_15]: All right. On the motion of Councilor Highland to accept the records, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_19]: Councilor CUMMING, yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: Vice-President Collins, yes. Councilor Lazzaro, yes. Councilor Lemmie, yes. Councilor Stroud, yes. Councilor Stroud, yes. Councilor Tseng, yes.
[SPEAKER_19]: Vice-President Pearce, yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: Having the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes, the records are accepted. Is there a motion to join the reports of committees?
[SPEAKER_20]: So moved.
[SPEAKER_15]: On the motion of Vice-President Collins to join the reports of committees, seconded by? Second. Councilor Lemmie, would you please call the roll?
[SPEAKER_21]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: I'll give a short summary of the first two and then the committee chairs can give summaries of the rest. the whole budget April 23rd 2024. This is our second preliminary budget meeting. We did receive a presentation from director Dickinson that went into finance director Dickinson that went into the expected revenue for the fiscal 25 budget. Um and also we heard from the legislative department, the finance department, the clerk's department, all of which were either to just factor in the increase in the non-union staff contracts. So again, the only increase in those departments were fixed cost growth. We just had another preliminary budget meeting tonight, and we have one tomorrow, and then we will have some more in the weeks to come. But we are getting ahead of the budget, and I don't think we will be rushing through it in a couple weeks in June, which is an improvement. 24.015 and 24.073, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee. Councilor LEMMING.
[SPEAKER_18]: Thank you. So at the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, we first discussed the first April newsletter of the Medford City Council. So I sent copies around of that or drafts around that to all of my fellow council members and flagged down potential edits to those, as well as a schedule that Councilors would go by month to month to draft the newsletter prior to submitting it. to the committee. Most of the committee session was dedicated to editing the newsletter, so it was a bit of a bit of a Word document session as I took in edits and suggestions in real time and tried to correct my own draft language there. Following that, there was a motion to send the newsletter to regular session, but that motion didn't receive a second, so we decided to, so we ended up voting on a motion to approve the newsletter entirely and send it out. So it was, so the first draft of it is currently on the Medford City Council page. We're currently discussing methods of circulating that around the community with the communications director and the clerk. Additionally, we voted to establish listening sessions, ended up voting to establish the subcommittee consisting of myself, Councilor Callahan and Councilor Tseng to organize those in order to establish monthly listening sessions in which a few City Council members would meet up with the community of seniors, the community of tough students, veterans, as well as the five community liaisons in Medford in order to have City Council do active outreach to different members of the community. And, yeah, that was pretty much all we discussed.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. 24-033 and 24083, Vice President Collins, Planning and Permitting Committee, April 24th, 2024.
[SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, President Barras. On April 24th, we discussed with our zoning consultant the following topics. Some suggested forthcoming proposals to improve the site plan review process, updating the use and dimensional tables, as well as There's one other thing, and I just forgot it. We had an update from our zoning consultant, and our next meeting with the zoning consultant in planning and permitting is next Wednesday, May 8th. And then after that, we had a affordable housing presentation from Metro Housing Partnership.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. 24-084, Public Works and Facilities Committee, Councilor Calderon.
[SPEAKER_05]: Thank you. We had the pleasure of having Commissioner Tim McGibbon as well as our engineer Owen Wartella there to discuss our roads and sidewalks. There had been a pavement assessment done in 2021, and we got to see the pavement assessment that was just done recently as an update. We, there were, you know, essentially they talked us through how the roads have, basically what they have been doing with the roads, which includes coordinating with the utilities when they need to do repairs on the road, making sure that utilities are, in fact, doing all the road repair that they are supposed to be doing, as well as getting all the different kinds of funding that they possibly can. We are, in fact, repairing roads at approximately... There were five different strategies that were recommended, and we are repairing the roads better than the middle strategy, but not as well as the top strategy because we do not have the funding to do that level of repair to the roads. So if there is going to be an improvement in the roads in Medford, it does look like funding will have to increase. It just comes straight out of both of those pavement assessments. And that was what we discussed in, oh, they also have, they bought the equipment to do a hot tub crew, to have an internal crew doing road repair. They just need to have to access the funding to be able to staff that, which we think will be less expensive than, for certain levels of repair will be less expensive. So that's the update for that.
[SPEAKER_15]: Great. I think just to add to that there was a response to your question. What would it cost him and Tim McGibbon set up 400,000 to 700,000 depending on the scale of the staffing. And that would move us from having a crew out two to three times a month to two to three times a week.
[SPEAKER_17]: So I appreciate that. I believe that if I can, Mr. President. I apologize, because I couldn't get on. I was listening and I couldn't get on to the last second and I apologize for that. But I know that engineer Olin said that we're looking at substantial figures, correct? What, $6 million a year to catch up?
[SPEAKER_15]: Five years, 6 million? The middle path that Councilor Callahan was mentioning was 3.5 million a year. And that's basically, the line was going down ever so slightly on the condition of the roads for 6 million a year we had an increase in conditions and he said that we were between those two numbers right now and he's now working for the first time in the city to estimate When utilities repair the roads, what's the dollar value of that relative? And then you could add up Chapter 90 bond money. That's good. That's good to see. So we're somewhere in between those two. If I can, though. Yes, Councilor Scarpelli. If I can, I didn't realize.
[SPEAKER_17]: Could we just have a 24.015 and 24.073? I won't be supporting that paper, so I apologize.
[SPEAKER_15]: on the motion to sever the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee. Is there a second? Okay, on the motion to sever the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_19]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: Yes. Councilor Seheult.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: Councilor McLaren. No. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. On the motion to approve Papers 24-045 on April 17th, 2024, the Committee of the Whole report April 23rd, 2024, the Planning and Permitting Committee April 24th, 2024, and the Public Works and Facilities Committee April 24th, 2024, by Council Vice-President Collins, seconded by— Councilor Holland. Seconded.
[SPEAKER_20]: Vice-President Collins. To approve, correct?
[SPEAKER_15]: To approve the four, yeah. We are approving the committee reports for the Committee of the Whole budget, April 17th and April 23rd, the Planning and Permitting Committee, April 24th, and the Public Works Committee, April 24th. Roll call, please.
[SPEAKER_19]: Councilor Callan. Yes. Vice-President Collins. Yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: to approve the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee report, April 23, 2024.
[SPEAKER_15]: Seconded by Councilor Galland.
[SPEAKER_20]: Councilor John Gallo. Councilor John Gallo.
[SPEAKER_15]: Councilor John Gallo. Councilor John Gallo. Councilor John Gallo.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor John Gallo. Councilor John Gallo.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, 16 affirmative one, the negative motion passes. Is that any better? Shane, can we do a sound check here? We just put the contract out to redo the sound systems. How about now? Is this any improvement?
[SPEAKER_20]: We have a problem. It won't stick to it. Is there any improvement now? I'm loud and clear?
[SPEAKER_15]: We don't have the ability to adjust individual microphones, so that is one of the issues. I think we don't have the ability to adjust individual microphones. They don't want to do a test, test, test.
[SPEAKER_06]: Test, test. Test. I've only said yes so far, so.
[SPEAKER_15]: Great. The caption is picking it up. 24-067, Snappy Patties, 454 High Street, special permit for hours, legal notice, Medford City Clerk's Office, notice of a public hearing, Medford City Council. A public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council and the Howard F. Alton Memorial Chambers, City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts on April 30, 2024 at 7 p.m., a Zoom link to be posted no later than Friday, April 26, 2024, on a petition from West Medford LLC, DBA, Snappy Patties, 454 High Street, Metro Massachusetts 02155 for a special permit to amend its hours of operations in accordance with the Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94 7.2.1 to operate extended hours of this business 454 High Street Metro Massachusetts 02155 said site being located in a commercial and zoning district as follows extended hours of operation requested Thursday, Friday and Saturday at 11 PM to 1 AM. Petition and plan may be seen in the office of the City Clerk, Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts. Call 781-393-2425 for any accommodations and aids. City of Medford is an EEO-AA-504 employer. By order of the Medford City Council, Adam Hurtubise, City Clerk. I will go to Councilor Scarpelli, our Chair on Licensing, and then we can hear from a petitioner if the petitioner is present. Great. And we'll go from there.
[SPEAKER_17]: So I think that we see that for our Snappy Patty petition, Uh, they're looking for the extended hours just for Thursday, Friday and Saturday, 11 to 1. Um, we have, I have talked to, uh, the, uh, building inspector's office and, um, um, talk to them, uh, getting some feedback. on any issues and concerns of the establishment, their well-respected establishment, and being that one of the questions we did hear from both people that were for or I didn't have anybody against that reached out, but that they've been great businesses and the fact that it doesn't abut a neighborhood, which makes it very important, I think was something we see. I know that if there is a petitioner here,
[SPEAKER_15]: We have a petitioner present for Snappy Pats?
[SPEAKER_17]: Yes, Snappy Pats. Yes, sir.
[SPEAKER_15]: Great. Well, you can share your petition and Councilor Scarpelli may have some questions for you.
[SPEAKER_16]: First, before I begin, can I answer any questions? I know that it's just... We've been open for greater than 10 years.
[SPEAKER_15]: No, can we have your name and address for the record, please? Sure.
[SPEAKER_16]: My name is Adam Gazzola, and I'm the owner of Snappy Patties. I'm on the petition and the file and the liquor license. Right.
[SPEAKER_17]: So again, this is something that we come about many times. I think that the petitioner comes with respect, background, no issues. I think that Um, I would support this. I know that whenever we've done this, we do put a 30 day and then a 60 day, um, uh, just to review with, uh, the building inspector just to give us any updates if they hear anything different. Um, and like, like I said, I think that, uh, I don't see anything. I see everything else in order, Mr. President. And again, people have to know the approvals tonight go with the, the, the, the owner. And if it's changed in any way to a different owner, then the process would have to be reassessed with the new owner of the business. That was one of the questions that someone asked. So if anybody else has any questions, I don't see any concerns or issues with this petition.
[SPEAKER_15]: Any questions for the petitioner for the petition to extend hours of operation Thursday, Friday, Saturday, 11 p.m. to 1 a.m.? ? see none. I do have one question. Are you planning to be every Thursday, Friday, Saturday open till one a.m. Or would it be more as needed?
[SPEAKER_16]: Well, it is. very much community driven, so we've never stayed open, nor do I think we will ever be open until 1 a.m. in Medford, there just isn't a calling for it. It's generally when it's a private reservation, it's often people from City Hall that request for the anniversary, retirement, birthday party, and they wanna come in from 10 o'clock. And everyone says they're gonna stay until one, but they're generally home by, by midnight if ever, if we were to have a party like that.
[SPEAKER_15]: Earlier than a council meeting.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, so we're a family, we're basically a family restaurant and we're trying to answer the calling of the community. And at best in the summertime, we maybe go an extra half an hour on our patio than we do in the wintertime. But I mean, it's even fewer hours when there's snow on the ground.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_16]: That's just how the community kind of breathes. Sure.
[SPEAKER_15]: Hey, you know, we'll see what we can do. These are the businesses we want to keep it met. Oh, of course. Thank you. We'll see what we can do. Maybe we can get some of that to meet.
[SPEAKER_19]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_15]: Well, we need to open the public hearing, so thank you. And if you just stay up here for one second, I'm going to open the public hearing in one moment, open the public hearing to anyone who is in favor, in opposition, or who would otherwise like to comment on the special permit. Public hearing is now open. Would you like to comment on the petition in favor, opposed, or otherwise? I'm guessing you're in favor.
[SPEAKER_16]: I'm in favor.
[SPEAKER_15]: Great, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in this public hearing in favor or in opposition to this special permit, or otherwise would like to speak on the proposed special permit? Seeing no one in the Chamber and seeing no hand raised on Zoom, I declare the public hearing closed. Is there a motion?
[SPEAKER_17]: I make the motion to approval with the stipulation of a 30- and 60-day review.
[SPEAKER_15]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve with a 30- and 60-day review by the Building Department, seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_21]: 24-068, Pinky's Pizza, 165 Main Street, special permit for hours.
[SPEAKER_15]: Legal notice, Medford City Clerk's Office, notice of a public hearing, Medford City Council. A public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council in the Howard F. Baldwin Memorial Chamber, City Hall, 185 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, on April 30th, 2024 at 7 p.m., assumed to be posted no later than Friday, April 26th, 2024, on a petition from West Medford LLC, DBA, Snappy Patties, 454 High Street, Medford, MA 02155, for a special permit to amend its hours of operation in accordance Oh, sorry, I'm reading the wrong paper. My apologies. Public hearing will be held. I'm just going to go from the beginning. Legal notice, Medford City Clerk's Office notice of public hearing. Medford City Council, public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council and Howard F. Alden Memorial Auditorium, City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts. On April 30, 2024, at 7pm, a Zoom link to be posted no later than Friday, April 26, 2024, on a petition from Sias Properties, LLC, DBA, Pinky's Famous Pizza, 165 Main Street, Medford, MA 02155, for a special permit to amend its hours of operations in accordance with the Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter Size 94. 7.2.1 to operate extended hours of its business at 165 Main Street, Medford MA 02155 said site being located in apartment one district as follows extended hours of operation requested Monday to Thursday 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. Friday Saturday Sunday 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. petition and plan may be seen in the office of the City Clerk Medford City Hall Medford MA call 781-393-2425 for any aids and accommodations the City of Medford is an EEO-AA-504 employer by order of the City Council Adam L. Hurtubise City Clerk So we are opening a discussion with the chair of the Subcommittee on Licensing, Permitting and Signs, Councilor Scarpelli.
[SPEAKER_17]: Thank you. Is a petitioner here?
[SPEAKER_15]: Do we have a petitioner from Pinky's Pizza? You can come to the podium and we will hear from you.
[SPEAKER_17]: I am waiting for, just for clarification, I am waiting for the building department I tried to call today just to get an update with any reports. So I'm probably going to ask the table this, or extend it to our next meeting. But I did have questions. I know that when we've had concerns of neighbors, I think that we see you've done everything that you need to do, and we want to support you in any way we can. But you're going from one extreme to the next, and being to the point that it's in a residential neighborhood. And the biggest fear, we've received multiple emails with residents that love you guys, that think that you're great, hardworking people, but at the same time, it really affects their quality of life with not people that you have control of, it's with your customers or with the shared drivers that come in. parking in front of people's homes, engines revving, music on, they run in and grab an order. So they find it that it's gonna be a huge disservice for that neighborhood. So I would tend to just offer that the timing to two o'clock in the morning, I wouldn't personally as one Councilor, especially in a residential area, I wouldn't really support that. I think it's just too late. But I will, like I said, Mr. President, If we continue the meeting, then I'll make the motion that I'm still waiting to see if there's a way that we could figure something out with our building department, with our inspectors and our neighbors, to see if we can extend some hours to help you with your business, but at the same time, not affect the quality of life of that neighborhood.
[SPEAKER_15]: So if you could give us your name and address and tell us, just give us a summary of your proposal.
[SPEAKER_04]: So my name is Prabhjot Kaur. The business address is 165 Main Street, Medford, and it's Pinky's Famous Pizza. So we open till like 10 right now. We didn't know, and in the community, there's only a couple of restaurants that open till late. And usually pizza is something that, you know, when people get home late, that's when they wanna, you know, we're not doing too much business during the day. In the evening, when it starts getting busy, we have to close. And the latest because the open is still 11 right now. So we were just thinking of, you know, how we can get more revenue and, you know, not be losing money. At this point, and you know, this was just a thought we didn't know how it would go if the neighbors would agree or not. So It will be fine with whatever you guys can offer. 12 or I don't know, maybe one, if not two. This was the, I think, the most we could ask for. So that's what we did. There are some other that are open to like one and two. So that's what just we went with. But if we could do 12 or something, we will be fine with that too.
