[Morell]: 16th regular meeting of the Medford City Council, September 5th, 2023 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Present. 7 present, 0 absent. Please rise to salute the flag.
[Morell]: Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records 23-390 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council send its deepest and sincere condolences to the family of John Garrity on his recent passing. John was a devoted family man and community volunteer coaching Medford hockey teams for several years. John's presence in our community will be missed. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Madam President. I apologize, I was talking to Councilor Villes. We talked knows my fault. Uh, is that Mr? I apologize for that. Um, we just recently lost another pillar of our community. A gentleman that, um gave to the youth of Medford as a hockey coach and always happened to go to his services the other days. That's Mr. John Garrity. Mr. Garrity was one of my favorite parents. His son Jay was my captain. His son Chris played for me. He was always willing to help, never a negative word, whether he thought I played his kid too much or too little. He was just a good sounding boy, a Method legend in his own right. Listened to some stories the other day and hearing the stories on the playground and on the ice and playing pond hockey really summed it up what kind of person Mr. Garrity was. He was a tenacious individual who loved life, loved Medford, and loved his family. I know that with the passing of his son, Jay, I know it was very difficult. Jay was a very big piece in a lot of people's lives, but I'm sure when a dad loses his first son, I think it must have played, very big part in who he was after that and I know that he was a rock for his wife and I know that Mrs. Garrity is one of the leaders in our community in making sure that we don't forget the issues of drug addiction and the Garrity family really keeps that on the front page and making sure that they're solid advocates for that. So we did unexpectedly lose Mr. Garrity a few weeks ago and just wanted to send our condolences to the Garrity family and he will be missed. Thank you, Madam President.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. And I join Councilor Scarpelli in offering my condolences to the family. Mr. Garrity was a great person, Lawrence State's resident, known by friends and family alike as Bayer. And I think Councilor Scott Nelly hit the nail on the head. Although he's left us here, he's going to leave a legacy behind. If it weren't for the Garrity family, I don't think the city would have been in a good position to create the Office of Outreach and Prevention. But they came up with this council and they advocated for this story out there, and they helped fight the addiction stigma. and it was because of their work that Wisconsin has been able to move forward this season, fighting the epidemic and I just want to echo Councilor Scarpelli's indulgences and also my gratitude for their services.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Caraviello, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Harris. Yes. Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Collins. Yes. Yes.
[Morell]: Yes. Seven the affirmative zero and the negative motion passes. Please rise for a moment of silence. 23-406 offered by Councilors Caraviello and Councilor Knight, whereas Hunt's Photo is the oldest camera store in the country. Be it so resolved that the Medford City Council commend and congratulate Scott and Gary Farber on celebrating 134 years in business. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. I don't think most people even know that Hunt's Drug is owned by Medford residents. And if you ever have the opportunity to go to Hunt Drug or Hunt Photo, you'd be surprised at the amount of camera things that just remarkable. I was in there maybe about eight months ago, I cleaned up my closet and I found like a bunch of cameras and I donated them because they donate the veterans and I had a chance to talk to one of them over there and just amazed at how that store has grown over the years and just want to thank them for all the years of business.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. It's amazing to think that what started out as a small convenience store in Malden three generations of family ago has now transformed into one of the largest camera stores around. I had the great pleasure and opportunity to go to school with both Scott and Gary, and I call them both friends actually. I see Gary quite a bit. He's moved back to Metro recently. And it's just great to see that they've been able to continue the family tradition and continue so much success with the business. So I want to wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors and congratulate them on such a momentous occasion.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello and Knight for bringing this forward. I think that another great family metric, not just a camera store, but Hunt Drug now, if you wanted lessons, if you wanted to do different trade shows, the farmers are always willing to even come into the community to run programs for the community. I know that you know, with, you know, Gary and I coach, I was fortunate enough to coach a great athlete in Gary Fava. I don't think he's missed a three point shot to this day. I think Larry Bird's the only person that rivals him. So I think that, you know, it is an amazing story of a local family. that have done amazing things, but what I really am impressed about is how they always give back, whether it be the veterans or school programming, and it's something that they never forgot their roots. I just want to congratulate them as well. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpello.
[Knight]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Sanz. Yes. President Morocco.
[Morell]: Yes. Sub in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Records, the records of the meeting of August 15th, 2023 were passed to Vice President Bears. Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I reviewed the records of the August 15th meeting and I found them in order and I would move approval.
[Morell]: Second. On a motion of Vice President Bears, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Knight]: Yes.
[Knight]: Yes.
[Morell]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. Reports of committees 22-605, August 15th, 2023. Committee of the whole report on the waste hauler. This was a committee meeting to discuss the proposed waste hauler contract and giving the mayor the power to sign a 10 year contract.
[Hurtubise]: Motion approved.
[Morell]: On the motion of Vice President Bears to approve, seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears.
[Castagnetti]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Collins.
[Castagnetti]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight.
[Castagnetti]: No.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Kelly. No. Councilor Sanders. Yes. Councilor Morocco.
