[Bears]: Committee of the whole March 19 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the role.
[Morell]: President. President. President. President. President.
[Collins]: President.
[Morell]: President seven present none absent the meeting is called to order.
[Bears]: There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, MA, and via Zoom. To submit written comments, please email ahertabese at medford-ma.gov. Action and discussion items 24-045, offered by President Bears's resolution regarding annual budget process for fiscal year 2025. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the Council President request City Councilors submit individual budget recommendations to the City Clerk, by Friday, March 1st 2024 for consideration and committee of the whole being further resolved that based on the schedule included in the soon to be finalized budget ordinance, the city council and city administration will follow the following budget schedule for the fiscal 25 city budget. By March 1st, city councilors submit individual budget recommendations. By Friday, March 22nd, city council submits collective budget recommendation to the mayor. From April 15th to May 15th, city council holds preliminary budget meetings with department heads. and by Friday, May 31st, the mayor will submit a comprehensive budget proposal to the city council. Part of the budget ordinance, just to further elucidate the process that we're going through here, this new budget process, once we have submitted those recommendations to the mayor, we will get a response in writing prior to the presentation of the comprehensive budget proposal. In addition, when we hold the preliminary budget meetings, we will have the annual operating budget for the previous year, the department head's budget request for the upcoming fiscal year, and requested new staff and programs or services for the upcoming year. And we also should be getting the budget to actual paperwork that we have been talking about wanting for a while. So we will have all of that in advance of our preliminary budget meetings. which will start in April, and I'm working with the administration to lock down some days for those meetings. We have some April dates, and then we'll have some May dates. They will be mostly Wednesdays at 6 p.m. Committee of the Wholes. So we may avoid a Saturday meeting this year on the budget. We may not. No promises. One of the things that we talked about at our Committee of the Whole on March 6th was submitting, we talked about the recommendations that we had submitted, which should have gone back out to the Council and is available on our meeting portal, is all of those recommendations kind of grouped by category. I put them into four categories. One was preventing budget cuts, The second category was increases in staffing and personnel expenses. The third was increases in non-staffing and ordinary expenses. And the fourth was one-time expenses and items for further study. And then also included was just all of our recommendations in one document. I'm pretty sure mostly unedited. I may have made some edits to Councilor Tseng's because his came in memo form and I made some bullet points. I hope they satisfy what your intent was. Thank you. At this point, I think the goal of tonight's meeting is to report something out of committee to the mayor around collective recommendations of the City Council. We will also attach this document, which has everyone's individual recommendations. Councilor is saying, if you want me to attach your memorandum, I'm happy to attach that as well. But you put a lot of work into it. There's like an ink signature on it. Thesis. Thesis. Thesis. Application. Amendment. Constitutional amendment. So at this point, this is the first time. It's not the first time we've done this at all, but it's the first time we've done this under these kind of timelines. I believe last year we sent a set of five recommendations to the mayor for inclusion in the budget, and that seemed to be a reasonable number of kind of what we all collectively determined to be our top priorities. We could do something similar or different this year, but I do think there's a lot of value to kind of honing down this couple, two, three page list into something that is very clear about Council's wishes for this budget. And I'll leave it at that. I'll open it up to members of the Council to guide our path forward.
[Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you. I wanted to thank you for putting in all the effort of collecting and and rearranging our individual recommendations. I know we had a lot. And it's really helpful to see it all in one place. I think looking at it, one of my general thoughts is that there So some of the things I'm asking for, like the community liaisons program, some of the things that other councils are asking for all fall under the purview of the health department. And so I think maybe we could further kind of collapse that into that one big category and say, prevent cuts to this department and then note, like in a parentheses, those positions that we're referring to.
[Bears]: Councilor say a health department or general recommendation around the Health Department Board of Health. Councilor Collins, Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you to my colleagues again for everyone's recommendations. It was great to kick off this discussion at our first committee of the whole on topic. Looking over the compiled recommendations from us all, I think that There are some, I think, clear avenues for consolidating this, even just looking at category one of preventing budget cuts. I think the other way that I would characterize this grouping of suggestions is around maintaining level service. within the Schools Department, within the Board of Health, which Councilor Tseng just noted, within the Library Department. And then I think that this also characterizes kind of this shared priority of preventing the loss of positions that are currently grant funded within the Board of Health, within the Office of Outreach Prevention, and within the Planning, Development, and Sustainability Department. And I do believe that across all of our contributions, most of us in some way phrased that same recommendation around meet the school's budget request, meet the library budget request, don't cut any positions within Board of Health, Office of Prevention and Outreach, Planning Department, even if it means, and perhaps especially if it means finding a way to fit those positions into the operating budget or shift them over to other sources of grant funding. So I would put forward that I do believe there is consensus around all of the numbered points under category one, and I think that those can be consolidated into a maintaining level service for schools, libraries, Board of Health, and planning departments.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Sure, is that a motion, Councilor Collins?