[SPEAKER_15]: you. Thank you. Thank you. If I can't do that now, we can go to questions from members of Council. I'll go to Councilor start by the council.
[SPEAKER_17]: If I can. I just that I wear a body that really wants to try to support local businesses. So if we could find a way, maybe we can talk after the meeting that maybe we could, you know, reach out to a couple of those neighbors and maybe or if you can do some outreach, those neighbors that surround your your the reports that the emails that I received had nothing to do with how hard you work and how much they love your establishment. The question is, they're just afraid of the outside people or activities that you have no control over. And that's what they were questioning. So that's why I don't wanna deny anything this evening. If we can just, I'd like to motion that we move this to our next meeting, just extend it. for two weeks and maybe... Given the time frame, I have to open the public hearing and then we can continue. We can do that, right. But I just want to give a petition, just what we're looking to do. So maybe there's a way that we can talk to our neighbors and see if we can find something. I think there's something here that we can work with the neighborhood, but I know what scared everybody was one o'clock and two o'clock every night.
[SPEAKER_15]: It makes sense, yeah.
[SPEAKER_17]: There's an old nurse, so thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, two o'clock is definitely... I don't think there are many licenses in the city, maybe one or two. 1 o'clock is a little more common, midnight more common than that. So we do have to align with that as well as we discussed with the Oasis permit. I will go to Councilor Leming for a question for the petitioner.
[SPEAKER_18]: How much does business differ from Monday to Thursday versus the weekend, Friday, Saturday and Sunday? Thank you.
[SPEAKER_04]: like money wise?
[SPEAKER_18]: Yeah, like how much to share your figures, but yeah, just yeah, just just ballpark, like how much more people you see on the weekends versus the weekdays.
[SPEAKER_04]: It's a big difference weekdays, it's not that much. But weekends, especially like Friday and Saturday is when we do good business. given like, you know, and then, or if we have long weekend, like games or something, then we'll do good on Sundays. Otherwise it's just Friday and Saturdays when we actually get good revenue. Otherwise it's just like, not, I'm not going to say slow, but it's not as good as Friday and Saturday.
[SPEAKER_18]: Okay. Okay. So the Friday and Saturday hours would be the ones that would help that business the most?
[SPEAKER_19]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_18]: All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions for the petitioner?
[SPEAKER_15]: Seeing none, I'm going to open the public hearing for anyone in favor, in opposition, or who would otherwise like to make a comment. Public hearing is open. Are you in favor of the petition?
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: Great. Is there anyone who would like to comment at this time? Great. So if you could, we'll have him come. And if there's anyone on Zoom who would like to comment, please raise your hand on Zoom. Mr. D'Antonio, name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_00]: Anthony D'Antonio. Excuse me. 24 Hicks Avenue in Medford. I would be in favor for the petition, because you talk about a crowded environment, late hours. Well, you know on Yale Street, where my house is, we have the Oasis, we have Bocelli's, we have a few other things going on. And we have a parking lot at Double Curse, because what happens is when they leave the restaurant, they hang out in the parking lot. They have loud music playing. All kinds of distractions there. I can't see a couple of delivery cars making that much of a difference on the street because it's not as thickly settled where their shop is as our place on Yale Street is. So give it a chance. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_10]: I didn't prepare anything, but my name is Mary Doyle. I live at 35 Damon Road, but I own 170 Main Street, which is directly across the street from Pinky's. And to your comment. There's a Richdale parking lot right next to my house, which is where some of our bedrooms are. And that's my concern, is that people are going to, you know, I'm in favor of the beer hall, I think it's great, but my fear is that, you know, people are gonna leave the beer hall, wanna get pizza, and they're gonna be parking right underneath our bedroom windows. I'm concerned about the Uber Eats and the other delivery services where, especially in the summer, they blast their radios, they don't turn their cars off, they go in to get their packages. And I have people in that apartment and I'm gonna be moving back to that apartment. We need to sleep at night. I wouldn't mind one o'clock on a Friday and Saturday night, but on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, I think it's just, Totally opposed to it.
[SPEAKER_15]: Great. Thank you. Thank you. And it sounds like there is a motion to continue the public hearing to our next regular meeting, May 14th, please, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to continue this public hearing to our next meeting on May 14th, and we'll be able to coordinate with them. And I think Councilor Scarpelli is coming up to do it right now, to talk with the building department and try to get to something that could work for everyone. And we'll have further conversations, and thank you for your willingness to work with us on that as well. All right, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to continue the public hearing to the May 14th regular meeting, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor Kelly? Yes. Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor Livingston? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Sands?
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes. I have the affirmative, negative, motion passes. Hearing is continued to the date certain of May 14th. 24-074 offered by Council Vice President Collins be resolved with the Medford City Council review the annual surveillance report. Vice President Collins.
[SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, President Barras. And I actually want to start with an apology because I didn't notice until just this moment that the, oh, thank you. I didn't notice until just this moment that the first two pages of the annual surveillance report that I submitted are actually missing from our agenda packet. They don't add anything particularly substantive, but what is included is just the surveillance report from the Medford Police Department and not the city council surveillance report that actually summarizes the data. That's what our obligation is to submit at this point. It doesn't add anything substantive. It tallies up the number of approvals and denials of surveillance technology that we did in the preceding calendar year, which in this report is zero. That being said, I still don't feel comfortable putting forward a motion for my fellow councilors to vote upon, having not seen the document in its entirety. So I would motion to table this until our next regular meeting, and I will make sure that those first two pages that contextualize the data are included on the agenda at that time.
[SPEAKER_15]: On the motion to table by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan, is this a table to a date certain of May 14th? Yes. Mr. Clerk, please follow.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor CUMMING. Yes. Vice-President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. Councilor Lovett. Yes. Councilor Stroud.
[SPEAKER_15]: Councilor Stroud is temporarily absent. Councilor Sands.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: Vice-President Bears.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion is tabled to our next regular meeting. 24-093, offered by Vice-President Collins and President Bears. be it resolved that the Medford City Council express its support of S. 1836 and H. 2963, an act relative to the payment of the organizations exempt from property tax, be it further resolved that the City Clerk forward a copy of this resolution to the Medford Legislative Delegation as well as to the Chairs of the Joint Revenue Committee, Vice President Collins.
[SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, President Bears. So this is a motion to support the aforementioned bills that are currently in the State House. I received outreach about this from several people that work with the Massachusetts Action for Pilot group. This comprises workers and representatives of various social service and educational, et cetera, workers from across the state, all in support of this legislation, which kind of comes up year after year. The context for this is that currently in Massachusetts, large nonprofits that meet certain criteria are exempt from property tax. We have several of those here in Medford, most notably Tufts, my alma mater. As an alumnus of Tufts, I've always felt my particular responsibility to advocate for changing that rule so that cities such as ours can implement more fair, essentially compensation systems with these institutions that take up such a large footprint in our communities, but don't have to pay property taxes like everybody else does. So this bill would enable a local option that communities can choose to adopt. that would require that these large nonprofit organizations pay really only 25% of the tax obligation that they would otherwise have to submit if they weren't tax exempt. So it's really, in my opinion, it's not even going as far as it should, but so many of our conversations behind this rail are talking about the various infrastructural projects and personnel and services that we ought to be able to provide to our residents that we can't because of a lack of funds. So any action that this council can take to level the playing field, I think is a worthwhile one. And I ask my fellow Councilors for their consideration in lobbying the state house to allow us to give us one more leverage when we're looking for fair compensation from these large, well-endowed institutions that we host in our community. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you, Vice President Collins, and thank you for allowing me to co-sponsor this resolution. I've been working on pilot since 2017. We had many meetings with Mayor Burke in 2019. The joint Our Revolution Medford, Our Revolution Somerville pilot working group released an estimate that if Tufts paid property taxes on its currently exempt properties, it would pay $8 million a year to the city, which is a significant amount. One of the reasons that I've been working on this, and I worked with Representative Eiderhoven who filed this petition, in 2022 was on a panel, we did some interviews to try to get the word out there about this. This would only go up to 25% and it would only be 25% of what they would otherwise pay if they were not exempt. And it would also exempt any organization whose assets were less than $15 million. So it's not trying to go towards small nonprofit organizations. It's really the large hospitals and educational institutions who do not pay their fair share right now. So that would be $2 million more a year, and that was now five years ago. As everyone knows, property values have gone up by a couple billion dollars since then, so I'm sure it's a little bit more than that. In any case, the reason that it does not advance in the Statehouse is that Tufts and Harvard and MIT and many others pay hundreds of thousands of dollars each every year to fund an organization called the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Massachusetts, and they lobby the Statehouse to kill this bill every session. So that is something we can all call, all of our representatives are supportive of it. I believe Representative Barbara Garbally I believe Representative Donato, I'd have to double check, and Senator Jalen, but this is an important thing, and as we all know, the state controls so much of what cities and towns are allowed to do, so that's why it's important that we advocate to the state to allow us to do more here. There is also something that this council has submitted regarding Tufts, which is a lesser bar, it's something called the Institutional Master Plan Home Rule Petition, currently under zoning, We don't have nearly as much zoning authority over Tufts as we do over other private property exempt institutions, have exemptions through something called the Dover Amendment. We have asked that the State House give us the authority to require that Tufts tell us what they plan to do in terms of expansion and growth, a five-year master plan. That also has not advanced for we've put it up every every session that I've been a city councilor that has also been quashed and we do that alongside Somerville as well who shares that concern so you know it really is the city working hard on this you know Tufts decided I think in 2021 that they were going to unilaterally implement. They said, we'll give you a pilot of $450,000, and we're going to give $450,000 to Medford, $450,000 to Somerville, and $450,000 to Boston, and we don't really want to negotiate with you any more than that. So it is not sufficient in my view, and that's why I'm supportive of state legislation to give our city more authority to hold Tufts to pay its fair share to our community for the services that it uses that are paid for by the city of Medford. Any further discussion? Councilor Tseng, and then Councilor Callaghan.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you. I think this has been really well described, so I'll be pretty brief. Again, this is really asking big institutions like Tufts to pay their fair share in our city. You know, these institutions, they use our police, fire, medical services, they use infrastructure, water, sewer, and all we ask is for them to pay something a little closer to their fair share instead of $0. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, which is a group that represents local governments from across the state, from across the Commonwealth, all 351 municipalities, this organization has asked local electives like all of us to send in letters of support to pass resolutions on the City Council to support this bill. And they believe that doing so will be important at the State House. And so I will very happily support this.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_05]: As a city, we are a cash-strapped city. There are many things, our water pipes, our roads, our schools, I could go on and on, that really require more funding. Property taxes are one of the very few ways that we are able to raise any money, and it seems just not right to me that we ask every homeowner here to pay their property taxes without fail every year, and yet large organizations with billion-dollar endowments do not have to pay anything. The 25% number, as I understand it, was gotten to because that is approximately the amount of services that they use of the city that we do not get any reimbursement for. I agree that 25% is not enough, but at least it is something, and I'm in favor.
[SPEAKER_17]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Any further discussion?
[SPEAKER_17]: Councilor Scarpello? Thank you, Council President. Thank you, Councilor Cohn-Springsteen. Now, this is creative. This is raising money to support our housing issues. through the people in our community. Isn't that great? And I'm gonna support this 1000% because this is what we're saying. Because when we're talking with the last few weeks, last few months, the scary talk has really moved a lot of people in a negative way here. So when you hear resolutions like this, you see what Cambridge has to do for, what Harvard has to do for Cambridge when it comes to housing. You can see what Boston asked for housing with all their universities. So this is something that I agree with my colleagues. I think we need to really, and especially as we see, I mean, they've, Tufts has just grown and growing and growing and And all we keep doing is losing revenue, losing tax revenue, providing more services, costing our community more money. So I support this wholeheartedly. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Any further discussion on the topic? Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_29]: Louise D'Antonio, 41 Dartmouth Street, Medford, Mass. It's nice to see that there's something that I agree with many of you on. That's a move forward. I had a question and then a couple of comments. Is the state legislature talking about separating classroom, space, taxing, and the residential properties that Tufts, the university's own, like the multifamilies? Have they made that distinction or it would be on the entire acreage of footage of the university?
[SPEAKER_15]: So my understanding of it is that it is about what properties qualify for exempt use under state law. The dormitories actually qualify for exempt use right now because they are for educational purposes, the housing of students for educational purposes. That's the definition that applies currently. My understanding is that at least the analysis and the legislation, if it were to move forward against the pay of the lobbyists, is for all of the exempt purposes, and essentially the analysis that was done five years ago was asking the city assessor, what is the assessed value of all the land that is currently exempt from the property tax in the city? And then you just apply the property tax rate to that amount to get the figure.
[SPEAKER_29]: Thank you for answering that. My comment is, having lived in Medford most of my life and having taught at Medford High School, I can say that Tufts has never been a really good neighbor, not to the people that live where the students are housed. They have a lot of information that they could funnel through to the schools. They just don't seem to want to cooperate on on a day to day basis. I mean, they have facilities up there that could be shared not every day, but they really haven't been what we'd call a good neighbor. They haven't extended themselves. I think they offer two scholarships, and this, I may be corrected on this, two scholarships for Medford High School students, Somerville High School students, I don't know about Cambridge, but they're a bit stingy with their resources, and I'd like to see them. give us a little bit more. Thank you very much.
[SPEAKER_15]: I just want to add on that point. Part of the bill would also right now, tough says that they provide community benefits to the city, but of course, they don't quantify those benefits. This bill would also allow us to require them to tell us if you if you want to provide the money in cash, you know, if we would like to provide the money in cash for your brother, but we're happy to take community benefits. You just have to tell us what they're worth. So that it meets the amount.
[SPEAKER_29]: All right. Thank you very much.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_02]: William Duval, 108 Medford Street, apartment 1B. I actually like this bill as you do, but I wrote the author with one suggestion and it's one that you've heard before if you've been on the council for more than this term. And that suggestion is that we continue to not tax the university's improvements, that's to say the buildings, but we don't give them any exemption at all on the land. And that could either be the way the entire bill is structured, or it could be an option that the city council could adopt. It wouldn't discourage buildings going up on the land at all. They could build a dorm or an academic building, which we want to do to provide housing and jobs. However, it would much better discourage the university buying up additional land because the tax of the land would be much higher than it is under the proposed bill. And I think it would actually wind up giving more revenue, but it would also encourage better behavior at the part of the university, and better align everyone's incentives. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_24]: Kelly Catala, 23 Salem Street. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you, because this- Please direct your comments to the chair.
[SPEAKER_24]: Through the chair, can I talk to
[SPEAKER_15]: No, you can talk to me.
[SPEAKER_24]: Okay, this will help housing, because the universities are part of your housing problem. They overcharge for their housing, they don't have enough housing, then their students end up moving into the neighborhoods, then because they're coming from wealthy areas that are willing to pay much more than what the people in Medford can pay, that raises the rents there. Then they double up, they triple up, they quadruple up. If I look to the right side of the room, which I won't, They all came to Medford because of universities. They all came to Massachusetts because of universities. They're coming here, they're staying here. It's increasing the population that is part of the problem. Not that we don't want you here, but it is part of the problem. So if the university is gonna benefit, and I do believe Tufts just raised their tuition to $90,000. It's not about the buildings. It's the fact that they're increasing the cost of housing just by being here. Mayor Menino was able to do a lot with the universities in Boston. Harvard went to the city of Cambridge and they came up with a plan. Cambridge is benefiting from them. I'd like to see Medford benefit on the housing end too. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Yes. Harvard does have an exemption. Cambridge has an exemption for Harvard from some of the laws, which does help them access that. So that's one piece of it. And I will also note that the state is losing population and the fastest loss of population is between 20 and 40.