[Morell]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, two in the negative. Motion passes. The records are adopted. Hearings 23-323 Legal Notice, Medford City Clerk's Office Notice of a Public Hearing, Medford City Council Chapter 94 Zoning. The Medford City Council will conduct a continued public hearing on September 5th, 2023 at 7 p.m. in person and via Zoom. In the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Mass. Relative to a petition by City Council Vice President Isaac B. Zach Bears, Councilor Richard Caraviello, and Councilor Kit Collins to amend Chapter 94, Zoning of the Revised Ordinances, City of Medford, as outlined in paper 23-323. titled Proposed Amendments to the Medford Zoning Ordinance for June 2023. The hearing was originally opened on August 15th, 2023. A link to the public hearing will be posted no later than August 31st, 2023. The petition proposes corrections and clarifications for technical discrepancies in addition to one, amending the use of the table of use and parking regulations for each motor vehicle related uses and I miscellaneous commercial uses. Two, amending language regulating multiple principal structures a lot. Three, amending language allowing a second associate member of the Board of Appeals. Four, eliminating the special permit requirement for inclusionary housing. call 781-393-2425 for accommodations, AIDS, TDD 781-393-2516. The full materials for the amendment can be viewed in the office of the city clerk, city hall room 103, or on the city's website at medfordma.org slash department slash planning dash development dash sustainability by clicking on current city board filings. As stated, we did open this up at our last regular meeting. This was presented by Councilors on the the zoning subcommittee, correct? So if council would like to give a brief summary, we also have recommendations back from the CD board, which were in our packet. I can review those as well. If councilors want to provide a brief summary, we could also, as there are several, multiple sections, I would be open to whether we want to take this as a whole, if we want to sever this and take this as separate sections, as there are different recommendations from the CD board on different sections. I will turn it over to Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Sure. Thanks, Madam President. Yeah, so basically, we received back comments from the Community Development Board on change A. They did suggest a substantive change, which is to, we had recommended that the, or we had initiated a proposal where the council would be the special permit granting authority for a number of motor vehicle related uses and miscellaneous commercial uses, specifically in C1, C2 and I districts. This is designed to prevent the further proliferation of motor vehicle repair shops and car yards in Mystic Ave area and other commercial areas of the city where we're looking at other more significant uses than storage or repair of vehicles. So I'll come back to that one, because the CD board recommendation is a significant change. The second change is B, that's on page three. The recodification, that language that we passed had an unintended consequence of making a lot of properties nonconforming, where you have a single parcel with multiple principal structures on the lot. The CD board, did suggest a language change just to specify the districts where that issue is occurring, SF1, SF2, and GR zoning, but otherwise they accepted the proposed change. The third change is adding a second associate member to the Board of Appeals and clarifying term length. We passed a zoning change in early 2022 that did this, but then we actually overruled it with the recodification. So this is correcting us back to the language that we had passed for members appointments to the Board of Appeals and having a second associate member. There were a number of unintended referrals for papers to the Community Development Board. This is now the fourth one, number D. of lack of clear language. Basically a lot of these are we've had this new zoning recodification in place for now a little bit over a year, and the bodies that are going through it, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Community Development Board are saying, here are some of the technical things that we think need to be updated. But essentially, we're referring papers to the Community Development Board that never needed to go to them. So there's a small technical change. The CDB did not change. Community Development Board recommendations don't change what we had proposed. The fifth one is number E, There was conflict between who is the special permit granting authority, and the Community Development Board recommended specific language to accomplish that objective. Number six, F, the language that we passed in 2022 created an extra requirement for a special permit for inclusionary housing that's not necessary, and the Community Development Board accepted the language changes that we proposed for that. G, the state agency that oversees housing changed its name this year from the Department of Housing and Community Development to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities. Our proposed change just updates all of those references in the zoning. I think the CD board may have found one or two more. They slightly changed the language, just to make it more clear, but basically the same thing. And then a number of definitions were deleted from the zoning when we recodified it. Several pages, I think it's pages 10 through, yeah, the whole rest of it, I think, 10 through 21, and the CD board, agreed with all the ones that we included, and also found a couple other definitions that had been omitted from the recodification to include. So essentially, that's the summary. If we were to sever, I would recommend severing change A from changes B through G, or sorry, B through H.
[Morell]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. Any other commentary from the members that have presented the zoning change? Other thoughts?
[Collins]: Thank you. Nothing substantive to add, but just in summary, on top of what Vice President Bears just said, I think the substantive change in A is to bring that use table into alignment with the community's goals for that area. through regulating mechanical car park uses to bring an alignment with community wishes and our comprehensive plan. The rest I think are technical corrections. And in some cases, Scribner's errors, typos that we've, we and other bodies have noticed are in the zoning ordinance in the, a little over a year that we've been using it since the first pre-convocation.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Caraviello, do you have anything to add? As this is a public hearing, I will reopen the portion of the public hearing for anyone who would like to speak in favor of this paper. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the changes presented to us? Director Hunt.
[Hunt]: Madam President, Alicia Hunt, Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability. On behalf of our office, the planners on staff and the Community Development Board, we're in favor of these changes. If you would like me to speak to or clarify any of the details in here, Danielle Evans, our senior planner, and I am present and we're happy to do so, but otherwise, I'll just leave it at that unless you would like further detail.
[Morell]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the paper before us, either on Zoom or in person? Zoom. Seeing none, this portion of the public hearing is closed. Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition of the proposed changes before us, either in person or on Zoom? Seeing none, this portion of the public hearing is closed. Do I have any further discussion from the council or a motion? Vice President Paris.