[Collins]: Yes.
[Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins, do you need to repeat it yet? Could you repeat that for the clerk, please?
[Collins]: Sure, I'll improv it. The motion would be to consolidate all of the bullet points under category one into the recommendation to maintain level service for the schools Libraries, Board of Health, Prevention and Outreach, PDS Department, including maintaining all currently grant-funded positions. And Mr. Clerk, I can email that to you.
[Morell]: Vice President Collins moves to consolidate all of the bullet points under category one into the recommendation to maintain level service for the schools, library, the Board of Health, Prevention and Outreach, and PBS department, including all currently grant-funded positions.
[Scarpelli]: If I can, Mr. President.
[Bears]: Sure, we have a motion by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, discussion Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: If this is the way we're going, I think that in all reality, to put a paper out like this, I don't want it to be presented as the other departments in the community like DPW, fire, police are being left off that. So I would motion that either we add those city departments to that list, if that's how we're going to break it down. Because, you know, the optics of something that reads as Vice President Collins wants to move forward, which I don't disagree, but we're going to be getting to some nitty gritty budget issues when it comes time. I don't want the perception to go out to say, well, we want to maintain these budgets, but it's okay for cuts that the city council wouldn't support the cuts of police or cuts the fire or cuts the DPW. So I think in other city departments, whether it's a secretarial staff, whether it's the veteran services. So I just think by wording it that way, it opens it up for a slippery slope for what the message should be. And that's, we wanna be level funded with all city entities and school entities.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Collins, is that a new hand or an old hand?
[Collins]: It's a new hand.
[Bears]: Councilor Collins and Councilor Tseng.
[Collins]: Thank you. I just wanted to respond quickly to say I think Councilor Scarpelli's point is well taken and I think that it's, I think that we have you know, as usual, somewhat of a challenging needle to thread here where, of course, I think it's absolutely not the message to send to say, we care about these cuts and not those cuts. Councilor Scarpelli is absolutely right. That's, that's, you know, and I hope it would go without saying that's that's not the message that this council would want to be sending. But unfortunately, you know, we're placed in this difficult position of knowing that cuts are likely to be proposed somewhere. And I think maybe it would be better to articulate in some fashion, maybe elsewhere in the packet, that the council will ultimately vote dissent to the mayor, that certain departments or positions whatever this council decides that they will be, are highlighted. You know, in this case, I think many of us mentioned the schools department and the library department, because often that is where cuts are proposed, and that is where level service is not funded. I know, just speaking only for myself, that's why I prioritize those in my memo. So I think you know, a discussion point for this council is how to make sure that we target our recommendations towards those departments that we know are usually the most vulnerable, while saying, of course, we're gonna, at the same time, we're advocating for level service citywide. So I just wanted to offer that to say I agree with Councilor Scartelli.
[Bears]: I think there are, and I'll go to Councilor Callahan after Councilor Sagan to say, I think there's kind of three principles getting lumped in here. One is we're talking about recommendations from independent entities, independent governing bodies, so the school committee for the public schools, the library trustees for the library. They make recommendations as to their budget in a different way than happens for the city departments. And then we're highlighting that there's a lot of ARPA grant-funded positions in health prevention and planning. And then the third piece, I think, is all grant-funded positions. So if there are grant-funded positions in police or fire or DPW, I'm not sure, you know, there may be one in police, there might be one in DPW, I'm not sure of any in fire. So I wonder if we could just adjust this wording to say, to more along those lines, to say, meet the recommendations of the school committee, budget request of the school committee for Medford Public Schools, the library trustees for the Medford Public Library, and do not cut any ARPA grant funded positions in any city department with particular focus on the, most of those positions are in health prevention and planning, development, sustainability, and then we have all city departments in there. And then through this process, we'll actually, I think for the first time in my time on the council, we'll actually be able to see what the chiefs requested, what the commissioner requested, so that'll be interesting, because usually we only get what the school committee and the library request, because they're independent. I'll go to Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Callahan.