[SPEAKER_24]: When you look at the cost of housing and where the highest costs of being paid from, they're not from the people that have been here all their lives. The people that have been here aren't being able to pay for it. People are coming in, they're getting wonderful degrees. The companies are coming in to get the young graduates. They're getting great jobs and they can afford to pay more than what most people are here. Unfortunately, we have a lot of elderly people. that need to go into housing, they're being told they need to wait five years. There is a huge housing crisis, the university is a part of it. In regards to Harvard University, they went to the city of Cambridge with a plan back in 2000, which I don't have all the statistics right in front of me because I didn't plan on going there tonight. However, they helped the city of Cambridge produce and keep 2600 affordable units. They don't give them money, they help leverage them the money. That would be great if Tufts did that for Medford, that could help Medford, that would be a partnership. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, actually I'm gonna go to Zoom, Maureen on Zoom. Maureen, name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_09]: Thank you, Zach and the rest of the board members. I want to, first of all, touch on a couple of things that other residents brought up. First of all... Your name and address for the record, please. Maureen Dunham, 55 Ellsworth Street, Medford, Mass.
[SPEAKER_20]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_09]: So first of all, I want to touch base on what the former academic within the city mentioned, and that is the Stingy. Two residents from Medford and two residents from Somerville that are one of thousands that apply for a full scholarship to Tufts. When those candidates are not accepted, We actually export them to other local state universities such as Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, my own son to Maryland, and we're losing a lot of the brightest bulbs. Our own sons and daughters who are sons and daughters of City of Medford, two outside universities, number one. Number two, to touch on the infrastructure note that someone else made, I grew up in West Somerville on the grounds of Tufts University and have been a homeowner in Medford for the past 34 years. Now, as I go back and forth, I noticed that the roads in Medford, not so much in Somerville, are in very poor disrepair. Yet, when I cross over Boston Avenue and go through the side streets that are Tufts University property, I note that Those streets are very well maintained. And I know they're not maintained by the cities of Medford-Somerville because they've been bought and they're being used as non-for-profit housing, university offices, et cetera, et cetera. So another reason why I wholeheartedly endorse this move forward. And secondly, I want to say that, oh, thirdly, I want to touch on the base that they use all of our emergency services and other services on a regular basis. I have been going back and forth from Medford to Somerville, and on numerous occasions, I've seen students in housing, like three-family, two-family housing in Medford or in Somerville that are out on rooftops drinking and celebrating. and having outdoor barbecues and fires. And we all know where that leads to with the addition of a little bit of alcohol and immaturity. So that's another reason why I wholeheartedly endorse support of this motion. And that's all I have to say. Thank you very much for listening to me.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you very much. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_28]: My name is Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass. Having served on this board some years ago, the city of Medford and Tufts University engaged in the pilot, a million dollar pilot program. And the pilot program consisted of six students from Medford, six students from Somerville, who'd be able to go to Tufts University for nothing. The million dollar cash part of the program consisted of three years of getting cash up front with the remaining portions of the money to be used for I think there could have been fire or police equipment here in the city of Medford. Now that hasn't been followed through since, for what reason, I don't know. But the idea of taxing up to 25% relative to the nonprofit, whether it's Tufts University or someone else, I guess you haven't hit the dollar mark yet of where you're gonna go. But speaking with leaders up at the State House, the one thing that the City of Medford hasn't done, as other cities and towns done, you have not moved to provide an amendment to the CPA tax, which would include affordable housing. And as a result of that, and knowing that the Commonwealth now does not give back to the City of Medford from their surplus to the CPA, it's all going to be on cities and towns, excuse me, individually. So I think the city of mid that has an opening over and beyond your 25% also to amend the CPA to now include affordable housing. You know, you give it to churches, you've given it to schools into swimming pools and open space and land. This is a great opportunity right now for you as a council, first term especially, to move forward on your reps and on your senators to make this amendment. You're not getting rid of the CPA, you're amending it. And by amending it to put this inclusion in there, this will be your first step along with your 25% for the purpose of going forward to get your affordable housing. The other part of affordable housing is very simple. What has the city of Medford, can you folks, any one of you here, give an accounting of how much money has been used for affordable housing, where has the location's been, where is the land, and where has the working relationship taken place between a private contractor coming in with the city of Medford to provide affordable housing along with regular housing. I don't think you have a big inventory on that. And I think if you keep talking about affordable housing, you keep talking about the transfer tax, you keep talking about the registry, I think you should start there. Because if there's nothing on the books right now, I think you need to get your feet wet in that particular area, get your base set up before you go into this next move. 25% sounds good. I think you need an inventory of all the property in the city method that's tax exempt. And I'm quite sure you'll find There are other pieces only on Tufts University where you can get that 25% from. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Just to answer some of the questions, I can give you an answer to some of them. The only properties that were owned by nonprofits with assets over $15 million were Tufts University's many properties, as well as the former, what was Harvard Vanguard. That was purchased by Atrius Health. which is a for-profit corporation, and that money, that building is now taxed, the Atrius Health building here, but that was another organization that had over the threshold and was paying a pilot. And additionally, the Rivers Edge development was part of the Brownfields Mississippi Valley Development Corporation, and that was paying a pilot and is now moving to the tax rolls. So those are the major nonprofits that were paying pilots.
[SPEAKER_28]: But a few years ago up in Beacon Hill, before the 25% came into play, there was a percentage ratio that went, like I believe Tufts University at the time had a $30 million endowment. And there was a dollar amount that was set on the endowment that the school had. as to what percentage it would go. Now, Tufts doesn't have a large endowment. It's not like Harvard University that's into the billions of dollars. But there was a dollar amount, you may want to check this out once again, do your homework, go to Beacon Hill and find out what that legislation was. Unfortunately, it didn't pass because as you said before, Academy of colleges and universities. But still, it's a stepping stone to go forward. You know, and these are all pilot programs that you can look into, just because somebody is multi rich, like having I mean, Tufts University, you might find other locations where, you know, Listen, if you treat one one way, you got to treat them all the same way. And it might be better to have a universal thing rather than go to the 25% and just go for the biggest one. Because if you can work on all of them, maybe in the long run, you'll be able to get more in the long run than just grappling at the first one.
[SPEAKER_15]: I was very supportive of the endowment tax that you're talking about. And in terms of the affordable housing piece, the planning department does have the city's subsidized affordable housing inventory, the SHI, which is a list of all of the affordable housing units in the city. And that's what we use to keep track of affordable units that are deed restricted, as well as making sure that we are meeting the safe harbor requirements for 40 B. So that is maintained by the planning.
[SPEAKER_28]: But what you don't have right now in your inventory, you might have that, which I can vote, but you don't have the physical ground locations with new and additional affordable housing can go in and working toward that with getting this money, whether it's again, the 25% of the affordable housing of the CPA money, whatever it might be. Understood. Thank you. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Councilor Lemi.
[SPEAKER_18]: and just to say a couple things about the CPA. So I'm not sure where the 25% number came from. I believe on the CPA, the minimum is 10% for open spaces, historic preservation, and affordable housing. Now I understand that Cambridge requires 80% to go to affordable housing, but I believe that the reason that they do that is because they have money coming from other sources for historic preservation and open spaces. So their operating budget is about five times the size of Medford, they do have more money to throw around for, you know, building a playground or repairing a church or something like that. So I think that the use of CPA money within Medford is a little bit different from the use of CPA money within other communities, especially Cambridge, which, again, has a lot more funds. And the same really goes with Harvard and Tufts. So Harvard's endowment, like you were saying, is above $50 billion. Tufts is $2.4 billion. So when we're talking about money here, it's like Cambridge. And I do admire a lot of what Cambridge has done with affordable housing, but we're really talking about another order of magnitude in terms of funding.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. We're going to go to Martha on Zoom. Martha, name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_07]: Yeah, hi, I'm Martha Andres. I'm at 45 Kilgore Avenue in Medford. Thank you for proposing this revisiting of the pilot payments that Tufts does. I would encourage you, I've worked for MIT, Harvard, and Tufts. And I know that they negotiate pretty hard on the community benefits. But at the end of the day, if you are strong and creative, you will get community benefits out of them. I would very much suggest that you base it, as a previous speaker said, not just on the police and fire and emergency services that they get from Medford, but on their impact on Medford as a community, on our housing. our costs, and you ask them to be a real community partner to leverage what they can do. They have not only money, but expertise, and they could do a lot more in Medford than they're doing. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_23]: Yes, Andrew Castagnetti. Cushing Street Methodist. Thank you, Councilor, President Isaac Beers. Can you hear me, sir? You can hear me?
[SPEAKER_15]: Isaac Bruce Beers II, if you want to go all the way.
[SPEAKER_23]: Isaac B. Zach Beers. Can you hear me, sir?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead, Mr. Castagnetti.
[SPEAKER_23]: I could barely hear you. Being a Woodstock graduate, I'm all in and I'm for taxing these these nonprofits with their multi-billion dollar endowments, which supposedly they cannot touch, which to me is a bunch of malarkey. On the other hand, have any of you Councilors heard of this entity called Walnut Hill Properties?
[SPEAKER_19]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_23]: Okay. And can you basically tell us what it stands for and who owns it?
[SPEAKER_15]: Walnut Hill Properties is the for-profit arm of Tufts University. They purchase properties, but they are taxed on those properties.
[SPEAKER_23]: That's what I understand. I was at a meeting 20 years ago with Michael McGlynn, and I think he was He was the one that got this forward. This is an entity of Tufts College, and it forces them to when they buy real estate, one family's 10 families doesn't matter to buy it on the Walnut Hill properties. So we don't lose that real estate tax on off the tax tools, which is great. You know, So I don't know how much more tax you're gonna be able to get out of them, you know, with your proposition.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Anything further?
[SPEAKER_23]: No, I wish you luck because we do take care of all the fire department apparatus stuff. Thank you for listening.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. go to Maureen D. on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_09]: Maureen Donovan, 55 Ellsworth Street, Medford, Massachusetts. Just a couple of more points. The first one being that to counter their argument that they provide services to the city, cultural, educational, et cetera, I want to point out that most of those services are are done by or accomplished by students, not the university itself. They put out a program there and such as daycare services, or a fair, or an educational service to the students and community of Somerville and Medford. But the university doesn't really pay for the labor, because it's an expectation of the university that may be part of their culture that students give back. And that's all free labor. I also want to note that, on a second note, that Tufts is like, I hate to use this word, a vulture. And they are out there like vultures hovering over all the properties in the city of Somerville and Medford. And What they do is they go to the owners of these properties and they offer them money beyond what they could get from private enterprise. And so they sell. And then in turn, what happens if Tufts sells a property, which I doubt they ever will, they won't pay a tax to the city of Somerville or Medford for selling over a million dollar property. And I think that's wrong. You expect the residents, hard working residents to do it, but not these non for profits. Oh, and one more thing. I do notice that Mass General Brigham has a few outlier facilities within the city of Medford. And we know from reading articles about the Boston Globe and from hearing it on other media that they just keep reaping in the benefits. and turning it into their own agenda, such as developing their own health insurance, et cetera, et cetera. So I think this is a wonderful opportunity to make these billion dollar entities contribute to our city. Thank you for listening to me.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Go to Roberta Cameron. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_01]: Thank you. I appreciate this resolution and I appreciate all of the discussion that we've heard this evening about it. The one small thing that I wanted to add to the discussion was that in considering the impact of the university, I'm thinking not only of the services, the municipal services that they use, and the students who live in off-campus housing throughout the community, but even more so, I think about the staff and faculty of the university who also need housing in the community. and that providing sufficient affordable housing in any way that the university can contribute to that will really help to serve the university as much as it serves the community. Thank you very much.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Any further comment on the resolution?
[SPEAKER_17]: To the chair, if I can. Sure. If we can have a legal opinion on backgrounds that have political undertone and making sure that we're following, uh, the process of our rules and regulations. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Sure. Um, on the motion. Any further discussion by members of the council members of public on the motion of Vice President Collins to approve seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_21]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[SPEAKER_17]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes. I mean from another negative motion passes. Council vice president Collins.
[SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. President Bears a motion to suspend the rules and take two four zero nine two at order on the motion to spend the rules.
[SPEAKER_15]: Take paper two four zero nine two by vice president Collins. Seconded by Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_19]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, I'm affirming that the motion passes. To the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council of Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, regarding the Community Preservation Committee appropriation request, on behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respectfully request and recommend your Honorable body approve the following recommendation of the Community Preservation Committee. requesting the appropriation of $287,500 from the CPA General Reserve to the Medford Historical Commission for the Thomas Brook Park Phase II restoration. The project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund. The CPC recommendation letter is attached and incorporated. community preservation manager, Teresa Dupont, and Metro Historical Commission co-chair, Ryan Hayward, will be in attendance to address any questions. Thank you for considerations. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn mayor. From the Community Preservation Committee, dear Mr. President, the CPC has submitted one appropriation request for the below project. The intention of this communication is to provide a brief project summary for the benefit of council members. Thomas Brook Park phase two, the CPC has previously recommended and the city council approved funding for the restoration of Thomas Brook Park, a project managed by the Metro Historical Commission. We are pleased that the Historical Commission has utilized the previous funding strategically and expeditiously and is now shifting into their final restoration phase. Thomas Brooke Park is located adjacent to the Medford Brooks Estate and contains the presumed location of the original Brooks House. The Historical Commission is rehabilitating the landscaping to create a functional recreational space while celebrating and preserving Medford's history. A portion of this funding will be spent cleaning up the tree and landscaping debris left over from previous work. The CBC supports this project and voted unanimously to recommend funding with one member abstaining, as they are a member of the Historical Commission. I will go to our Community Preservation Coordinator and the chair of the, vice chair of the Historical Commission, Teresa Dupont and Ryan Hayward. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_25]: Hi, Teresa Dupont, 85 George P. Hassett in Medford. Good evening, councillors. I wanted to first thank you for the time to discuss this request of the Community Preservation Committee. I am joined by Roberta Cameron, chair of the committee, as well as Ryan Hayward, co-chair of the Medford Historical Commission. So as you briefed there before you as an appropriation request to fund the next phase of the Thomas Brooks Park restoration, I want to allow Ryan and Roberta to share their comments as well, but I'll take this opportunity To quickly share that this project has been a multi-phase project that has been previously recommended by the CPC, as well as funded by this honorable body. Um, and some of the goals that have been identified in the phase, I personally think that will be really beneficial to the community as well as the residents of that immediate area, because it's going to bring some really nice amenities in the area. At this time, I guess I'll turn it over to Ryan if you wanted to give any further details on the project. I don't want to steal your thunder.
[SPEAKER_30]: No, I'll just be real quick to summarize and it's Ryan Heyward, 40 Sheridan Ave, Medford MA. So this is a second phase of work for Thomas Brooks Park. The first phase, of course, restoring the stone walls, Pompeii's wall, and conducting an archaeological dig. This next round, we're going to try to go back and continue with the archaeological excavations to confirm some additional findings on that site. We're going to be addressing the tree canopy and deadwood. We're going to put up some signage on the park. All of the openings that we made along the length of the park will receive curb cut adjustments, sidewalks, and striping to allow the pedestrians along the street to access the park. And then there's a little bit of extra funding in there for contingency, knowing how construction projects work. It's a little bit wild these days, and that accounts for the entire project.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you, Ryan. We also have the chair of the community preservation committee, Roberta Cameron. Roberta, if you'd like to share anything additional.
[SPEAKER_01]: Thank you. I just want to thank the council for supporting this park in the past with previous funding for the restoration of the wall and the design. And I'm looking forward to seeing the implementation of the design in this space.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Any questions by members of the council? Council Vice President Collins.
[SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, President Bears. Just want to quickly thank, uh, manager manager DuPont Ryan Roberta for your work on this. I think this is one of those projects in the community, um, where the CPC is really successfully. Leveraged funding over several rounds to get us to this phase of the park improvements. I know this is something that community members, um, that abutters have really been looking forward to. Um, so I would motion for approval after further questions and comment from my fellow councilors, but I'm really excited to see this progressing. Thank you for your hard work.
[SPEAKER_15]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Council Lazzaro. Any further discussion? Any discussion by members of the public in the chamber or on Zoom? Seeing none, on the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor Callahan. Yes. Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro.
[SPEAKER_19]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor Stroud.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor Sagan.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes. I have the affirmative. None negative. Motion passes. Is there a motion to revert to the regular order of business? There's a motion to revert to the regular order of business, seconded by my Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: 24-094 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. It be resolved that the City Council discuss subcommittee processes. Councilor Scarpelli.
[SPEAKER_17]: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, the council president and I did speak. Moving forward, I think that coming to professional opinions that putting in vague resolutions where it comes to discussion, we're going to try to make them more substantive. I think that whenever we do a subcommittee meeting or a regular meeting and we put resolutions in that are open-ended, I can understand that it's a little confusing, and I think that we can work on that. with this process, I think that understanding, it first started with the process with subcommittee that Councilor Leming proposed that with the newsletter. I think that understanding the process where it starts here and to a subcommittee and the subcommittee is the process is then sent to the council floor that we vote on something as a council to support or not support or share openly to the public of any concerns that we have. Has something changed since then?
[SPEAKER_15]: The council could of course authorize a committee to take action if it wanted to do so, but generally final disposition should occur on the council floor.
[SPEAKER_17]: Okay, so, and this is so people understand. I've gotten phone calls and they said, we don't see your names represented on this newsletter. And the issues I said that, well, I'm not, because I think that I had some concerns. And the concerns I had was not the fact that we're getting more information out to the community, but making sure that everybody, that there's equity involved. And we asked for some answers to the communications director, and he gave us some responses that really didn't equate to much, but still we have still yet vetted how we're getting the have-nots, the people that don't have an avenue to get our information. And where is our information going? it's going to the same people, the haves in our community, and they're getting the information that's designed by six members of this council, that I would question whether there is some violations. And I would ask legal counsel to report back to us if this is in violation of, you know, campaigning. And I think because we have six members that are on a slate that are putting out a newsletter that's going directly to an identified group of people that really isn't hitting the whole community.
[SPEAKER_15]: It's going to the same list that all city communications go through.
[SPEAKER_17]: Sure, and I appreciate your opinion, but I think there's some issues that I really want a legal opinion on.
[SPEAKER_15]: By your logic, the mayor's communications would also be campaigning.
[SPEAKER_17]: So we should ask that too. So the key is really just asking these questions and having a set of solicitor, this wouldn't even have been a resolution, just a phone call and say, hey, I have a question. But because we don't do that, I have to bring this forth on the council floor. So I mean, that would be one. The second, which is more, that's really affected this community more than I think my colleagues even thought they could. Because over this past week, there was communication that was signed by my president and my vice president to state delegates about the transfer tax. And it's gone rampant that my fellow colleagues used their titles on a topic that we wanted to send to subcommittee that we have yet to talk about. The communication, the lack of communication, and the lack of putting forth this process of going towards subcommittee, it's something that we found so important to this community that hundreds of people were involved. And the feedback we got back from real people that have been here for years, that actually put this community on the map. I want you to understand, I get phone calls from people that told me, George, if no one's gonna listen to us, and there isn't gonna be the option that Councilor Callahan, they stress, put forth saying, this is just an opportunity to bring this to subcommittee to see what works and what doesn't, to see if we needed, if this is going to, and how we can focus and who we look at. Are we looking at developers? Are we looking at homeowners? Are we looking at seniors? Are we looking at so on and so forth? But we didn't do that. So these members of the community legitimately called me, and this isn't a political ploy or anything, I'm just sharing something. Good Medford people, backbone to this community, that said they decided that something what you think is sort of a political victory has now forced them to move on. And that to me is damaging to our community. It's still dividing our community. Now, don't get me wrong. Everybody knows this is the political process. Six members of this community, this body, ran on a slate, were elected, and they have the decision in the final vote. Everybody has to understand that. So if people come up and wanna be angry and disrespectful and talk negatively and be angry, that's too bad, right? They didn't do what they had to do in November. But what I want you to understand, that these are real issues. These are real issues. And this is what, it's only a 2% tax. I hear that too. It's only this, but we heard it today. We heard it this week. Between the $3 to $6 million focus on getting our roads back to snuff, $3 to $6 million. We're talking about a $250 million new high school. right? We're talking about a rent control. We talked about a 2% transfer tax. We're talking about an override. We're talking about a CPA that the state isn't matching. And from what we see is really, they're not doing their share for affordable housing. So with all this, it's not just 2%. And what that letter says, it's pretty damaging. I don't know if you really thought it out when you signed this on.
[SPEAKER_15]: And that's- I signed the same letter in 2020.
[SPEAKER_17]: That'll bring me to the point where I'll ask for, through the clerk, I'll ask for a legal opinion that using city council titles and the correspondence to the state or other entities that gives the impression the information is offered as an official act of the city council. It specifically didn't, if you read the letter- Well, if that's something that, I'm cliche for you, but you're not my attorney.
[SPEAKER_15]: Councilor Scarpelli, if you read the letter, there's a section that says signed on behalf of the board, and then there's a section that says signed on behalf of the individual. Our names were included in the section that said signed on behalf of the individual.
[SPEAKER_17]: So let me ask the question that we can, Mr. Clerk, through the chair, to ask legal representation if, by using it, no matter what line you put it in, but using your title By using your title, does that constitute what I asked? And if you'd like me to send that to you, I will. But I, Council President, I respect you, but you're not the legal entity of this body. So I want that.
[SPEAKER_15]: Is that a motion to amend the paper?
[SPEAKER_17]: I wouldn't, if we could, I'd like to make that as a motion that we ask for the legal opinion on that.
[SPEAKER_15]: So there's a motion on the floor by Councilor Scarpelli to amend the paper to request a legal opinion on whether city communications are campaign communications and whether the use of city title, the use of titles by city officials, could you, what the use of the titles?
[SPEAKER_17]: So city council titles using correspondence to state or other entities, it gives the impression that the information is offered as an official act of the City Council.
[SPEAKER_15]: Right. Right. Okay. So thank you. I just want to do want to clarify that that letter did not do that.
[SPEAKER_17]: No. Okay. But what I'm saying is you whatever line you put it in individually or not, It's it just doesn't it's it's it doesn't pass the smell test when you sit here and talk to hundreds of people and you express that this is a process that we want to vet it is right. And then we put out and what they what was what was said in that letter. was so damaging that it truly affected neighbors and residents that it's going to affect more than just the 2%, more than what was said, maybe 1% here, 1% there. The talk was 5%, and who would pay for it, and then so on and so forth. So there's a magnitude of issues on that letter that I think that as a body to even sign that, individually or not, it just gives out the look that this body truly doesn't want to listen to the residents. I just want to clarify, what did the letter say? We can read it if you like. I'll send you a copy of it.
[SPEAKER_15]: Okay, I just wanted to see, because the letter that I signed, which I also signed four years ago, and I'm going to go to Councilor, Vice President Collins, then Councilor Collins, and then Councilor Lazzaro. I signed one four years ago, I testified actually in public in favor of the transfer fee February 2020 at the State House, signed the same letter, is requesting the authority to give cities and towns the power to make the decision for themselves. So that's what the letter said, and I'm gonna go to Vice President Collins.
[SPEAKER_17]: So I'm not done yet, I haven't stopped, I'm still continuing to speak.
[SPEAKER_15]: Oh, you're not done.
[SPEAKER_17]: Yeah, no, I'm not done. Okay. No, thank you. So the other issue is that we're talking about, you know, the these communities that are involved in this tenure and this in this transfer tax. And it's surprising to see that these communities and I've reached out to local members of of council and elected bodies in these communities. And I find it amazing that for the most part, most of these communities that have that have signed on to this are vacation communities, communities that have housing for summer rentals. You have a few that you have conquered, possibly Somerville, Arlington, Cambridge, but then the rest are West Tinsbury, Wellfleet, Truro, Tisbury, Provincetown, Oaks Bluff, Nantucket, Edgartown, Amherst, Boston, Brookline, that's Chatham, Chilmark, These are towns that, for the most part, when you say that these towns, there are 17 cities and towns that are supporting this, you're sending out the wrong message. Because the reason those communities are out there is because of the development that goes on. Now, if this council truly said, let's focus on a transfer tax on developers for these properties, it'd be important to discuss it. But with that letter that was just signed on, whether it was two years ago, it was done again this week, that it sends the wrong message. So again, and I'll finish with this. When you look at what is being asked for and what has been discussed by this council over the last two months, and the monies that you're asking for, you're scaring homeowners, homeowners that I think that I don't think you truly understand. A million dollars isn't a lot of money. You raise your eyebrows, but a million dollars for a homeowner in this community isn't isn't a lot of money. And for the people that built these homes to a million dollars, they're hard working blue collar workers. Can you take that off the camera, please? You're talking about homeowners that built for nothing and using their homes for retirement for the most part, at least for the 300 phone calls and emails that I've received. Now, again, this is my opinion as a city councilor moving forward when we get it to subcommittees that we really spell things out so we understand the processes And we're not misleading community members that we're going to wait for the subcommittee that was so intense that we haven't had a meeting. We haven't had a meeting, but then my two fellow leaders, my council leadership here can sign off. And what I think is a violation using the title, but we'll wait for legal opinion. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. And I would note that many Councilors have signed many letters over many years advocating for the things that they care about and always have something to say on an issue.
[SPEAKER_17]: You have a lot to say really not from the chair, my friend.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, you really violations are sir. Violations are the violations of telling the truth. So is that what the truth is? Yes, I'm my obligation as the chair is to state facts.
[SPEAKER_17]: You don't say facts.
[SPEAKER_15]: And I'm incredibly disappointed. I'm disappointed that there are people who would miss our neighbors so that they feel like they need to move. I think that's shame. I'm disappointed. Vice President Collins. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_17]: You're not following your rules.
[SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. I think we should take the temperature down. Just going to pause for a second. Let's take the temperature down. I'll start through the chair to Councilor Scarpelli. I appreciate you're bringing up the process for the newsletter coming out of the resident services and public engagement. Obviously this is our, that committee of which I am not a part is just piloting this process going forward. I agree it would also be more comfortable if that was brought to the floor and disposed of from there. I think that's a great note for going forward. this is a resolution about discussing the city council subcommittee process. And I just want to note that I don't really think it's in the service of giving people proper notice to weigh in on an issue that they care about, or transparency for us to be re-litigating a topic that is in committee, the committee that I chair, under a paper for which it was not brought up. So I don't think that- I'm sorry, I didn't understand that.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, any comments on the transfer fee are out of order. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_31]: I'm going to finish my point. I don't think that we should let this turn into relitigating the transfer fee. We are going to talk about that in committee so that residents and Councilors can be properly noticed about when the substance of that discussion is going to occur and come prepared, having thought about it and speaking about it. Through the chair to Councilor Scarpelli, I hope you know that I sincerely respect you very much. I've always enjoyed working with you, and I respect you enough to want to correct the record when things are being said that I think are a bad faith attack on my character. I think that anybody who's willing to engage in this in good faith knows that there is a difference between me as an individual, using my name and my title to speak as an individual, using my petition, signing a letter in support of something, being crystal clear, it's me as an individual endorsing something. I do that all of the time, on many platforms, on letters, on social media, and individual phone calls with various administrations saying I'm speaking as myself. Every councillor here Every Councilor here has the opportunity to do that. Some exercise it more than others. Everybody in any role has an opportunity to say that, to say, this is the experience that I'm speaking from. I'm not speaking for my constituency, necessarily, when I'm signing a letter saying, I endorse this as a public official. This is concurrent with our public process. We are going to have publicly noticed committee meetings about the real estate transfer fee. At the same time, just like everybody here, I retain the right to say, I as an individual endorse that process. I also want to bring up, well, there's a lot to say about this. I think it's really regrettable that there has been so much consternation about, you know, this is a polarizing issue, and I get that. And maybe that's not even worth regretting, because polarizing issues are always going to be polarizing. And it's how we move on from that that's really important. I really take umbrage with the assertion that having some people in office who are supportive of one thing and other people also in office and also out of office who don't agree and going through that process of friction and tension and talking about it and arguing about it in public session I disagree that that's harmful. And I take umbrage with the fact that being in support of something that doesn't have consensus is harming this community. We are going to talk about this in public session, as we have been doing, until it gets to the time we're going to put it to a vote. And when we put it to a vote, I want to remind everybody, what we put to a vote is simply asking the state for the authority to again meet in public session to deliberate on what we should do as a community. I don't believe that perception is reality, actually. And I think that when people are telling us how something should make us feel, we should follow the money. And I hope that, I know we're gonna continue to talk about these issues in committee, these polarizing issues, these issues that leave many of us feeling extremely passionate. but I think we should all come with our own opinions and a mutual respect and an unwillingness to believe that anybody in the room is out to get the other person. And whoever's telling you that somebody in the room is out to get the other person, they're probably wrong, because we all live here. Thanks.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan, Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President, sorry, Councilor Leming. Councilor Callahan first. I believe I did it.
[SPEAKER_21]: Okay, councillors are.
[SPEAKER_06]: I had raised my hand earlier. It doesn't matter. Councilor Scarpelli, I appreciate you mentioning something about the Resident Services Committee, that you had voiced the same concerns during that meeting, but then you had left the Zoom and didn't hear our responses, but I had offered to bring that paper to the regular meeting. It did not get a second, and it didn't get voted to come to the regular meeting, so it didn't pass. Um, I also offered to, uh, speak with our director of diversity, equity and inclusion, which did that motion did pass. And I spoke with her today about ways that we can best, um, take advantage of her and her expertise and our affinity groups and our different opportunities in the city to make sure that we're taking advantage of all the resources that we have at our disposal to make sure that the newsletter is reaching our residents to the best of our abilities. A few things that she mentioned were I understand the intention of the newsletters to be emailed, but also that we could have paper copies and we can bring them to events. Maybe we can distribute them along with the listening sessions once those are off the ground. Um, and then, um, something director noise I mentioned is, uh, bringing bringing paper copies to things like the Haitian flag ceremony that's coming up May 18th and meeting communities where they already are instead of requesting that folks come to us. Um so that's something that we discussed, but I would intend to But I would also reiterate what Vice President Collins says and hope that we can keep our comments on this to what's on the agenda.
[SPEAKER_05]: Thank you. I have to say, I am trying to understand how we can be discussing the transfer fee when it is not on the agenda. And I implore the chair to limit discussion to what is on the agenda, because people need to be noticed publicly so that everyone knows what is on the agenda and what we are discussing. This can't be a body where you put something completely vague on the agenda. And I have to say, when I read this, I had no idea what was going to be discussed. We have to know, and the public needs to know, what is on the agenda, so that people who are interested in talking about that topic can come.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, I spoke with Councilor Scarpelli about that, and I believe we are amending this to have some substance, but in the future, if there are motions to discuss in a vague way, I probably will rule them out of order.
[SPEAKER_05]: Second, I would like to say back to me.