[Bears]: I would like to ask that Director Hunt and Planner Evans just question about the first change. Change A to the use table around motor vehicle related uses. It seems to me that that's the major substance of change in here from the Community Development Board recommendations, which is we had proposed that the council be the Special Permit Granting Authority for a number of these uses, and the Community Development Board has recommended that they be the Special Permit Granting Authority instead, and I was just wondering if you guys could speak to the Community Development Board's reasoning or rationale behind that recommendation.
[Hunt]: Madam President, so in a big picture way, it is actually fairly unusual in communities to have the city council and elected body be deciding on individual businesses because it really leaves it open to a lot of politics and taking politics more into account rather than looking at the general and what's the good fit here? It is our understanding that the rationale behind the original proposed changes is because we as a city envision a different situation going on in Mr. Gap, and we don't want to allow a number of uses as of right where we are getting ready to do a more Our recommendation of having the planning board do it is putting it in the hands of people who are planners, either by education or by interest, their work, and to have them sort of make a decision around whether or not a particular business should get a special permit rather than making it a political thing that could be the subject of political it's not a use variance. It's a special permit, but basically but you can do it if you come in and ask for a special permit and they're completely discretionary. You don't have to say yes to any of them. So it's not like when you're doing a variance, you have like certain tests that you have to meet. The special permit test is like, does it fit with the character of the neighborhood? Does it fit with what the city wants to see there? Does the city want this project? I don't know if you wanna clarify any of that at all.
[Evans]: Yeah, in addition, As a staff to the city board, we went through all of the uses and kind of compared it to the comprehensive plan and the zoning districts that would be affected. And the city board agreed with the recommendations to add some additional uses to require special permits, particularly like self storage warehouses, some other like lower, not the highest and best uses for properties. We get a lot of calls and emails from permit expeditors who are looking to relocate some of these uses that are now getting pushed out of Cambridge, getting pushed out of Somerville. And so they wanna come here and it's not the best uses. So some locations it might be fine, but switching it to a special permit so we could you know, drill down and actually look at a site specifically, will it work at this site? That's why we added some additional ones in addition to the motor vehicle.
[Bears]: Is that a further question on that?
[Morell]: Okay.
[Bears]: Thanks for that, because I didn't quite notice that, but I'm guessing that's in the J, wholesale transportation, industrial uses, and then it looks like open storage under accessory uses. What was the rationale between, for going to the zoning board for some of them and the city board for others?
[Evans]: So looking at, so the use category J, the board of appeals was already the designated special permit granting authority for many of those uses. Okay. So to be consistent, switch some of the Ys to BA so that they would be in charge of at least that use category so it would make a little bit more sense.
[Bears]: Got it. Yeah, I think in general, the intent here was not to allow these kind of uses by right. I like that you at the CD board came back and kind of noted some other specific uses that I think fall into a similar category as what we were looking at with the motor vehicle issue. in general, I'd actually, I mean, Councilor Caraviello proposed this, so I'd like to hear from him what he thinks about it being us versus the Community Development Board.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. And it was done for purposely what you just said about people being pushed out of these other communities, and they're getting better value out of their land, and they're coming over here and taking our good property, and we're getting the short end of the stick. It was the intent of this, so I'll take whatever recommendations the board made, but that was my intent when I brought it forward to stop that.
[Morell]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Councilor Knight on Zoom and then Councilor Collins.
[Knight]: I'll defer comment at this time, Madam President.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Merlin. Thank you, Director Hunt and Planner Evans for walking us through this. As was just stated, I think that the primary goal of putting these changes forward was to remove some of these uses by right because we want to mitigate how much they're encroaching on our valuable land in this area that we could put to many other uses. And it seems like with these recommendations on the slight amendments that the city board sent back, there's kind of a secondary goal of making it more consistent. Who is reviewing the special permit applications when they do come in aligning that with the right board to be reviewing it and making sure that the same board is reviewing for the same types of uses. So I think that that is really aligned with what we're trying to do with the zoning ordinance in general, making things both blend with our use goals and also just keeping things more consistent user-friendly inside and outside of the city. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Any further discussion from the Council? Members of the public wish to speak. Councilor Tsai.
[Tseng]: I just wanted to thank the City Board for getting back to us and for being proactive in suggesting changes and in reviewing the language here. I think that, you know, these, the technical aspects, the technical changes are, I think it's hard to argue against them. The substantive changes are, I think, are really helpful for our community. I think Councilor Caraviello really has explained well over the last few weeks and months why we need something like this. I think this brings us in alignment, in closer alignment with our comprehensive plan, and so, and in preparation of round two of rezoning. I just wanted to express my thanks.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion from the Council? And likewise, I think I appreciate the work of the CD board, our PDS, of the Councilors who did a lot of the best majority of this work. I think just understanding, as Councilor Scarpelli will always point out, as Councilor Caraviello, we are absolutely looking at the bigger picture at that next round of zoning, and we're hopefully we'll get out the RFP once more so that we can begin that work being started by some land use experts and things like that. So, but I appreciate the work being done in the interim to make sure we're addressing some unintended consequences and some things we want to make better for our community as these are living documents. So, appreciate it. Do I have a motion?