[Tseng]: I think you basically, what I was going to say parallels what you just said. I think I wanted to bring special attention to the last two years that we've done this. We have brought out the schools and library in particular, and I think it was clear that we weren't privileging any one department over the other or leaving anyone behind. And so I think Councilor Collins, where she was coming from, was just following what we did in past practice. But I think there's some nuance to it and how it breaks down. And I think the proposed amendments make a lot of sense. Councilor Kelly.
[Callahan]: If that proposal goes through, then it probably makes my point sort of moot. But I was sort of looking as a relatively new Councilor to understand, obviously the Metro Public Schools is the largest department in terms of funding. But there's dozens of departments listed here on the website. And I'm looking for a chart that shows me the size of the budget for each one. So we have an understanding of like, okay, are 20 of these so tiny that they're not, you know, worried, concerned about them, but I will do some research there. And I think that rephrasing to make it any grant funded position is probably a good one.
[Bears]: Great.
[SPEAKER_02]: Oh, okay.
[Scarpelli]: The court of public opinion would throw out and say, well, here we go again. The council doesn't want to do X, Y, and Z. So I think if it's phrased that way, I think that speaks volumes because we don't want to lose any of these positions. the fear of losing Penny's position. I know we lost Penny, but losing Penny's position, I think, would be a huge, huge loss to our community, especially in what she's done for drug prevention and awareness. So, thank you.
[Bears]: Agreed. I'm going to try to write down this change. If we want to move to another recommendation, if this will be our first recommendation, and then I'll read back what I have once I've written down what everybody said.
[Scarpelli]: So if I can, Mr. President, I can see this, the hard work you've done, but are we meeting, are we still going to have the department meetings and are they going to be open and honest discussions, you think, with department heads?
[Bears]: I'm hoping more open and honest. I hope so. Because I think we're starting before we get the final budget, which is good. And we put in the ordinance that we would get the requests of the departments. Now, if the departments are tailoring their requests prior to writing them, we can't control for that.
[Scarpelli]: But that is my hope. And I think having in the past, not the last few years, but going back four or five years, we would get an update from my finance director of the state of the state and see what kind of, what the climate looks like and what our funding would look like from the state. So I don't know if the mayor has discussed anything with you about giving us some clarity as we get closer. Because like I said, all you hear is, you know, different communities. they've already been given some sort of understanding of what's happening in the state and what their community is going to be looking at for funding. And it doesn't look too promising. So I wonder if we'll be getting some information that can help us prepare our constituents as we move forward.
[Bears]: Yes, before, I don't know entirely what level of detail some of that will be. The cherry sheet did come out from the state administration and finance and it's basically a level fund cherry sheet. for state aid, but yes, we would get a revenue update as well as a budget to actual update before maybe as the part of that first meeting. So yeah, that is the intent. That'll be helpful with everybody. That's great. And I'm hoping we will get the documentation in advance of the meeting, maybe by a week or two, maybe more. Thank you. And Q3 ends on the 31st, so maybe we'll get something that's just quarter two and maybe we'll get quarter three for that meeting.
[Morell]: I think so.
[Bears]: It'd be good. Agreed. So we have our first recommendation, which I'll read back in a minute. I just want to get the wording right around a level service budget and meeting certain requests and preventing certain cuts. Councilor Tseng raised the health department. There are some specific requests. Anyone else? We could go up to five recommendations. Obviously, the first one is needy, and I think addresses directly the concerning narrative about cuts and not having a level service budget, but there was a lot of other good stuff in here, so we have some room. I see Councilor Collins, and then if anyone else wants to chime in, Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I think that there is also substantial overlap, kind of a clustering for many of our contributions around the issue of budgeted amount for city solicitor and assistant city solicitor salaries, as well as funding for salaries within the elections department that's split I think between category two and category three in the memo that you provided. So just flagging that again as something that I think there is a ponderance of interest in from this council. That was you know of course I'm a little biased that was one of my individual recommendations was to raise the salary of the city solicitor and the assistant city solicitor salaries to be more competitive with our municipal neighbors and to raise the salary budgeted for an elections director to that of a director level position so as to attract more competitive candidates. But to me, I think that there's pretty close to consensus from the individual recommendations that we received a couple weeks ago to put that forward as one or two of our additional recommendations. I'd be curious to hear from my fellow councillors if we would want to put legal salaries and elections director salaries forward as two more of our recommendations to the mayor.