[SPEAKER_18]: Yes, thank you. I would like to emphasize the point that there was a motion that Councilor Tseng was absent. He was on vacation at the moment. So there are four people of the five committee members of the most recent Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee Councilors Scarpelli through the chair. You let your objections to the newsletter be known, which were you consistently let everybody on this body note since we've been discussing the newsletter. Um. But then at 8 34 PM, you then left the meeting without notifying anybody. And because of that, like I was chair, so I didn't think it was appropriate to second motion from the chair. And obviously, Councilor Callahan disagreed with the motion to send it to the regular, um, to the floor because there was the opinion that the perfect cannot, uh, be good, can't be the enemy of the perfect, whichever way that goes, and that we needed to get a newsletter out in a timely way. If you had decided to stay at the meeting and attend these meetings consistently, we would be debating this at the floor.
[SPEAKER_15]: Councilor, if you could just share your comments with the chair.
[SPEAKER_18]: Apologies. If Councilor Scriabelli had decided to stay at the meeting and hear the rest of the discussion, then we would be voting on the newsletter on the floor right now, and I hope that in the future, resident services and public engagement committees We can do that second. I know that it just in response to some of the discussion about public fear and outrage in response to some of these, I would like to point out that a lot of the more recent concerns and emails that we've been seeing were the result of a text sent around to many other, to most residents in the city, or a huge number of them from the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, which has obviously consistently opposed these measures in other cities. So I think that that should be noted. Thank you. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_17]: Mr. President, if I can.
[SPEAKER_18]: Councilor Callahan.
[SPEAKER_17]: Directly, he used my name, so I would point of personal privilege.
[SPEAKER_15]: I'd like to go to Councilor Callahan, if I may. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_05]: I wanted to just make a comment that it seems that people do misunderstand the subcommittee process. So, since this is what is on the agenda, I would like to discuss the subcommittee process. That is, that when we are going to begin to discuss some piece of legislation, for example, that before we can come in with all the wording ready, set, go, we have to give it a paper number. So we bring it to this body for it to get a paper number so that it can be discussed in committee. That is the way that we do things. And then it will be discussed in committee. Committees are open to the public. They are held right here in this room. any member of the public may come, they may be part just as in city council meetings, they can be part of the discussion where we craft the language together as a community. That may take one committee meeting, it may take more than one committee meeting. It will then, especially if it is an ordinance or some larger piece, it will be required to have three hearings, three readings. here at the city council meeting. So I am somewhat confused as to why what was said that was my description that this was the beginning of a process is being questioned. It is definitely the beginning of a, this is what subcommittee, subcommittee, but committee process is about. You get a paper number, it goes to committee, it gets discussed openly, with the public in committee, that is where language can be drafted, and then it comes to this body, and there are still public hearings in this body.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, every item discussed by the City Council is discussed in multiple public meetings with the participation of the public.
[SPEAKER_17]: So I thank Councilor Callahan. Point taken. Thank you for answering my question. The question I had was the process subcommittee for the newsletter. It got its number. It was vetted. It comes to then the body that we vote on it. And then once it's agreed with the community, a newsletter is then released, correct? That's the process. Was the process followed, Councilor?
[SPEAKER_05]: It was not. It was not.
[SPEAKER_17]: So I appreciate that. And this is what the conversation was. And for what I left, I think I've been very vocal in understanding I do the best I can on Wednesday nights. I've expressed that to the president. I do have another job. As a matter of fact, I have two other jobs. And I do the best I can to stay to every meet at Council Leming. But on Wednesday nights, as Councilor Bears can attest, I do the best I can to stay as long as I can. And to point me out that I left at a certain time, I gave my opinion, and then I had to go close the program. So to that point, I've asked the council president to please look for other evenings other than Wednesday nights, so I can stay at all the meetings. Also, I don't have to miss a meeting, because I missed one. I missed the one prior to this. And then I stayed as long as I could. And I appreciate the discussion that happened after that, but that's common practice. That happens. You've missed meetings. We've missed meetings. We've left meetings. The process I bring this forward on your situation and your resolution is that what Councilor Callahan said is what is an issue. A subcommittee gets a number, we discuss it. Long as it takes, we make a vote to send this to the council. To the council, we then vote and then we act. You didn't do that. You didn't do that, Councilor Bears, through the Chair, to Councilor Leming. You didn't do that. So I appreciate that bringing forward, because it's true, that's what happened. And then to Councilor Collins, through the Chair, to be vague and to be deceiving, not my intention, didn't know how to bring this forward, no different than her first meeting, Councilor Bears, through the Chair, when we talked about, quote unquote, The description of our subcommittee was on what? Home rule petitions, very vague.
[SPEAKER_15]: I can read the full text of that.
[SPEAKER_17]: Very vague home rule petition.
[SPEAKER_15]: So when we saw that, if I could read the full text.
[SPEAKER_31]: Wait, can I interject really quickly?
[SPEAKER_15]: No, hold on a minute.
[SPEAKER_31]: No, Councilor Scarpelli, I didn't mean that you were being deceitful. Yeah, well, I can read the full text.
[SPEAKER_15]: The February 14th Planning and Permitting Committee meeting, 22-310, housing home rule petitions offered by Vice President Bears and Councilor Collins, whereas the city of Medford and greater Boston region are in the midst of a deep housing crisis that is displacing residents and families. and whereas the City of Medford saw a 15% year-over-year increase in average rents from March 2021 to March 2022, and a 5% increase in average rents from February 22 to March 2022, according to WGBH News, and whereas many Medford residents are facing significant rent increase or other methods of displacement from rental units, now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the Housing Subcommittee meet to discuss the potential drafting of home rule petitions on the following policies to protect Medford residents facing housing instability, and a lack of affordable housing options, bullet point rent stabilization, tenant right to purchase, tenant right to counsel, just cause eviction protections, regulation of upfront lease fees, anti-price housing protections, and exemptions for small owner-occupant landlords. Be it further resolved that the housing subcommittee discuss a potential council resolution supporting H1378 and S886, an act enabling local options for tenant protections currently under consideration by the Massachusetts legislature. So it was a pretty specific notice.
[SPEAKER_17]: So when we talk about these concerns and issues, when we talk about subcommittees, and we talk about subcommittees that are in session that we're not talking about, and they're not being they're not being brought forth yet. When the community sees a concern, and they bring it forth to me, and that they're nervous for the fact that the process that they thought was mentioned that evening wasn't followed through. I looked at this as a process to speak on it so they understood the process as we move forward. So as we move forward with the subcommittee process on the transfer tax, understand what phone calls I got, the emails I got, the people that talked to me on the street, So this is done. I said, what is done? No, it's not done. Well, this letter says everything that we fear about, everything that we were nervous about that evening. So to one councilor's point of view, as this being dividing and this is being hurtful, you have hundreds of people that felt that night that they weren't listened to. And then with the delay and not talking about an issue that was a pretty hot topic, and then not being brought forth and then this letter going out publicly, it put people in a different way. So it's my responsibility as a council to try to put this forward so we can discuss it, so we can move forward with it. So if at any time that you say something to me that's hurtful, and I say something to you that's hurtful, we know each other personally to understand that I know you have a job to do, and you're representing people that have come to you directly. That's all I'm doing. And I'm telling you, it is scary to people. It's scary to people that when I, it's not that it is scary people to the point that they are. And that's what I just, you need to share that as part of this lack of subcommittee process. So again, appreciate our talk earlier. I'll make sure moving forward as we move forward with these, our resolutions that I will eliminate discussion and I'll be more detailed for the body. Thank you. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_03]: I just wanted to say really quickly two quick things. I think my name was invoked earlier on to correct the record. I have been trying to make this meeting and the last meeting in person, but I've not been able to because of some academic and professional commitments. I was away for a weekend, but that didn't affect this work. I think in general, it seems like this discussion is getting a little out of hand. I think there are good questions being raised about how we can better communicate how the city council works in the first place. But I think I have to be very honest in saying that before I ran for office and when I was just the viewer of these meetings, that city council, how it worked, I also was confused by it. And I think we need to just do better in general at communicating how we work, regardless of how subcommittees work, of how the general council works. And so I think in the future, we need to create some short guide or some short document, some diagram showing people how these processes work.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you, Councilor Leming, Councilor Callahan.
[SPEAKER_18]: I'd also just like to point out a few things about the process, since this is a resolution to discuss City Council subcommittee processes. So what we're doing in the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee is we have a continuing resolution, which is a resolution to innovate in the City Council's communication processes. And so that basically means that we come up with a number of ideas, one of which is the newsletter. And so in earlier committee meetings, we had motioned and agreed to, as a committee, come up with a schedule by which people draft the newsletter, and then every month have a different city councilor, not necessarily somebody on the committee, if they want to volunteer and have the time to put forward a draft of the newsletter, which would then be edited at a committee meeting. So if there are concerns, I mean, I think that the, Vagueness of resolutions or the specificity with which individual papers say that we're going to, you know, do X, Y or Z in committee is a continuing concern. Obviously, that's been a concern with this with this very agenda. But if it does make, I mean, we obviously can bring forth a another. resolution that more specifically states that we're going to put out a newsletter every month via committee for consideration at the regular meetings. It's just that with communications it is necessary to be timely and get something out there every month because events happen every month and we need to be consistent in our communications and we get criticized for being intransparent. And the newsletter is a way to address that. So it's important to be timely. So thank you very much. And that's all I have. Councilor Callahan.
[SPEAKER_05]: Thanks. So I just want to comment that what I described as the process is for ordinances. It's not necessarily for resolutions. Resolutions don't have to go through three readings. Different things that we pass through this body have different requirements. I certainly was not under the impression that the newsletter had a paper number. Each individual monthly newsletter has its own paper number, and therefore, must come out of committee and then be discussed in this body. I'm happy to do that if that is what we want to do. But I did think that that committee had the ability to pass a newsletter, since it's simply a thing that is happening. I totally appreciate it. I'm very happy to change that understanding of mine and to have those sent to this body. I'm not convinced that that would be a great idea, because I think editing, you know, hundred and fifty word newsletter in the city council meetings does not seem like a super great use of time.
[SPEAKER_15]: I mean, to be honest, it's just like. We're spending a bunch of time talking about a couple of semantic issues. There was a resolution 24-015. Semantics for you. Well, it's semantics in general. But it's 24-015 did not explicitly say that the committee could issue the newsletter itself and therefore the committee should have referred something back to the council. the council could absolutely vote to say this committee shall do X. We keep papers in committee all the time and meet on them multiple times. We just have done it three times in the past two weeks on the city budget. So you are correct. And we have sent out motions from that committee to the administration without them coming before this council. Additionally, we've approved committee reports coming from the committee. So arguably it was approved tonight. So there's a lot of ways that it happens. I think that's why we're talking about Semantics, I think at this point it would probably be helpful if someone were to file a resolution that formally said the committee can do this. But yeah, it's a real good use of our time.
[SPEAKER_17]: That's just so wrong. It's semantics. In what way, Mr. President? in the way that I just described it. Well, it's pretty embarrassing, because for this council, I deserve the respect that when I bring something forward, that it's given back that same respect. And to call it that is out of line. OK.
[SPEAKER_15]: I deserve also the respect that every other council has ever gotten when they sign a letter. You keep talking from the chair. Well, just, you know. Any further discussion on the matter?
[SPEAKER_31]: We should go to public participation or call to question.
[SPEAKER_15]: Great, is there a motion to call to question, or do we want to hear from the, do we want to go to public participation? Any further comments from councilors? Hearing no other motions, name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_11]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Gaston Fierro, 61 Stigney Road. So I thought that this discussion was about processes, same as 24-097, discuss processes dealing with possible homeroom petitions. I read the letter that got signed on April 16th, and that is directly related to subcommittee processes and homeroom petitions. So I just wanted to give my view on on the whole.
[SPEAKER_15]: How is it related to the subcommittee processes, if I may ask?
[SPEAKER_11]: Because we said on the meeting on March 12th that the discussion was to bring the transfer fee to subcommittee for discussion. And then I found this letter signed by the council president and vice president that got sent to the state legislature with a bunch of things. So, um, that's the part that I'm completely confused about, and I can put a little meaning to more detail, and maybe you can answer some of the questions that I have.
[SPEAKER_15]: I think it, um, uh, yeah, I think it would be relevant to the, uh, home rule petitions paper. Um, okay, if that is fine, but I'll Councilor. Will you prefer me to wait? I'm happy to wait. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, President Bears and Gaston. I'm sorry to interrupt you. I do think I was just gonna I think that's more relevant to a resolution that is coming up. I also have a clarification to offer that I think speaks directly to your question about the difference between what's talked about in the letter and the process of the home rule, but we can get to that under the next paper. So, sorry. Yeah, I'm happy to. Thank you for indulging me.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you, I appreciate that. Name and address for the record, please. Good evening.
[SPEAKER_14]: Steve Sinella, 69 Whittier Road. So I've been getting a ton of calls and emails kind of based upon that letter. And I'm kind of one of the person that reached out to George. I'm sure he got a ton of calls that night. I have a petition going kind of that's against the real estate transfer fee, the rent control and the first right of refusal. And, you know, it's ongoing. So we're still building a bunch of people to be able to sign that. But I was kind of holding this for subcommittee and got a lot of calls stating, you know, it looks like the city council's already signed off on this. No, we have not. Okay, well, it's it was taken that way. A lot of people called me and said, I feel like I've not heard. No one's listening. No one cares. You know, there's a lot of people in Medford and there's a lot of people you need to listen to and you're not listening at all. And by you, you guys putting that, you should have probably put it as layman and say that, you know, just Zach Beers is doing this and not the president and the vice president. Um, I think that's a, you know, a big issue, right? So I'd like to drop off this petition. It's the first many, uh, it's about 300. And this was that night that you actually proposed this. We got about 300 people, uh, kind of to sign this. to be against what we're looking to do. So if you could just take that and forward it on and hopefully the subcommittee, and that you can clear up that you didn't put this out as the city of Medford. It's concerning.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, you can deliver the petition to Larry. He will keep it on file. And what happened, there's two things here. So there was a letter written to the state house about a piece of legislation proposed by the governor, the Affordable Homes Act. and specifically a portion of that legislation, which would authorize cities and towns to discuss the implementation of a fee, a real estate transfer fee. As individual city councilors and as the council president and vice president, we signed on to the letter supporting that legislation. That is separate from the in-council proposal for a discussion of a home rule petition and subcommittee. So those are two different things.
[SPEAKER_14]: Okay, I know you're kind of stirring up a bee's nest, more or less, you know, there's a lot of folks that are, you know, starting to get angry about. I hear that. I think we should clarify that, that it wasn't the City of Medford, it was actually just two people putting it out there. Yes, it was the Council President and Vice President.
[SPEAKER_15]: Councilor Callahan.
[SPEAKER_05]: I hope this can be clarifying for people. I think the idea is that we have a discussion as a community about what we would want, whether we want it, what it would look like in terms of a transfer fee. The letter that was signed is for the state to allow us to have that discussion, right? I mean, we can discuss it all we want, but we won't be able to- To give us the authority. To give us the authority, right, to have to, once we've had that discussion, to actually pass something. The idea of like, I think we all want to be able to have that discussion. We've literally not written a single word. We want to have the discussion. And that letter doesn't do anything but try to enable us to be able to have the discussion as a community.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Thank you. I don't think it was taken that way. Point of information. I'm going to go. Yeah. Councilor Scarpelli.
[SPEAKER_17]: We can have that discussion whether it's a letter or not. Please, please explain. That's sending a wrong message. We can have a discussion without sending anything to the state. That's not true. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Right, yes, and that's what we're doing in the committee. I also, as a councillor, signed a letter about something I think the state should let all cities and towns do. This is why people were allowed because you used your titles. That's all. Okay. Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, I'm going to go to Maureen D. on Zoom. Maureen, name and address for the record, please. Maureen, I'm going to ask you to unmute.