[Bears]: Motion to approve pending the six day public comment period.
[Morell]: I have a motion from Vice President Barrett to approve pending the six day public comment period seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Knight]: Yes.
[Knight]: Yes.
[Morell]: Yes. Seven. The affirmative zero in the negative emotion passes.
[Bears]: Madam President, motion to suspend the rules to take in the following order papers to two dash four zero one two two dash four zero two two two dash four zero three. 22-395, the petition filed under public participation, 22-400, and 22-405. Two, three, sorry, I wrote two, two down, I apologize. All two, threes. Yeah.
[Morell]: So on the motion of Vice Chair Bears.
[Knight]: Point of clarification, Madam Mayor. It sounds more like a reorganization of the whole entire agenda than taking an item out of order. Can the council just explain the purpose for making the request.
[Bears]: There are a number of people here in the audience with us tonight, who are attending for those various papers.
[Knight]: Thank you for the explanation, sir. Yeah.
[Morell]: So on the motion of Vice President Bears to suspend the rules to take those papers out of order, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears?
[Bears]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello?
[Caraviello]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Collins?
[Collins]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight?
[Knight]: No.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Tseng?
[Tseng]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: President Morell?
[Morell]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. The rules are suspended. Take those papers in that order. So 23-401. Someone help me find it. Is that it?
[Bears]: It's on page seven.
[Morell]: Great. Communications from the mayor, 23-401 to Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council regarding proposed ways adjustment for clerical union. I respect the request and recommend that the city council approve the following amendments to the revised ordinances, chapter 66, article two, City of Medford amendment to revise ordinances, chapter 66, article two, be ordained by the city council of the city of Medford in chapter 66, entitled personnel, article two, entitled reserve. The city's classification and compensation plan, formerly included as article two, section 66-31 through 66-40, amend the figures as they presently appear next to the following title by adjusting each to reflect the following percentage wage increase and effective dates, clerical. Effective January 1st, 2020, increase the base salary of all clerical union titles by 2%. Effective January 1st, 2021, increase the base salary of all clerical union titles by 2%. Effective July 1st, 2021, increase the base salary of all clerical union titles by 1%. Effective January 1st, 2022, increase the base salary of all clerical union titles by 2%. effective January 1st, 2023, increase the base salary of all clerical union titles by 2.5%.
[Knight]: Madam President, motion to waive the remainder of the reading and move for approval. This is a contractually adjusted wage increase that's been negotiated by the administration and the union.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. We have a motion from Councilor Knight to waive the remainder of the reading and approve the paper. Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Could we amend the motion to also waive the readings? Just waive the readings.
[Morell]: Does that work for you, Councilor Knight, waive the readings and adopt?
[Knight]: I have never been one to stand in the way of waiving the readings to ensure that hardworking men and women in the city of Medford receive the cost of living adjustments as they duly deserve.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. So on the motion of Councilor Knight to waive the remainder of the reading, approve the paper and waive the additional reading seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Morell]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. 23-402 to the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council regarding Community Preservation Committee appropriation requests. On behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respect the request and recommend that your Honorable body approve the following recommendations of the Community Preservation Committee. Requesting the appropriation of 800,000 from CPA Fund, 185,000 from Housing Reserve, and the remaining 615,000 from General Reserve to Medford Housing Authority for the Walkland Court Redevelopment Project. requesting the appropriation of $400,000 from the CPA fund, $250,000 from Open Space slash Recreation Reserve, and the remaining $150,000 from General Reserve to Medford Public Schools for the McGlynn Universally Accessible Playground, requesting the appropriation of $5,000 from the CPA fund, Historic Preservation Reserve, to the Medford Historical Commission for the Thomas Brooks House Archaeological Site protective cap, requesting the appropriation of $3,276 from the CPA Fund at General Open Space Recreation Reserve to the Medford Recreation Department for the Condon Shell electrical upgrade. The projects will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund by category, Housing Historic Open Space and General Reserve. Their respective CPC recommendation letters are attached and incorporated. Application materials can be viewed at preservemedford.org. Thank you for your consideration. Mayor, and this was, these are off-cycle requests, and I, as president, I said it was fine just to put this on the regular agenda, as all of these have been presented to us in a committee of the whole at a previous time.
[Scarpelli]: As such, move for approval. I second that.
[Morell]: All right. Roberta, is there anything you'd like to add, or? I see you have your hand up.
[Bears]: We do have Teresa, our new CPC manager. I don't know if you want to say anything, Teresa.
[Morell]: Teresa, would you like to say anything briefly? You're here. And then we'll go to Roberta, if you'd like to speak still.
[Bears]: You just gotta, you gotta press a little. Yeah, there you go. You're good.
[Dupont]: Sorry, Kevin. I know you're in the back there. I just wanted to introduce myself again to the council, Teresa Dupont. I'm the newly appointed CPA manager. We do have Roberta Cameron, who's also the chair of the CPC on the call over Zoom, as well as Gabe Giro from the Medford Housing Authority. But I just wanted to see if there was any questions that we could address. I know we have a motion to approve as is, but. Thank you, Teresa. Great to see you in this capacity.