[Scarpelli]: I would support that. Thank you. I'm sorry about that. I would support that. I think that's been our biggest cry for the last three years. And I think that we've all been pushing together for that because that helps us do our jobs better. And having someone here, I think even somebody neutral with contentious issues in the city where it's not coming from the administration. I think it helps having a city solicitor come up and say, hey, this is what other communities have done for a transfer tax. And this is the reason, legally, why X, Y, and Z. We don't have that. It seems like we have a divide. KP Law has already mentioned that they don't work for this council. that brings up another contentious issue that everybody keeps harping on. Whether we are or whether we're not, we just don't know because we haven't seen the actuals that break down KP laws, what they've been paid the last few years. But I think that stuff would help with really helping us grow and get together. So I think that's important. I think if we can too, Mr. President, if we can, number nine, for the DPW cement and hot top, I appreciate you putting that up there. But I mean, even if we can reach out in a form of a motion to ask the DPW director, just to do an analysis of what it would cost for a three team and equipment. It's something that when I did it, it took me maybe three days with the director of DPW in Somerville and the director of DPW in Wakefield at the time that helped me get those numbers. And then just show us, give us an idea of what we spent in bonding and how it's these issues that we've had the data and it's presented and they say, George, what we're spending for this staff plus the benefits in the equipment is definitely less more than what it would cost to bond the $2 million a year. And that's an easy look at something to say, okay, that's just not efficient. But that can also come back the other way and say, while a crew of three can do X, Y, and Z, but I think it would help us moving forward to make some big decisions moving forward. I don't see it happening in this budget, from what I hear, where we're gonna be, but maybe down the line, we'll have things in place that would help us make better fiscal decisions. So thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Just, I have that as requesting a cost analysis from the DPW commissioner for in-house cement and hot tub equipment and staffing compared to the annual cost of bonding for sidewalk and street repair. Yes, thank you, that's perfect. Councilor Tseng, or did I have Councilor Callahan first?
[Callahan]: Thank you, it was just a quick, did this not already go into committee as a request that we were making in the committee, in Public Works Committee? I thought it maybe did. I just wanna make sure we're not doubling up two motions for the same. I'm totally in favor, and also the five-year plan for the roads, I think, is going to go through that committee as well, rather than be a budget request. Mr. Clark, do you happen to remember if a motion went through the committee, the Public Works Committee? I'm looking it up. either way we should have to look.
[Scarpelli]: Either out of here or out of there. Just to get it before the budget season, I think that just an understanding so we know.
[Bears]: I believe we discussed it. I can't remember if a motion was referred out to the administration. So we can just put this as a motion coming out of here. Thank you. And maybe we can give it a paper number, Mr. Clerk.
[Morell]: This committee report has a paper number.
[Bears]: Right, can we separate this out as a separate, like a B paper? Great. And we can refer the response to Public Works. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Councilor Tsengng. Um, if Scorpio council's car probably would be amenable. I think that the paper would be a good chance to ask dpw what they think inappropriate increase in the spending for road signage markets are, because I was talking with some of our department heads and they were saying, That's something that they wanted to advocate for in this year's budget because it slows down road repavings a lot, but they didn't give me a solid figure for us to advocate for.
[Bears]: Sorry, so would that be a requested amendment to the B paper that they also include a proposed
[SPEAKER_02]: I'm sorry, I can't type that fast.
[Tseng]: Requesting a proposed number for increased spending in road signage, markings, and striping.
[Bears]: And that's to ensure no delays in road repair?
[SPEAKER_04]: do it without that appropriation for the department. Got it.
[Leming]: Chancellor Leibnig. Thank you. This is just just asking if anybody knows this information. So I remember when I was asking about a couple of these positions a few months ago, specifically the salary increases response that I got was that they need to do a study to figure out what the salary increases ought to be. And I know that. that was being brought up for the economic development director specifically, but that position did end up being hired. I'm just curious, is there any of these positions still under any study to figure out what exactly the salary increase should be, like the city solicitor in particular, or is that floating around at the staff level at this point?
[Bears]: I believe they are also under study, and I do not know the timeline when we will receive that study. so they're all, the city solicitor, everything is still under study. My understanding is that everything, every position on the city side is undergoing a classification and compensation study by the call-in center, and we have not received a timeline when that will be submitted for updating the CAF ordinance, right? Thank you. So, and that's been going on a while now. I know that staff had a, City side staff had interviews with town center representatives last fall. Does that sound right to you?
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.
[Bears]: So it's been a pretty long process, and we haven't been given a clear timeline. And it has been used to justify not moving on certain things. So just so I have it correct right now, we have the B paper regarding some DPW costs. Then we have the recommendation for level service budget. We have a recommendation to increase the budgeted amount for city solicitor and assistant city solicitor. Do we want to get more specific? I know Councilor Tseng you had a health department item. Do you want to get more specific on that?