[SPEAKER_09]: OK, that's better. My name is Maureen Donovan, and I live at 55 Elkworth Street in Medford. I've been a resident for 34 years. So I have a copy of the letter right here in front of me, and I read it about a half dozen times and made notations with it. And I agree with somewhat everyone's comments, but I take umbrage, to use the vice president's word, to the fact that it didn't follow a subcommittee process, that there was a lack of transparency, that the two members that signed it blindsided more than 50% of their council members, by putting this forward, that it misrepresented the council in general, but even more grievous, it misrepresented the residents of the city of Medford. And I will read to you right here. We write to you as municipal officers and staff who work each and every day to provide livable and affordable housing for our residents to express our enthusiastic support. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the residents of Medford elected this city council. So I think that your mission is to work with the vast majority or popular vote of the city, of the residents in the city of Medford and you didn't represent all of us. You represented two of yourselves on the city council. And I'd like to know how many of the residents of the city of Medford did you represent when you sent this letter to the state house and signed it?
[SPEAKER_15]: And we were representing, as you noted, municipal officers and Councilor Collins and I are two municipal officers.
[SPEAKER_09]: Yes, but the rhetoric or the language in the letter insinuated that you were representing the whole body and the residents of Medford. Can you correct me? Because I have it in black and white in front of me.
[SPEAKER_15]: you look at the signatures on the letter, there's a section for people who are signing on behalf of the body and officers who are signing as individuals, and Vice President Collins and I were signed under the section representing individuals.
[SPEAKER_09]: Well, I respect your individual opinions on this matter, but what I find disrespectful is your lack of transparency and lack of communication with the vast majority of taxpayers in the city of Medford. And I think that's what you really need to look at. There are major issues within our community that get ignored day after day after day. The school department, the infrastructure of the streets and sidewalks, just to name a few. So could someone like to respond to me about that respectfully?
[SPEAKER_15]: The issues we are certainly working on all of those issues we've had, you know, dozens of meetings in the past few months, touching on every subject that you said, but again, you know, we were actually literally as elected officials signing a public letter so that the public would know. our position on the local option transfer fee and the Affordable Homes Act. So as individual Councilors, we were sending a letter to inform the public about our opinion on an issue. The individual Councilors signing on to public statements does not have to go through any sort of council process. So that's how that works. Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro.
[SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. I apologize. I made a motion to call the question, but I just want to interject with one more thing. Like I mentioned, I exercise my right and privilege to add my name to sign on letters at my discretion. Another topic that we talked about earlier in the agenda, the payment in lieu of tax legislation that's being considered by the State House. Last week, I also added my name to a list of signatories separate from the paper that we discussed and dispensed with tonight, I also signed that letter. acting as myself as an individual, signing on as Kit Collins, Vice President of the Medford City Council. And like all the other times that I've done that, the letter was not phrased in such a way as to purport that I was speaking for this council, because I wasn't. I made no assertion of speaking for this council, because I wasn't. I was endorsing it as an individual. Tonight, when we passed that resolution, we chose, through our votes, to endorse it as a council. And I don't disparage anybody for feeling angry or disappointed in me for choosing to advocate for issues that you would rather I not. That is your right. I know that there are many people in the community who disagree with me on that issue and many others, and many who do. And that is your right, and it is absolutely your right and your privilege to say so in these public meetings, however you want to. However, I really do think that we need to correct the record and draw a distinction between an individual official endorsing a policy using their own individual name and saying that this is in some way a breach of our process. They are two separate things. You are well within your rights to say, I disagree with you and I wish you wouldn't advocate for that, but that's not the same thing as us breaking a regulation. And I really will stop speaking on the topic now.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to second the motion.
[SPEAKER_06]: Councilor Lazzaro. I haven't, I don't know what this letter is. It's not on the agenda. I haven't read it and I can't find it online. Can we not talk about the letter anymore? Cause I literally, I don't even know what the letter is. It's not on the agenda and it's not included in the packet. So I don't feel equipped to discuss it. And it's not something that we were supposed to talk about tonight.
[SPEAKER_15]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to call the question seconded by Councilor Lemme.
[SPEAKER_09]: shouldn't all of the city council members be aware of this letter?
[SPEAKER_15]: It's a public letter.
[SPEAKER_09]: Well, then why don't the city council members? Why aren't they aware of it if it's public?
[SPEAKER_15]: Green? I can't I don't know. I don't. I don't know what news people read. I don't know what letters people read. I do not control that. On the motion of Council Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming, to call the question. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_21]: To call the question, yes.
[SPEAKER_28]: Mr. President, can I speak on that first? No.
[SPEAKER_21]: Vice President Collins? Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[SPEAKER_17]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[SPEAKER_17]: No, we have people that want to speak.
[SPEAKER_15]: It's a motion to call the question. It's a motion to call the previous question. It's undebatable. It's a motion to call the previous question. It's undebatable. It's a police order.
[SPEAKER_28]: Did you withdraw it?
[SPEAKER_18]: I said no. There's another item. Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, 60 for everyone. The negative motion passes on the rule for the previous question that's initiates a 15 minute period where Councilors may further debate the calling of the question. Each Councilor can speak for up to, I believe, two minutes. Other councillors would like to speak further on the matter?
[SPEAKER_18]: Councilor Leming. I'd just like to point out that I second the motion because we still have to get to 24097, which actually discusses the home rule petitions. We were still on the subcommittee processes and we hadn't been really discussing that, so that's all I have to say.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Do councillors have any further on this paper? The motion is the motion by Councilor Scarpelli to discuss the City Council subcommittee processes. And also, there were two amendments to the motion. Could you read back the amendments to the motion, Mr. Clerk?
[SPEAKER_21]: To get a legal opinion on whether City Council wants to use the title. What's the legal representation on whether using the title as a City Councilor in a campaign? So the first one is that... And there's also use of titles by city officials that give the impression that something is offered as an official act of counsel. And then there's one about... It was one related to newsletters and whether they were campaigning.
[SPEAKER_17]: Right, the question is for the legal department to ask if a newsletter that's being put forth could be construed as campaigning. But the question the first question is legal opinion using City Council titles and correspondence to the state or other entities that give the impression that the information is offered as an official act of the City Council.
[SPEAKER_15]: Can we further amend that to give the impression to a reasonable person?
[SPEAKER_17]: the legal standard. Mr. President, if I can, I did forward the edification for Council Leming on the 23rd of that evening at 8.23. I didn't have your number readily available, Councilor Leming, so I know that Councilor Villes wasn't in-house that evening.
[SPEAKER_15]: I was not at that point, no.
[SPEAKER_17]: So I thought I was on the assumption you were, so, because I was also sick, so.
[SPEAKER_15]: My apologies for that.
[SPEAKER_17]: No, what I said was, on that text was, hey, Zach, I'm out if you could just, so you could just move the questions quicker, because I have to leave. And that's when I asked about, seeing if we can have any meetings outside of Wednesdays. So, thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. So the rule 23 on the previous question, members must gain the floor part of making such a motion, which Vice President Collins did. A motion must receive a second. It received one by Councilor Leming. All further amendment or debate of the main question shall be suspended until the previous question is decided. On the previous question, non-exceeding 15 minutes shall be allowed for debate, which shall be confined to giving reasons why the main question should not be put to an immediate vote. And no member shall speak for more than two minutes after such debate. A majority vote shall be sufficient to end debate on the main question and require an immediate vote. Is there any further debate on why the previous question should not be put on paper 24-094? Councilor Callahan. It's not debate on the merits of the main question. It's debates on why we should continue debate. Thank you. Any further discussion on why we should continue debate? Seeing none, on the motion on the main question on the paper proposed by Councilor Scarpelli as amended by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Is there a second on the main paper? Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor Callahan? No. Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro?
[SPEAKER_06]: No.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor Lemike?
[SPEAKER_17]: No.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[SPEAKER_17]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor Tseng?
[SPEAKER_17]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: President Ferris.
[SPEAKER_15]: No, three in the affirmative, four in the negative, the motion fails. 24-096, resolution offered by Councilor Scarpelli, resolution that the City Council finalize dates for a walking tour of all firehouses in the city. Be it resolved that the City Council finalize dates for a walking tour to all firehouses in the city.
[SPEAKER_28]: Mr. Chairman.
[SPEAKER_15]: I believe we have reached. Mr. Chairman. Excuse me, thank you.
[SPEAKER_17]: Mr. Pente, you could speak at public participation, that's all.
[SPEAKER_15]: I wanted to speak on that. The home rule petition is the next paper. I believe we have a date for this. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_20]: Any further discussion?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes. Everybody tried, I believe at least four of us will be able to attend the 18th at 1030. Any further discussion? Do you want to vote on it or do you want to withdraw it? Yep. On the motion, on the withdrawal, the motion is withdrawn, 24-096. 24-097, be it resolved, the City Council discuss processes dealing with possible home rule petitions. Councilor Scarpelli.
[SPEAKER_17]: where our leadership moving forward, where the mayor stands on this and getting her more involved as we discuss the processes. So the process for a home rule petition is this council would discuss it, any issue, then it would be voted. If it's voted through, it would then go to the mayor's office and the mayor would then have the option to veto it or move it through. And then it would go to the state house, correct?
[SPEAKER_15]: I believe, actually, that if the mayor chooses not to submit it, that the council cannot overrule her.
[SPEAKER_17]: Oh, is that true?
[SPEAKER_15]: I believe so, yes.
[SPEAKER_17]: Because the other question was that if it came back to the council, we could do vote on overruling her decision.
[SPEAKER_15]: So we sent 6-1 last year, the home rule petitions on the budget and the charter ballot questions. Those were sent to her 6-1. She did not return them and she did not submit them. There is no legal requirement under state law, according to the meetings we had with council about that for her to return it to us. And we cannot override her decision.
[SPEAKER_17]: And this is the process just sort of to be to be informed. Maybe I'll explain a little bit better. So as this process goes on, we start talking about different home petitions. The question also falls in not just in the council, but what the process is with the mayor's office and then with the state delegates and then moving forward. So I appreciate that.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, thank you. And I think, yeah, just to go into it just a little more. Any Councilor could put a resolution on the agenda to request that this council as a collective body submit a home rule petition to the legislature requesting that the city have the authority to do something that it currently does not have the authority to do. For example, we've submitted a home rule petition to ask Tufts to do the institutional master plan. A charter change would be a home rule petition. The transfer fee was a home rule petition. So that's this body acting collectively to request that state allowed the body to take an action, authorized the city to take action. Many home rule petitions have been granted, and there are many special acts that apply to the city of Medford. But as Councilor Scarpelli noted, a councillor would propose that it would be on a regular meeting agenda. Um, that could be referred to a committee as the charter ballot questions were last year. Um, those were then, uh, discussed in committee, referred back to the regular council. The council voted to send them by a 6 to 1 vote. The mayor decided not to send them to the statehouse, and therefore they died at that point. Um, if the mayor had sent them to the statehouse, then the state house would consider the petitions. Technically, they would be entered in by our representatives and senator into the general court as a piece of legislation. Then that piece of legislation would have to pass through the state house and the state senate and be signed by the governor, at which point the law, there would be a law of the state of Massachusetts, and that law would say that the city of Medford is authorized to do X. So that is the process. Any discussion by members of the council on the process for a home rule petition? Seeing none, discussion by members of the public. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_28]: Robert Pinto, Zero Summit Road in Medford, Mass. Regarding the public letter that was written on April 16th regarding House Bill, I believe it's 3128, the Affordable Home Act. In that particular bill, There were transfers fees also that could be beneficial to a community that were discussed. And there was seven inclusions as it related what you could and could not do, which also had an opt-in and an opt-out proviso in that bill. But I'd like to, to you, Mr. Chairman, I want to get to your letter of April 28, where you sent out a notice saying, correcting the record on Medved's plans to address the housing crisis. And two particular paragraphs were sort of like, watch me. The first, the first one states the following. The City Council and the City Planning staff are working on zoning rebuild reforms to allow more housing to be built, reduce permitting and regulatory burdens for private property owners, encouraging major economic development, and require construction of more subsidize affordable housing units. We are also working on policies to benefit good landlords like the Good Landlord Tax Credit. And the second paragraph reads, the final piece of that comprehensive approach is anti-disbursement policies targeted at the large corporations who are buying properties, jacking up rents, and earning a huge profit by knocking out long-time residents and making unnaturally affordable units too expensive for the average person. I understand what you wrote, but I don't understand who these large corporations that are coming in here into the city of Medford and they're dispersing people. I see houses that are bought by individuals who had an opportunity to buy a single family or two family house as an individual, but not as a corporation. And you sent this out apparently because you wanted to allegedly, you know, correct something that was sent out. But if I were to see this as I did see it, I'm confused right now because I don't know of any major large corporations that have come in to the city of Medford and bought single or two family homes. either tore them down, rebuilt them, and sold them for large profit. I know individual people have done it. But when you say large corporations, it makes it look like this city is now being overrun by large corporations. And if you're going to address that through your zoning and your community development, The wording is very important. And this type of wording makes it look like corporate America has just taken over the city of Medford, making it unaffordable for people to live here. And that's not fair. You also have the opportunity of a business person or a business lady who may be able to come in here, can afford to buy a single or two or a three family house, do it over, and if they can make a profit, so be it. If the city really wants to get into affordable housing and low and moderate income housing, They've had the last eight years to talk about this and do something. And if they're not going to do it, then maybe it should be on the burden of the city council. And maybe you just you guys and girls, you just voted tonight on a CPA to give more money out, maybe to a place in the Brooks Estates. But put that aside. If you're really concerned and really serious about affordable housing, you should start putting all your pennies together on all your nickels and all your dimes and all your resources where the money can come in. and really have a second look. You know, when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I think it's could be almost 12-13 years ago, came out with the CPA tax, we were supposed to, like other cities and towns, get a percentage of what the profit was on the state's annual profit. We haven't gotten anything. So you're really putting the burden right back on the Medford taxpayer, or the Medford city government to go forward and look for that type of development, look for that type of money. Well, here's your chance. Before you get into the, you know, Worcester just got through passing, I don't know if you folks realize it, they just got through passing on April 29th, March 9th of this year. The registry as it relates to single and two family and three family homes. They had that, they voted on that in September of 2022. And it took them two years before they implemented it. They are now meeting in their next main meeting to make revisions to it because of the pushback, because there's a lot of stringent material into that registry. But the best part about the whole thing, as the city manager said, he's willing to make changes and tone it down. Can you imagine having, if you don't go and register, you're gonna get a $300 fine, and every single day you don't register, it's a $300 fine? That's kind of excessive, really excessive. I mean, you don't wanna go to these extremes. And what you do wanna, if you really believe in what you're talking about, you wanna have a full-blown discussions with the pros and the cons, and how this thing can or cannot work, and how does it fit into the city of Medford's lifestyle. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I do not see large corporations coming into our city in Medford, street after street, buying and taking over real estate, turning it over and making a huge profit. If a single person, be it yourself or any member of the council, has the ability to do it, good luck to you. That's what America is all about. If you're trying to reduce the rents, you're trying to reduce the cost of living, trying to reduce everything else, then speak to your state legislature, speak to your federal authorities. They're the ones that should be looking out for you, just as well as your local authorities.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you, Mr. Penta.
[SPEAKER_28]: You're welcome.
[SPEAKER_15]: We go to Sharon on zoom name and address record, please. Sharon DSL on zoom name and address.
[SPEAKER_20]: Sharon on zoom.