[Scarpelli]: I'll present if I can. These are projects that are already in place, and these are just the additions to finishing projects, something that's why we voted for the CPA, the great project, so move forward to approval.
[Morell]: Thank you. Roberto, is there anything else you wanted to add?
[Cameron]: Thank you very much for recognizing me. I just wanted to provide a little bit of context that two of the projects were projects that were previously funded, as you said, and you previously discussed them in the committee of the whole. And two of the projects are expansions of, small expansions of projects that have been done in the past and will make improvements over the, the what we have done already to date. And these are coming forward as off cycle applications through our small grant application process where very small projects can apply on an as needed basis rather than going through our application cycle. So I appreciate your consideration and the motion that you've already made for approval.
[Morell]: Thank you. So on a motion of Councilor Knight as seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. And this is to approve.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Seven. The infirmary is here in the negative. The motion passes. Thank you.
[Morell]: 23-403 to Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council regarding food truck permitting. Dear President Morell and members of the City Council, on behalf of the below entity, I respectfully submit to the Medford City Council the following request for a food truck permit in the city of Medford in addition to city council approval. Vendors are required to adhere to health department food safety regulations requirements. Chicken and Rice Guys food truck, dates, times, Saturday, October 14th, 2023 from 12 noon to 3 p.m. location, Riverbend Park, behind the McGlynn Middle School, Medford event, Harvester Energy Festival. About the event, the festival is- May I press a motion to waive the rest of the reading? On the motion of Councilor Caraviello to waive the rest of the reading and move approval, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli.
[SPEAKER_01]: Seconded.
[Morell]: And Councilor Knight, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Paris. Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Morell]: Yes. Seven. The affirmative zero in the negative. The emotion passes. 23-395 offered by Vice President Bears. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we request that the mayor require the building department and code enforcement to proactively address the rampant violation of the short-term rental provisions in the city's zoning ordinance. Be it further resolved that the city create a direct relationship with major short-term rental companies like Airbnb and VRBO to automatically remove any illegal listings that violate the city's zoning ordinance. Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I put this paper on. There's also a paper on under public participation, which is the next item we're taking up, but maybe we could jointly have the conversation now. I don't know if Elliot wants to come up in a minute, Just one of the reasons I put this on is that this was something that's been a priority for me since even before I was elected. Short term rentals, you know, certainly have a limited place, I think, in the housing world. But what we're seeing is a proliferation of a lot of our housing stock being taken up by short-term rentals and being turned into profit centers. And we passed a zoning ordinance last year that put significant restrictions on short-term rentals, required registration, required them to pay a registration fee, and also limited their use, where if there is not an owner-occupant in the unit, And, you know, if there's an owner occupant renting out rooms, that's one thing, but if there's just a housing unit that's being taken off the long-term rental market and being used for short-term rentals, particularly where you basically have small hotels operating in our neighborhoods, unregulated, we ban that. However, Airbnb and Vrbo have not stopped listing properties that are doing that. We have had residents like Mr. Jockelson and others who have been reporting, you've probably seen them on various social media sites. I think there was someone who had a hot tub in a tent in their backyard that they were putting down as a short term rental. And that got immediately, you know, code enforcement went out they said that's, you can't do that and it wasn't allowed but the limited code enforcement resources we have in the city really mean that it's on the residents to report these situations. And even when they do report them, it takes some time to get some enforcement out there. I really think that we should be more proactive, I think we'd find a lot of rental units coming back onto the market that are currently being used as profit centers in this way, and that would help with our housing crisis. So, the two things I'm asking for are that there be more resources and requirements provided to code enforcement so that they can do their job more effectively, but also I do know that thanks to to to Mr. Jopelson and others that have informed me that other cities have had created direct liaison relationships with the major short term rental sites, which have allowed the city to report issues directly to them and have listings removed so that they can't be rented. So I think both of those solutions need to be explored quickly and implemented so that our zoning ordinance is being followed by these folks who are breaking the law right now. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. This is a good ordinance that's been put forward. I think they're being proliferated in all the neighborhoods, not just up in the Tufts University, where that's probably the greatest extent of them, but I have one on my own street. I see people just coming down, walking down the street with suitcases. They're all over the place. They're up in the Heights there. They're proliferated everywhere. All you gotta do is just go on their page and you'd be surprised. how many people are doing so. I think Boston, I think today, this week, just passed something where they have to be owner-occupied. Am I correct? I think I saw that.
[Bears]: I saw they passed something.
[Caraviello]: Yeah, Boston did pass something. So I would hope we could pass something similar and maybe tighten up our rules to stop this.
[Morell]: Yeah, we do have, it does say that if you're renting out, our current ordinance says if you're renting out individual rooms, the owner has to be present.