[Tseng]: We can list out the positions. So basically what I was thinking was prevention and outreach positions and the community liaisons.
[Bears]: And do you think that that is captured by the preventing cuts to grant funded positions?
[Tseng]: Yes.
[Bears]: Yeah. Okay. So we've still got some room here. Personally, I would like to see something included around seed money as part of the budget or from free cash to create a clear plan for updating city financial software and payroll systems. I think that's a huge problem.
[Tseng]: I'd be happy to move on it, especially since I also brought it up. I think we really need to be putting in the long-term steps for us to you know, grow our finances and to be able to process our finances better. And so I completely agree. It's a priority of ours. Great. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Just adding my note of assent, I would also support putting that forward as a recommendation at this time. I think this Council has spoken before about you know, how many other problems that touches and exacerbates city side in terms of staffing and departmental function? And I think, you know, the time to start advocating for progress towards a solution is the sooner the better.
[Bears]: Yeah, it does seem to be the source of many of our other mistrusts and disagreements.
[Scarpelli]: I can, Mr. President. Councilor Scarpelli. And this is where I get a little confused because it's the functions When you hear some of the issues with the finance department, the software, is it truly that? I think that truly hasn't been defined yet. Because some of the information we're getting from the previous finance director, the information was the same software that's being used. I would recommend that maybe getting more staffing and moving that forward, because I'd like to see a cost analysis to that to see what it would take if it's a $80,000 software system that we have to pay year after year, purchase once and then pay year after year, in comparison to hiring an assistant in the finance department. It'd be interesting to see what that would look like. I just, you know, a lot of it, a lot of the financial questions we have, I think revert back to not being communicated, not being transparent. Um, I don't, I don't really trust the administration when they say it's the software system that's antiquated because the finance department that worked at the beginning of your tenure, Mr. Mr. President, At the beginning of my time at the council, we were updated and we were informed. And those pieces were in place to make sure that, for instance, the retro pay. That system was in place when contracts were ratified years ago that did the work to make sure that our employees were given their retro pay and reasonable time. So I, again, I just, I, I don't want to be the pessimist. I don't want to be the, the, the, this, the, you know, the, the, the siren every time, but I, I don't want us to throw good money after bad when it could be something that it's just management, not system.
[Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Tseng]: Councilor Hsuang. I believe that the last committee of the whole, you had a really good explanation for what exactly we're looking for in terms of financial software. I think what Councilor Scarpelli is maybe referring to is a little different to what we were referring to. And I was wondering if, I mean, you explained it best. I was wondering if you could explain it again for the council.
[Bears]: Sure. I mean, I think there's a both and here, and I think it's fine to update this to be a both and kind of question. My understanding is that there are multiple systems that have difficulty talking to each other and require a lot of work to make sure there's not double counting and things of that nature. We've suffered through that with the fiscal 20 pre-ARPA discussion, the schools just had another example of that where it was like, oh, we have a 2.5 million deficit, but then it's like, oh, when we go through, we look at double counting, we look at making sure everything's in the right account, it's not 2.5 million, it's 216,000, right? So we have these issues where maybe the expertise of prior staff or reasons that those weren't issues in the past, maybe they understood the software better, and maybe had been here when they established the, put that software into place. So I think it could be both, and I'm happy to, personally, I'd be more than happy, I think I had it in here. Study or consult and review of finance department, software upgrade, or this is Councilor Collins, software upgrade options and development implementation scenarios. which also talked about expanding the personnel budget, because maybe it is there's a bottleneck on the personnel side of just reviewing reports in a timely manner. That's great. So I think we could throw that in as well.
[Tseng]: Appreciate that.
[Bears]: Thank you. The communication issues are twofold. It's the communication issues between people, and it seems to be also communication issues between systems.
[Tseng]: I'd appreciate that, thank you. And I think since I had to make the motion, I'd be happy to amend it as well.
[SPEAKER_05]: Okay. To include staffing. Great.