[SPEAKER_08]: Good evening, everyone. This is Sharon DSO. I hope you can hear me clearly. I would be there in person. Thank you. Sharon DSO, I hope you can hear me clearly. I would be there in person. I would gladly be there in person. But I had a long day in the dentist chair today. I wanted to make a comment briefly by that woman who spoke a little while ago. Her last initial is also a D. Someone at the city council mentioned earlier that they gladly signed with their name the letter recently going to the state house, meaning our residents, and they went to a local college. Well, to the best of my knowledge, ladies and gentlemen, I teach literature in composition. Our residents, like our children, means each and every one. No, not each and every one of us were represented in that letter by consent. But moving on to something a little bit more important. I'm on the same line with Mr. Penta. This issue, First, how many people last year applied to affordable housing? How many people have been in stress or in waiting on the list? We should have this meeting in conjunction with the head of housing of Medford. This is a very bold move, I feel, and may seem slight to you. However, I think it's a domino effect and it affects many, many homeowners and people who may be transient and have to move after a short stay here. And however, like the realtors mentioned too, it affects them. There are many additives in this domino effect. This should be shoved right out of the council tonight. It should be reworded also that that paper should be retracted from the state house stating representing our residents. And I also thank you for your time. And I'm hoping we don't see this issue for a very long time until we see numbers, figures, and directors of affordable housing in this city. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: In address for record, please.
[SPEAKER_11]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Gaston Fiore, 61 Stigny Road. And I'm just very concerned about the processes, as I said. So I just wrote the following, which are just facts. And I would like to engage at the end if there are any questions. So let's start with what has been said. During the city council meeting on March 12th, some city councilors said the following. Councilor Leming said, quote, another quote, Vice President Collins said, quote, as Councilor Leming said, what's before us tonight is whether we want to have the conversation about how to tailor this tool to dedicate a small percentage of only the highest ticket real estate transactions towards the most underinvested in housing in our community, end quote. Another quote, I want to be clear. If we vote this into committee tonight, then we can and we will get into the weeds. With the community, we can discuss how to tailor this to affect the appropriate type of highest value sales just to capture a small percentage of huge value increases that have come into this region, end quote. Councilor Callahan said, quote, we literally don't have a single word written about what kind of transfer fee we would do because we can't until we get a number and we send it to committee. And this is going to take months because we're going to take a lot of input from the committee, end quote. Another quote, I know way too much about state politics. I can tell you that of any communities that have passed a real estate transfer fee, as with many other housing related issues, the state does not approve them. So what is going to happen is, we're lucky enough to pass anything that is related to a real estate transfer fee, it will not be approved by the state. The only thing likely to come out through the state is what is going to be very similar to Governor Healey's proposition. Governor Healey's proposition, just so you know, is 1% on either side. Nothing will affect anyone who sells a house for less than a million dollars, and the only tax is on what is over a million dollars. So if you sell your house for 1.1 million dollars, the total tax for you is $1,000. So you know, I hope I can assuage some people's fears, and I really hope we can have a respectful discussion tonight, and that you can all participate in our many months long discussion that we hopefully will be about to begin, that will happen in perfectly open meetings, which we'll invite you all to come to. end quote. Now, let's turn to what has been done, not said, done. On April 16th, City Council President Bears and Vice President Collins signed a letter addressed to the state's legislature in support of the provisions to enable local option transfer fees in Governor Healey's H4138, the Affordable Homes Act. The letter urged state legislators to pay particular attention to the inclusion of several components, including a provision to allow municipalities to apply fees to the full amount of transactions. I repeat, to apply fees to the full amount of transactions. So I ask, How did we arrive at just a chasm between what has been said to us in the city council meeting and what has been signed and sent to state legislatures? How did we get from wanting to discuss every single detail regarding a possible implementation of a transfer fee to already signing a letter to the state legislature in support of such fees? How did we get from wanting to target only the highest value real estate transactions to sign in a letter in support of allowing the fee to apply to the full amount of transactions? How did we get from saying that we shouldn't have fear because any real estate transfer fee that passes the city council will not be approved by the state to sign in a letter to lobby the state to allow such transfer fees? I do certainly know one thing, though. I personally lost all trust that I had in most members of this city council.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you. I'm happy to respond. I think a few things are being conflated. So what we were talking about on March 12th was a home rule petition for this city council to craft a request to the state to allow Just Medford to implement a real estate transfer fee. You were quoting me and saying, those things don't pass. I completely agree with that. It was it was Anna. I thought it was me. So sorry. I basically think the same thing. If we were to have the committee meeting on the Home Rule petition, we were to report it out of committee, the mayor were to send it to the legislature, but probably go in the same place that the other 18 Home Rule petitions have gone, which is the trash bin. Separately, there's three things at play here. There's the home rule petition by the city council and the mayor to request permission for the city to do something. There's the legislation that is at the state house, which would authorize all cities and towns to implement something. And then there's what ordinance we would actually pass in the city. I support local control on this issue. I think that the state should give cities and towns, all of them the permission, including what was in that letter, to implement whatever transfer fee those cities and towns want to implement. I don't think that my position on what we should implement in Medford should constrain what the people of Nantucket want to implement in Nantucket. So I support a broad local option allowing cities and towns to do something that they want to do. And I don't think that we should impose our conditions and our politics on other communities. And I think that all communities should have the local control on this issue. What you quoted at the beginning is what all of us said, we would be comfortable passing in Medford. which is high-end transactions targeted at the high-end real estate. So there's three pieces. I support a broad local option for all cities and towns to implement a transfer fee. That's different because I believe cities and towns need a lot more authority because the state constrains our authority to do basically anything, so we aren't able to address the problems that people have. That's entirely different from what ordinance on a transfer fee I think Medford should pass if we were given that authority. So those are the three pieces, and I hope that clarifies my position on the issue.
[SPEAKER_11]: So my view on that is that let's assume that, you know, I oppose, I'm against theft, right? And I think theft should be, I'm talking in general, it could be something else like murder or something, I don't know, putting an example. I think theft should be illegal. So I'm not gonna, you know, sign a letter where I'm saying like, well, you know what, I actually, I'm against theft, but I'm gonna let it, I'm gonna let every city decide for themselves whether I want theft, whether they want theft to be illegal or not. No, I won't. I am against theft and I think theft should be illegal. So why do you support a letter in your capacity as an individual to apply the transfer fee to the full amount of transactions? Like, so if I basically don't think that a transfer fee should apply to the full amount of transactions, I don't think it should apply anywhere.
[SPEAKER_15]: I don't want someone... I just think it shouldn't apply in Mexico. I just think that the full amount should not be here in Medford. I don't think that I should impose my opinion on the people of another city. So that's my position. I support local control for communities, and I also have specific opinions about what I believe Medford should implement.
[SPEAKER_11]: Okay, I respect your opinion. I just think that, again, if someone opposes something, then it's based on conviction, and then that shouldn't apply anywhere else.
[SPEAKER_15]: And I have two convictions. One is local control, and one is what the ordinance should look like in the city. That's fine. Thank you. Vice President Collins, since you also signed the letter.
[SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, President Barras. Thank you for speaking to this. And again, this is similar to what I said before, but I again want to reinforce, I know that you disagree with, I'm sorry, through the chair, I know that many constituents disagree with me about my opinion on the transfer fee, the Home Rule petition, the Affordable Homes Act, which are again, two separate, totally separate processes about the same topic. That's your right, completely respect that. I know that there's a lot that we disagree on and a lot that we agree on. But the thing that I really think is important to reinforce is that we are talking about two different things. We are all endowed with the right to endorse a piece of state-level legislation. I think we've probably all done that at different times. And there's a separate process. Or oppose. Or oppose. And there is a separate process by which we come together as a city council in committee meetings to collectively, in public session, craft what we are actually putting forward to the state house to say, the majority of city councilors voted for this, that we would like for you to put forward as state legislation. And I hope that, I'm trying to find the words to make this more clear, because I understand that it's confusing for a lot of people, that the Affordable Homes Act, which is a massive housing bond bill that also includes a proposal for a local option for real estate transfer fee, encounters the same topic as our proposed real estate transfer fee home rule petition that is currently in the permitting and planning committee. I understand that those are easy to conflate because there's that Venn diagram overlap. And I just want to reinforce for people who are not as deeply intimate with this issue as all of us behind the rail are and the people who most frequently show up to the public meetings, I just want to make it crystal clear that these are two separate processes. They're related by topic. They're two separate processes, and I just think that's really important to make clear. And if I may, while I have the floor, as we're talking about the processes with possible home rule petitions, I think the most important part of this conversation already happened, which is how do these actually happen? What's the process? City Council goes to the mayor. They could full stop at the mayor. If they don't, they go to the delegation. They get put forward as a legislation. I don't like to talk about this often because I think that we should do them anyway, but yeah, I have no optimism that the Home Rule petition that we may or may not craft here in Medford City Council will become law because traditionally they don't. I've been a member of home, I've been a participant in home rule petition efforts in my first term on the Medford City Council. Did any of them become law or get even close? No, absolutely not. But, you know, to use the words of somebody who spoke just earlier, I don't think that this is a slight issue at all, the housing crisis. I think that it's a major issue. And that's why I think that's it. That's why I think it's so important that we have the conversation with every mechanism possible, including lobbying for state-level legislation, as well as having the conversation about if we should lobby for this, essentially, with a home rule petition, because the issue of displacement and housing unaffordability is so large and so rampant in Medford that I really think it's worth having that conversation anyway. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: And I would note that we voted seven to zero on the pilot legislation. which is getting wiped out every session. Because we think it's a good idea, even though we don't have confidence that the State House will actually approve the legislation. Councilor Callahan. Sorry, Councilor Lemmie, Councilor- yeah, my bad. We usually have a button and it would show me a list. So, we're getting that back.
[SPEAKER_18]: No, when I've chaired meetings before, I've definitely like not noticed like which side of my or you just picked the hand that went up last. No, so just to be a bit more clear about the practicalities of this. So if the Affordable Homes Act does end up including a provision for us to implement a local option for a real estate transfer fee, the home rule petition proposal in Medford would be moot. There just wouldn't really be any point in filing that because we would then have, we would then have it by default what the state gives us. So we would likely have to file another resolution into a regular meeting in that case and just drop the Home Rule petition if we do get it from the Affordable Homes Act. So hopefully that just clarifies sort of what the process looks like because The 18 Home Rule petitions that have been filed, if you actually go and read them, and they're all on the State House website, they're all kind of slightly different and they're a little bit, they just have very different provisions depending on what individual city councils discussed at any given time. And so if the Affordable Homes Act is passed, all of those would probably just be rejected. outright officially because then, you know, everybody would have what the state gave them. That being said, just to, again, repeat what my colleagues have already stated, there is a definite point in filing these. The fact that 18 other communities all filed Home Rule petitions very likely is telling the State House that affordable housing is an issue, and all of that effort by local legislators then led up to what Governor Healey's proposing with the Affordable Homes Act. So the relationship between local and state politics is often a bit of a black box, but yeah.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[SPEAKER_05]: Thank you, through the chair. I understand that many constituents oppose a real estate transfer fee and that know to make an analogy with theft makes it makes it seem like something of conviction uh for or against something i think a much better analogy is a minimum wage law so in california and other states cities can pass any kind of minimum wage law they want to in massachusetts we cannot um i would sign a something at the state level saying please allow any city or town in Massachusetts to pass any minimum wage that they deem necessary in their own city. But that doesn't mean that I would want an infinity minimum wage in Medford, right? So you vote, you push for the state to enable you, it's called enabling legislation, to enable you to pass the laws that are correct for your community. And then within your community, you have the discussion about what would be the right minimum wage for Medford? And that is the question that we are having, which is, you know, we are about to begin a long discussion, including the public, about what kind of real estate transfer fee might be the right one for Medford. But that doesn't mean that individual sitting elected officials who also, by the way, have websites that declare that they, you know, people run on issues. You know, there are things that are on my website that are issues that I support and I ran on those issues. I told people when I was running that I would support those issues. That is why I got elected, because those things were on my website at that time. And as city councilors and other elected officials to sign in support of the state, allowing communities to make whatever decision they want doesn't mean that you know, I'm gonna support a $500 minimum wage in Medford, even if I think that any community should be able to have any kind of minimum wage they want. So I just think that that analogy-wise, it's a better analogy that we want the state to allow us to make those decisions.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yep. Any further comment by members of the council? We have Martha Andres on Zoom. Martha, name and address for the record, please. Martha, for some reason we can't hear you. You're unmuted, but we can't hear you. Could someone check with Shane? We still can't hear you.
[SPEAKER_18]: Justin, can you try saying something? Can you hear me?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yep, we can hear you. Martha, it looks like there might be an issue with your microphone. You may need to join audio or reset your microphone. In the meantime, I will go to the podium. Eileen Lerner, name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_26]: My name is Eileen Lerner and I live at 9 Adams Circle. And I'm a part of Medford too, even though I've only lived here 10 years, I'm part of Medford too. And Medford has changed a great deal. There are great many people who support the Councilors right here. And that has to be accepted. You can't say that they don't represent us. We voted for them. We approve of them. We love them. They're doing what we want them to do. We need affordable housing in this city. I've had friends who have been so in despair because they can't find a plumber, they can't find an electrician. And if those kinds of people have to come from New Hampshire, to serve us, they're going to charge us a lot more money than they would if they lived in Medford, you know. So one way or another, we're going to be paying for the lack of economic diversity in this city. We have to find a way to discuss it. And we need to have all the things on the table and to try to figure out what's best for Medford and stop attacking our Councilors that we voted for by a large majority. they represent Medford. Now, there may be people that feel that they're unrepresented. Well, I'm sorry about that. But sometimes things change. People's ideas about things change. What people want changes. So, You know, you can't ignore the people that voted for this council. You cannot ignore them and say that real Medford wants everything in opposition to what these people want. That is not true. There are a great many people who just support them. And I join with those people to support all of you. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_19]: speaker, I appreciate you coming up to the podium.
[SPEAKER_21]: Like I said, it doesn't matter what he says, the vote's the vote.
[SPEAKER_17]: That's what this process is. The questions that the constituents that reached out to me were with the process, because I believe this council There is an issue with affordable housing. But it's how we're getting there. It's just a philosophical difference. I think that our administration has done a terrible job using their responsibilities and their powers to bring affordable housing. I think they've done a terrible job over the last five years. Terrible. colleagues. So as the Councilors that want to pay for it, they have to look at what you've got right here.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Let's go back to Martha. Let's try this again. Martha, name and address for the record, please. We still can't hear you, Martha. There is a phone call in on the agenda if you want to try to call in by phone and we could recognize you if you go to the agenda on the city website or on our agenda and meeting portal, but we can't hear you right now.
[SPEAKER_18]: Martha, you could also try to click on the little arrow next to the microphone button. It could be that your input is wrong. So sometimes Zoom selects a different input than what's the default on your computer. So that could be the issue.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thanks. Martha, we'll try to come back to you again. I'm going to go to Bill on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_27]: Hi, Bill Giglio, Winthrop Street. Can we get just a quick comment? Can we stop calling this a fee? What it really is is the tax or basically staling from homeowners. That's pretty much all it is. It's not a fee. You know, we're not getting anything from it. You know, we have to give. So it's actually staling from a homeowner, to be honest with you. But it's not a fee. It's either you can either call it a tax or a high fee. That's all.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Martha, you want to try again? You're still unmuted. Go back to the podium, Gaston, and if you don't mind, we're on the second round. If we could just keep it a little shorter, but yeah, thank you.