[Bears]: And if you're not, you can only do it a maximum of 90 days a year. It's pretty strict. We went pretty strict on the first pass. I don't mind going and taking another look, but the most important thing is that the strict ordinance we have now be enforced.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: I wanted to thank Councilor Bears for putting this on the City Council agenda, to thank Mr. Jockelson for submitting that public participation form with a bunch of research and details about why this is a pressing and urgent issue. I think that this is the ordinance that we passed on short-term rentals is one of the most meaningful things that this council has done. It's something that I think many people here had a personal involvement in, particularly Councilor Bears in crafting. And it is something that I think we really should be enforcing. And I think there's things that have been coming across our desks as a city council in the last few weeks that have really emphasized the need for our city to invest in enforcement. Because we have good laws in place, we need to make sure that they're carried out. I think it's really important to note the distortionary effect that short-term rentals has on housing affordability and rents, both in terms of property values and in terms of rental prices in neighborhoods. The National Bureau of Economic Research has been pretty unequivocal in in what it's saying in the economic analyses with how this hurts regular working folks like residents of Medford, like people who are renting in our community, and people who want to buy property in our community, who want to stay in Medford. And so I think it's really important. I think the proposed solutions from Councilor Bears, I think, would be a very important first step in making sure that we're patching up those holes. Particularly, I think it's important to establish more direct relationships with outside entities to make sure that Medford's actually, to reassert our authority and to make sure that we are partnering up working in the spirit of cooperation to make our city better.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Collins and Councilor Knight.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Merlin. I also appreciate this being put forward into the constituents that have been advocating about this, some of them for a pretty long time. As Councilor Tseng mentioned, this has been, I mean, this is always coming up, but it's been coming up over the past couple weeks over a couple of different topics. And this council has spent a lot of time talking about the lack of code enforcement resources in the city. This comes up every budget season. It's something that we, and by we, I mean as a city, not as a council, can't seem to fund and expand resources for that department nearly fast enough at the rate that we know there's a clear need for and that residents are on a daily basis observing. the need for. Obviously, rules are not self-enforcing. I think that these suggestions are really good to try to nip in the bud the problem of Airbnbs and things like them proliferating in Medford. And then we need an expanded code enforcement office to be following up on problems like these and all of the many other problems from potholes to obstructed sidewalks to overgrowth that residents are reporting every day. in our community, and I really do regret and resent that when we exist at these substandard staffing and resource levels for basic city functions, it means that residents have to be code enforcement officers, and I really don't think that's fair. I don't think community members should have to be that. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. I think it's also very important to point out that this is 100% an enforcement issue. And we do have the controls in place and it's a matter of the administration taking steps that are necessary to ensure that neighborhoods are protected. So that's number one. And number two, we also have to think about what's prompting residents in this community to move towards not being landlords and instead being Airbnb operators. And some of it has to do with the discussion, I think, about policies that might go into effect in this community in the future. Some of it has to do with the fact that there's a lot of strong tenant rights laws And landlords feel like sometimes they're at a disadvantage when they go in to pursue non payment or rent issues and the like. So policy that we create also impacts these trends in housing. So it's important for us to look at the big picture as we move forward. But I can certainly agree with all my council colleagues and saying that this is 100% enforcement issue. And it's something that needs to be handled the forthright. Ultimately, you know, it's about protecting the neighborhoods. And right now we're not doing it. And that's something we need to do. So I thank the council for bringing the issue forward.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Any further discussion from the council at this time? Any members of the public wish to speak? So on the motion of, I mean, we'll take public participation. So on the motion of vice president affairs, seconded by councilor Collins, Mr. Calderon.
[Morell]: Yes. Seven. The infernus during the negative emotion passes. It's going to public participation. Elliot Jockelson of 60 Marshall Street, Medford, with a complaint regarding violations of short term rental regulations on 66 Lyman Ave, Medford. Subject is urgent addressing violations of short term rental regulations at 66 Lyman Ave. Dear Medford City Council members, I hope this message finds you well. I'm ready to draw your attention to a matter of considerable concern regarding the property situated at 66 Lyman Ave in Medford Hillside. Recent developments have highlighted serious violations of the city's short-term rental code at this location, prompting the need for a thorough examination. Key points of concern, I want to emphasize that I have taken proactive measures to address this situation. I personally reached out to Medford Code Enforcement Department to report these violations. See click issue ID 15172926. In response, they promptly conducted an onsite inspection and acknowledged that the apparent violations by issuing an official violation letter to the property owners. However, despite these actions, the property continues to function as an apparent illegal lodging establishment. At present, the property remains occupied by a substantial number of guests and is fully booked for the upcoming year. operational practices and consequences. Based on my investigation, it appears that 66 Lyman Ave is operating in a manner resembling an unauthorized boarding house. The proprietors, who reside in Winchester, have been renting individual bedrooms through Airbnb since 2020. The operational model has resulted in a continuous influx of approximately six new guests each week for over two years. The practice raises serious concerns about security and potential health hazards for our community. Security risks in our neighborhood. Beyond potential code violations, the security risks associated with operating in a legal hotel in a quiet suburban neighborhood are significant. The constant turnover of unfamiliar individuals entering and exiting the premises disrupts the tranquility of our community. The dynamic presents security concerns that extend beyond the property itself, affecting neighboring houses and streets, the heightened traffic flow, possible disturbances, and the unfamiliarity of temporary occupancy with local safety protocols amplifies these concerns. Identifying regulatory barriers, digital evidence listed in CCLX fix report shows that there are several violations of the short-term rental zoning regulations at 66 Lyman Ave. It is crucial to investigate potential factors impeding compliance. Three key areas of concern include Operator's primary residence requirement is a requirement that a short-term rental property serves as the operator's primary residence appears to be compromised as evidenced by the absence of the owner slash operator and the transportation of supplies from an external location. Sole renter party mandate, the practice of renting multiple separate bedrooms of distinct groups as indicated by multiple listings for different bedrooms concurrently raises concerns about compliance with the single party rental mandate and guest count limitation. The observed operational activity prompts questions about adherence to the stipulated guest limits for short-term rentals. Impact on local rental dynamics. In addition to potential regulatory infractions, there are implications for our local rental dynamics. Short-term rental practices have led to substantial disparities in rental rates, while traditional year-long lease for comparable property rents for approximately 3,500 per month, the same property on Airbnb commands around 6,000 per month. This trend distorts the local rental market, rendering long-term leases less accessible for residents. preservation of our community's well-being. As these complexities unfold, it is vital to address the situation promptly. Upholding established regulations and safeguarding our community's well-being are paramount. I urge you to enforce the new short-term rental codes for 66 Lyman Ave and all other illegal short-term rentals in Medford. Your thoughtful consideration is highly valued, and I am confident that your appropriate measures will be taken to address this matter in alignment with existing regulations and the best interests of our community. Sincerely, Elliot Jockelson, 60 Marshall Street, Medford. Would you like to come up? Just name and address for the record, even though, or just, you can just say name and address.