[Bears]: I'm writing them down and I'll send them to you. So I have three things. I'll go to Councilor Collins, Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate this exchange around the Finance Department. Neil Yu, I'll second the motion. And I agree with all that's been stated. I think that, you know, obviously it is not one or the other. I think being a member of the Administration and Finance Committee this term and also in the past one, we've had many, I think, very revealing conversations with the current finance director about the ways in which the software really is a problem right now. And of course, I think it is very obvious that staffing is also an issue and that the two exacerbate the other. So I think that the phrasing we've worked towards strikes the right balance of acknowledging both. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. So we have three that I can read back now. I don't think we have to go beyond three. These are pretty major issues around the budget. I think they do hit what a lot of us are concerned about. I'm just going to quickly look through what else we have here. I think a lot of these have value, and again, all of them will go up. But is there anything else that anyone else wants to include beyond the three main recommendations that we have before I read them back? Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Before you read them back, I just want to kind of note my support for keeping our list of recommendations short and sweet this year. And that's kind of going against my own instinct. I remember my first year on the council, the wish list that I submitted for our first committee of the whole on this topic was amounted to the hundreds of millions of dollars and ideas for how to make our city more functional and shore up all of our critical departments. So I'm extremely compelled by and sympathetic to all of the other recommendations that I also submitted two weeks ago and agree with everything that's been submitted by my fellow councillors. At the same time, I think that we're going into this knowing that this is going to be a difficult budget season after a couple of difficult budget seasons. I think that there is a power that comes from having a very succinct list and saying, you know, we've done the hard work and we've really considered what needs to be in that short list of things that we cannot go without in this budget cycle, even though we know it is going to be a hard one. And what I appreciate about this group of three that we've put together is that to me it's about level service, And I think over the past couple of years, we've had many important public discussions about the difference between level service and level funding. And what the residents and city staff deserve is level service, not level funding. So I think that this list prioritizes that. And I think it gets at the heart of the staffing and funding infusions that need to happen so that we can stop regressing in certain departments and start to move forward. You know, I think here on the city council we see that the most with the legal department, or lack thereof. So I think that these few recommendations that we put together so far kind of strike at what we really need to see in order to be functional as a body and functional as a city. Of course, if other councilors have recommendations of things that they need to be on the short list, I'm sure I'll find those ideas compelling, but I just wanted to note advocacy for a short, tight list this year. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Any further discussion on this topic before I read back the motions? Seeing none, we have the main motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Collins, as amended by Councilors Scarpelli and Callahan for the fiscal year 25 council budget recommendations. First recommendation for a level service budget for the city of Medford, including meeting the Medford Public Schools funding recommendation of the Medford School Committee, the Medford Public Library funding recommendation of the Library Trustees, and maintaining all grant-funded city positions in every department with the acknowledgement that most of those grant-funded positions currently exist in the Board of Health, Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability, and Office of Planning and Outreach, or sorry, Office of Prevention and Outreach. The second recommendation is to increase the budgeted amount for the city solicitor salary by $49,871 per year and the assistant city solicitor salary by $37,178 per year to maintain competitiveness with neighboring communities. and the third is a recommendation that the administration appropriate seed money as part of the fiscal 25 budget or from free cash reserves to develop a clear plan and timeline for updating the city financial software and payroll systems or to hire additional staff to speed up timeliness of financial reporting updates, calculation of retroactive pay and other payroll and finance updates. and then there's a B paper by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilor Tseng, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we request a cost analysis from the DPW Commissioner for in-house cement and hot tub equipment and staffing, compared to the annual cost of bonding for sidewalk and street repair, and refer the response to the Council's Public Works and Facilities Committee, be it further resolved that DPW include a proposed budget for road signage, marking, and striping to speed up road repair. How they sound? Great. We'll take the B paper first on Councilor Scarpelli's B paper, seconded by Councilor Tseng. As amended by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Morell]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative and none of the negative. The paper passes and is referred to the Mayor. On the main motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Collins, as amended by Councilors Callaghan and Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Morell]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Bears]: Yes. Negative motion passes and I will make sure that that gets to the mayor under some council letterhead. Any further discussion on the budget before we move on to our regular meeting?
[Scarpelli]: Motion report paper to the mayor. The mayor, please.
[Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to report the paper out of committee to the mayor. And can we add an adjourn? And adjourn. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. You say it out loud. I didn't hear Councilor Callahan. I'm very seriously, as the chair, up here with Zoom and the computer, a verbal second is very important. I missed an entire motion because there wasn't a verbal second last meeting. So on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Morell]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
|
total time: 18.35 minutes total words: 2760  |
total time: 0.55 minutes total words: 82  |
total time: 8.85 minutes total words: 1391  |
total time: 3.17 minutes total words: 500  |
|
total time: 8.65 minutes total words: 1253  |
total time: 1.38 minutes total words: 219  |
total time: 0.76 minutes total words: 121  |
|