[SPEAKER_11]: I just want to clarify, I mean, I've said this several times, like, I understand that there's a housing affordability issue. I've said this like several, several times, so I'm not against affordable housing. That would be ridiculous. So I don't want to be portrayed as because I oppose a transfer fee or tax, that I'm against affordable housing. I support affordable housing. The problem, as I've said also before, is that imposing a sales tax on real estate transactions is not going to lower housing prices. In fact, it will do the opposite, resulting in setting higher prices. The tax might generate revenue for affordable housing, which is a different thing, but it will also make entering the housing market more expensive for average buyers. This is easy to understand. When an X percent sales tax is imposed on real estate transactions, the direct effect is that buyers will need to pay an additional X percent of the transaction cost. If housing demand remains constant, which we will, or if supply constraints exist, which will keep existing, then sellers have less incentive to lower the prices, leading generally to higher overall costs in the housing market for buyers. Even if the government forces a sales tax to be imposed on sellers, which was part of that letter too, The sellers may increase the sales price to offset the tax cost indirectly passing this expense to buyers. Thus, the interaction with sales tax increases the financial burden on buyers rather than decreasing housing costs. And to conclude, to address the housing affordability problem effectively, which I support, The focus should be on increasing the supply of housing rather than manipulating market prices through taxation. This can be achieved by reducing regulatory barriers that constrain development of new housing units such as zoning laws and lengthy permit processes, encouraging the development of more housing through deregulation with increased supply leading to lower prices through natural market competition. This approach not only fosters economic efficiency but also enhances consumer choice. I'm in favor of affordable housing. I'm not in favor of the particular non-solution to affordable housing that you're proposing.
[SPEAKER_15]: Don't you agree that they're, depending on the structure of the transfer fee and what the threshold was and what the number of units would have applied to, therefore restricting the parcels and structures that would be considered, there could be substitution effects that would change the who would be the buyer, and that that may be a preferential outcome for the city?
[SPEAKER_11]: I think that that's more dictated to the market. I see.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_11]: Sorry, go ahead. Oh, sorry. I think that would be more dictated by the particular market that we are dealing with. So if it's a seller's market, it will actually be passed to the buyer. And if it's like a market where, you know, basically it's a buyer's market, then that might be passed to the seller. But yeah, I disagree with that.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, I get it. You just used the word average buyer. And if we're talking about corporate transactions.
[SPEAKER_11]: Corporate transactions?
[SPEAKER_15]: If we're talking about large buyers, those would not be the average buyer.
[SPEAKER_11]: No, no, no. So I'm assuming that, well, okay. So if we're gonna talk about specific, we can discuss them. We probably should have.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, you're right. Yes, Councilor Kelly and then Council Vice President Collins.
[SPEAKER_05]: I would like to remind everyone that we are discussing the process dealing with possible home rule petitions. It is very important to me that comments made by constituents who are knowledgeable, who should be heard from, and comments made by members of this committee who also are knowledgeable and who should be heard from, all of those comments should be heard by the public at a meeting where they know that this is going to be discussed.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, I do not have the authority under the Supreme Judicial Court to police the content at the podium, and I also have a simultaneous duty as the chair to state facts. So sometimes that will be in dispute with the principle you just said, but I generally agree with the principle that you just stated. Vice President Collins.
[SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, President Bears and Councilor Callahan. I appreciate you refocusing us on the actual text of our discussion. So I just want to make one further comment, and then I will the question again, I guess, though I feel more confused about the meaning of that motion than I did a half hour ago. But I think that we've had a robust discussion on this topic. But in terms of the, I think, the most important part of our discussion about the processes of dealing with possible home rule petitions is just the technical process, like the universe of what can happen with home rule petitions, which we already talked about. But just as speaking about these home rule petitions in particular, as the chair of the planning and permitting committee, which they are both assigned to, in terms of what residents can expect from these home rule petitions in particular, and because the issue of, and because the concept of what else are we doing about affordable housing just got brought up. I agree, I certainly would never assume that people who don't happen to endorse the idea of a real estate transfer fee are not proponents of increasing affordable housing. Most of politics is just disagreeing over the tactics and not the outcomes or goals. And to that end, my expectation as chair of the committee in which a lot of these affordable housing conversations are going on is that we have, this is also the committee in which we are discussing our slate of major comprehensive amendments to our zoning code. And that gets brought up a lot. People talk about making it easier for developers to build in Medford both to increase our commercial tax base, to make it easier to add new high quality residential units. We are going to lay the conditions for that to happen through updating our zoning code. Speaking as the chair of the committee, that is my priority. This is something that this council has been working on, I know, for at least two terms, which means one term longer than I've been a part of the council. pivotal work that we are going to be doing on this committee, that's my priority. I don't expect to take up these formal petitions until the fall because we have a budget to pass in May and in June, and we have a lot of work to get through with our zoning consultant, which this council fought for, for, I'm gonna say, at least three calendar years. I think we're so serious about the issue of housing affordability that when we say every tool in the toolbox, we really mean it. We're going to talk about zoning that will make it easier to develop commercially and residentially in Medford. We're going to talk about ADUs, which I know are really important, you know, kind of on the minds of many Medford residents. And we're also going to talk about home rule petitions, but the work that is squarely within our jurisdiction, zoning, as chair, I'm always going to prioritize that. And so in terms of the process, in terms of the timeline that people can expect, I just want to, I want, I feel like, I thought this was a, a topical time to bring that up, both in terms of the timing that people can expect these to go over and also to just kind of recontextualize these formal petitions with everything else that this council is prioritizing to do with the outcome of increasing affordable housing in Medford and also increasing the commercial development that will expand our resources to support our residents and all manner of other infrastructural and constituent services project.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council? Approve what?
[SPEAKER_31]: Just on the motion to receive and place on file.
[SPEAKER_15]: On the motion to receive and place on file by Councilor Collins, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. Did you amend it to report it out or it's just we discussed it? We discussed it. Got it, okay. Sorry, I just wanted to make sure we didn't have anything that needed to go out.
[SPEAKER_21]: Mr. Kirk, please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative. The motion is received and placed on file. President Barrett? Yes, Vice President Collins.
[SPEAKER_31]: I would make a motion to join and approve the food truck permits. That's papers 24-086 through 24-091. I heard that, George. Now I'm mad. It's all over now.
[SPEAKER_15]: on the motion of Vice President Collins to join papers 24-086, 24087, 24088, 24089, 24090, and 24091 and approve. And I'll just read those. These are requests for Hormel Stadium food trucks, requests for a food truck permit for Penny Packers, May 4th at Hormel Stadium. They are fantastic. I'm sure the rest of them are, but I know that one. Food truck permit for Trolley Dogs, May 17th, 2024 at Hormel Stadium. Food Truck Permit for Planning with a Scorpio, May 26, 2024 at Hormel Stadium. Food Truck Permit for Work Hard, Eat Good, June 2, 2024 at Hormel Stadium. Food Truck Permit for Bocadillos, June 28, 2024 at Hormel Stadium. And Food Truck Permit for Hungry Nomads, June 22, 2024 at Nomad Stadium. Mr. Clerk, could you let me know, is this related to the Boston Glory, the Frisbee team that's playing at Hormel Stadium? It most certainly is, and the clerk loves it. He would like to be requested to throw out the first toss.
[SPEAKER_21]: Apparently, the PDS director has already thrown out the first toss.
[SPEAKER_15]: I know. Has already done the first toss. Add a great slight to the clerk and this council.
[SPEAKER_21]: No slight whatsoever to the clerk. There we go. The clerk will be attending many of these matches, however.
[SPEAKER_15]: On the motion to join and approve by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor Calderon? Yes. Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro?
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes. Councilor Levee?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor Stroud-Kelley? Yes. Councilor Sanchez? Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes. 70 in favor, none negative, motion passes. We have two things in unfinished business. Council Vice President Collins.
[SPEAKER_31]: Motion to take from the table 22-494, the budget ordinance for third reading, and to take from the table 24-080, the supervisor of water and sewer personnel ordinance.
[SPEAKER_15]: On the second one. Got it. So on the motion of Vice President Collins to take papers 22-494 and 2224080 off the table. Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_21]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[SPEAKER_19]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: I mean, from the negative.
[SPEAKER_15]: They're taking off the table. 22-494 is the button budget ordinance first in City Council after I believe six or seven committee meetings at which it was duly debated, discussed in public for an incredibly long this is a budget that was proposed in, uh, 12 months. Um 2 to 494 initially proposed in 2022. Um this budget ordinance we are now following for this year. It codifies into law, a process by which the council and the mayor's office will collaborate on the budget. We have been having preliminary budget meetings much earlier than we have in the past, and we are hearing from our and we have now had some timely financial reporting, and the ordinance requires further timely financial reporting going forward in all future years. So that is, I think, a significant improvement over some recent conditions. And with that, we approved it for first reading on March 19th, 2024. It was advertised in the Medford Transcript and Summerville Journal on April 11th, 2024, and it is now eligible for a third reading today, Tuesday, April 30th, 2024. Is there a motion on the floor? On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve for third reading, seconded by.
[SPEAKER_22]: Second.
[SPEAKER_15]: Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_21]: To approve for third reading to be ordained.
[SPEAKER_15]: To be ordained, indeed.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor Callahan.
[SPEAKER_19]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. Councilor Leming. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes. And the affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes and the budget ordinance is ordained. 24-080, the amendment proposed by the mayor, April 16th, 2024, to the personnel ordinance to increase the position of the supervisor of water and sewer. I guess I better get it right. I think it was from PW 18 to 19, but we can check.
[SPEAKER_20]: Give me one moment.
[SPEAKER_15]: And that's what it is. It is the motion to amend language of PW 18 shall be amended to remove the following position and language of PW 19 be amended to include the following position supervisor of water and sewer. We did receive a communication from the administration that there is not an active arbitration of grievance claim on this, and I believe. Councilor Scarpelli has moved to waive the three readings and move for approval for third reading this evening. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan, is there any objection by any councilor? It does require unanimous vote to waive all three readings. Seeing none, on the motion to ordain, to approve for third reading and ordain this change to the personnel ordinance by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the vote.
[SPEAKER_21]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Bears?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative. None in the negative. Motion passes. And we just spent four minutes doing lawmaking, which was nice. And I mean to say that very specifically because often the most important work we do happens at the end of a meeting after 10 or 15 public meetings. And we just passed a budget ordinance for the first time in the city, so I'm very happy about that. There is public participation. Is there anyone who'd like to speak in public participation? And we have one person who'd like to speak in public participation. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_12]: Hi, Sam Goldstein, 29 Martin Street, Medford. Can folks hear me?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, we can hear you.
[SPEAKER_12]: Um, I wanted to raise to the council that there's a rumor going on that the Medford police are going to be used to break up a peaceful demonstration on Tufts campus tonight. Um, you know, I don't know if this is going to happen or not. But I want to say that I believe students have clearly a First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and to speak. It's a right that it tops to pay $90,000 a year for. I'm dismayed that the city resources are potentially going to be used in such a manner to break up a peaceful demonstration. I want to say that I hope that Mayor Lungo-Koehn doesn't allow this to happen, and to also ask what it is that the City Council can do to make it clear that perhaps this should not be happening, or to at least voice some concern for the rights of these students who seem to be in jeopardy this evening.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you for your comment. I can just speak for myself and Vice President Collins. I'll just speak for myself. You can speak for yourself. I have been in communication with the mayor and the Medford police since Friday about this issue and trying to liaise with protesters to implore Tufts to reach a negotiated solution. And I also do not support the use of public resources to address this protest by force. Vice President Collins.
[SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. Thank you for bringing this forward to this forum. Along with President Bears, I've also been made aware of the situation by protesters on Tufts campus and people working with them, supportive of their cause. Just community members who have noticed this going on over the past few days. I've tried to remain in contact with those organizers. Also been in contact with our mayor, chief of police, and the government affairs liaison on Tufts campus about this. I've been very clear with all of those leaders and decision makers that my opinion is that This is, it would be a insupportable use of city resources to deploy Medford police to break up what has been a peaceful and unproblematic student demonstration. This is not germane to the use of our city resources, but as a Tufts alumnus, I'm very proud to see the students there joining into this cascade of peaceful demonstrations across the nation. And speaking as a community representative, I am deeply concerned about the safety of students and other community members on campus should the Tufts administration decide that a forcible removal of protesters is the objective that they are going to accomplish by use of force and by use of Tufts University Police. I hope that it doesn't come to that. I pray that it doesn't come to that. I think that that would end badly. I think that we've seen on other campuses that this is an extenuating event that should be allowed to remain a peaceful demonstration, a gathering place, a place for students and community members to process what's going on, to gather together and to show their solidarity. I think that it would be, I would hate to see something so benign speaking here as an individual community member, and again, speaking as a Jewish person, I would hate to see something so benign be escalated because of the use of police force in breaking up a peaceful protest. And so I'll reiterate my message to our administration and Tufts administration that I unequivocally would condemn the use of police force, whether Tufts or Medfords, especially Medfords, to forcibly decamp the protesters from where they have been camping out, gathering, making food, celebrating Passover on the Tufts University academic quad. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. And I would just add that there are other campuses that have been able to reach agreements with protesters to maintain the protests. And I believe that Tufts has the capacity to do the same thing. I would also add, speaking directly to the conversation that we had tonight about the number of city resources that go to Tufts when they do not pay property taxes, that is particularly galling that they would ask us to use them to displace protesters. Councilor Lazzaro.
[SPEAKER_06]: From what I've read about the reasoning behind the interest in removing the protesters from the tough squad also is that I think that there can be some justifications made for use of force in removing protesters. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this, but that it would be for blockage of traffic or some danger posed to the public, but this is on Tufts property and only for the purpose of setting up for commencement. And I would definitely caution the Medford Police Department that it really doesn't seem to be the business of our administration or our Medford police to be involved in that. I think this is a big national movement that's happening and that students should be allowed to express their opinions and practice their First Amendment rights. And just as an anecdotal story, I was in the car listening to NPR when they were talking about police removing protesters from Columbia University. And my nine-year-old said, is protesting illegal? And I said, no, it is not. It is very much not illegal to protest. So that's all I'll say about that. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the Council? Any further discussion by Vice President Collins?
[SPEAKER_31]: Sorry, just one thing to add. I know a couple people have reached out to me saying, what can the city council do about this to make sure that the people demonstrating on Tufts campus are kept safe? As we often say, the city council instructs and commands no city staff. There's very little that we can, there's nothing that we can do to interfere formally, or sorry, I shouldn't say interfere. There's nothing that we can do directly. to affect what happens on Tufts campus, but I would say to constituents that are observing this meeting, if you are of the opinion one way or the other on how Medford police resources should be deployed, if you feel that they should not be used to disperse a peaceful encampment on the grounds of a private university, if you feel that's inappropriate, now would be a good time to let the administration know. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public? Seeing none in the chamber, I will go to Bill Giglio on Zoom.
[SPEAKER_27]: Hi, Bill Giglio, Winthrop Street. So, you may tell you nine year old also that it is illegal for the Columbia students that are breaking into buildings, taking over buildings, smashing glasses with him, that's illegal. So I do want to say I 100% support the police being there. I'm happy they're there. I hope they're there in full force. We see what's going on around these campuses, the violence, the, you know, everything that's going on. So I want to thank the police for for for being there. And we've also seen this in Boston as well. And I hope anyone that goes outside the lines of protest and is arrested, I hope they're fully prosecuted, which they usually they usually just let go. But in any event, I really hope that the police is there in full force and I appreciate our police force. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Mr. Castagnetti. Mr. Castagnetti name and address.
[SPEAKER_23]: Yes, sir. Peaceful protesting is cool. I've done it since 1967. However, if it starts to cross the line becomes mostly peaceful, then we have a, how you say, a safety problem. Then that's a different ballgame. Thank you for listening.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to adjourn seconded by Councilor Nishikawa. Please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_21]: That's Kellyanne.
[SPEAKER_19]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: Vice President Collins. Councils are.
[SPEAKER_19]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_21]: Council lemon. No. Council scrap belly. That's the same. Yes. President Bears.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes. Negative. I'm sorry. Negative. Motion. Thank you.