[Jockelson]: Elliot Jockelson, 60 Marshall Street. Thank you. Thank you for having me here, Zach. Thank you for engaging with me on this. Zach spent a lot of time talking to me about this issue. The police were at my house this morning. There was an Airbnb guest that was walking behind my garage, behind my fence. I said, hey, I was out there with my dog at eight in the morning, can I help you? Yeah, I was just curious. I'm new. I'm over here now, pointing towards the Airbnb house. We have cars on our block from every state. The cars change every week. The one thing I'll say, I put everything in the report, because I'm sorry that was so long. I just wanted to make sure everything was there and you guys heard it. What I will say is that this problem is unique. Um, it's really spreading across the neighborhood quickly. It's causing a lot of damage. It's also unique in that the solution can be quick. I mean, all this could be taken care of in a day. If someone did the research like I did, you just compare the listings to Zillow, you know, anything you have to do online to confirm that this house is not renting properly, make a list and create an official liaison from the city to Airbnb, and everything will be shut off in a day. And if you call Boston, someone did it there. Find out who did it, and they'll put you in touch with the person at Airbnb. I can't do it. I've been emailing Airbnb for two weeks. I've been sending them code from Zach. I sent them an email from our code enforcement stating that their violation has been found, and I'm getting canned responses. So they obviously are not interested in shutting down an Airbnb unless the city gets involved. That's my takeaway. Thank you so much for putting, for creating, trying to create more teeth in these restrictions and thank you for listening to me and reading my letter.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Morell]: That's embarrassing.
[Bears]: And if I could just, I just do want to reiterate Councilor Knight's point, which I tried to make clear in my resolution just prior to this. Two things are clear. I've talked I've been working with Elliot talking to code enforcement about this I've been hearing from other folks about You know different issues code enforcement goes out when they hear about it, but they Basically the way we're doing code enforcement city generally in the way that it's structured is not what it needs to be you know essentially The building departments code enforcement, and they're more focused on things like this and building inspection.
[Jockelson]: Dennis came straight and they came straight out. Yeah, they looked at it. They were professional. It wasn't them. It's just they don't have the teeth. Exactly the staff.
[Bears]: And yeah, and that's what I'm that's what I'm getting at. Right? Like they're doing great. They're doing an awesome job. I'm talking to them directly about what they need. And you know, essentially, you know, they've been doing, there should be a code enforcement officer at DPW looking at stuff in the public way. The building department's been covering for that for a long time. I think we need to have a serious discussion about inspectional services and code enforcement in the city. What's the resource level? How are they collaborating? Which departments are doing each job? Because clearly, on this issue, I think we're about to hear another major issue about overgrowth and trash and issues in on Emory Street tonight, right? Clearly they don't have the resources and the support they need. The flip side of that is we can advocate, we pass the zoning ordinance, we communicate when we can, when we hear from a resident or we hear from code enforcement, we try to make those links. Actually funding or making a structural change to how we do inspectional services, only the mayor has the power to do that. Actually saying, hey, code enforcement, You know, we need to prioritize creating an Airbnb liaison, right? Only the mayor can do that. So does the mayor watch this?
[Jockelson]: I don't know if the mayor is watching please shut all these Airbnbs down immediately because I'm just curious like about 66 Lyman Well, I mean, thank you for having me here. What's the next step? Like I had the police out here today. There's three more cars coming tomorrow. There's a 18 more cars coming next week. That's part of the reason why I came here because I've spoken to code enforcement, I've spoken to the city council now. I'm still unclear what the process is for getting this shut down. I'm in the dark and every day I'm looking outside my kitchen window and I'm seeing three new cars blow up.
[Bears]: Right, and that's kind of why I'm making the statement I'm making is we've now put a resolution on, our resolutions generally get a response from the mayor. The point of this resolution is to say, hey, we need to make this a priority, it's our request, please respond and tell us when and how you're going to do it. Right now, all I can do is we can have another email or phone conversation with Dennis or Mike and we can- I'm gonna email the mayor next, but I'm gonna keep watching and annoying people until this house is shut down.
[Jockelson]: I'm not going away, I'm the- the like miser of Marshall Street or whatever.
[Morell]: I don't know what you want to call it. The campsite was shut down, so there is precedence.
[Bears]: Yes, exactly. And so, you know, that's what I'm saying. I want to be clear that we have our eyes on it. We've been working on this legislatively. We're going to be pushing for it. It's a partnership in a two-way street in terms of we can make the request, but the action has to come from the office of the mayor, because that's who runs enforcement and who supervises the staff of the city. So- Well, now that I've spoken to you, I will now go and try and pursue it there. Yeah, and I'm happy to help on that direction too. I would love to have a conversation with the council and the mayor and code enforcement about what should inspectional services look like. in the city as well.
[Jockelson]: It's so easy to shut it down. You could change the entire city in a day. Yeah, if you had the right. Anyway, thank you so much.
[Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President, and I feel for the gentleman. Um, code enforcement is something that I've been. I've been pushing since for 12 years. It's my first day in the council. Um, I mean, Dennis and Mike, uh, anytime I've called him, they've been very responsive. But again, you know, they're only two of them. And And one of my objectives was always wanted to have that we should have people on the street at least two to three days a week going around and picking up the obvious violations. Not going out looking for them, looking for problems, but there's hundreds of obvious violations right in front of everyone's face that these gentlemen just can't possibly do. And I say, The inspection department, right, and Council Member is right. We should have one in for the Board of Health. We should have one in for the building. We should have multiple ones, but unfortunately, two people just can't possibly do the work that's needed. Please, if you need any help, call me. I'm around during the day. I'll come to your house and help you. If the police don't come, you call me. I'll be there.
[Jockelson]: any precedent for like a, like a, like citizen task force that helps them? I mean, sure, there's a lot of people that will be interested.
[Caraviello]: Well, they don't have a citizen task, but doesn't have legal authority.
[Jockelson]: But I mean, I mean, other than other than providing information to them in a certain way, where they can look at it and say, Okay, this is an Airbnb house, and they don't have to spend any time on it. Other than that, you know, something like that. I don't know.
[Caraviello]: I mean, yes, I say, you know, as fast as you bring it to our attention, you call me or you call councilors. Oh, I'll I'll call in as fast as you give them to me.
[Scarpelli]: Point of information, Madam Mayor, Madam President. I think what you're doing is unbelievable. What you're doing right now is a good example for the rest of the community. We don't have to have a task force, just people caring about the community. We're going to hear that about, you know, Emory Street. It's people that are reaching out to us that unfortunately we don't have the court enforcement department we need. I agree. So thank you.
[Caraviello]: I said, you know, I'm around during the day. You call me, I'll come and help you.
[Jockelson]: I appreciate that. But one of the things I'm only here 10 years. One of the things that really frustrates me about the city is I don't want to have to call one person. I want to thank you. I want to like, where do I go online to make the report? Who do I speak to in three weeks when it doesn't get done? And then what are the consequences? I don't want to have to, I've been on this and thank you so much for offering that. But I've been on it for like two years now. I don't have any more time. I know, you get a job, you get a job. And I'm saying that to you guys, you guys spent so much time for little rewards. So I appreciate it.
[Bears]: Yeah. And I just want to add, I think on this specific one, you found the answer, which is we should just be saying directly to the company, you have to remove the listing.
[Bears]: And that, that, that strips out the entire process. And then, you know, you have the people with the authority to make that from the city side who have the legal authority to have that enforcement happen. Yeah.
[Caraviello]: And sometimes it takes a little push from us. Like I say, I went up to Emory Street, I took some pictures, I sent them over to the DPW and the expression. I mean, and we'll talk about that later, but sometimes it takes that little extra push from somebody to get up there. So if you got something, please, my number's listed, call, I'm gonna say I'm around all day long. I appreciate that, thank you very much.
[Morell]: Thank you. This is public participation, and I see some folks online with hands up, and I know folks want to speak in person. So I'm going to go to Eunice on Zoom. I will ask you to unmute. And thank you.
[Browne]: Hi, good evening. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. So my question is this.
[Morell]: Name and address for the record, please?
[Browne]: Oh, I'm sorry. Eunice Browne, Greenleaf Ave. I have two houses on my street, two families that are getting ready to close with new owners this month. And particularly the one next door to me, but the other one is four houses up. I'm very fearful of what's to come. I don't know what their intentions are, but if their intentions are to run an Airbnb, and they've bought the property specifically for that purpose, How are we nipping these in the bud? If the people next door to me thought, well, I'll buy this two-family, I'll turn it into an Airbnb, hey, I've got a gold mine here. First of all, they can't do this, from what I understand. They can't just turn this two-family into a hotel, so to speak. Do they know that they can't do this? Do they know that they have to go and register? Or are you folks on the city side just counting on the fact that a couple of months in, I'm going to see a rotating cast of characters in here in different cars where Greenleaf's parking is already tight enough, as I'm sure you all know, and a rotating cast of characters. Is there any way to proactively know, before these people do this, tell them that they can't do it. And then maybe they'll go look elsewhere.
[Morell]: I guess we did just recently passed the housing stability notification ordinance, which is about providing renters with information they need to know about renting in the city. So I'm sure there's something we could explore as far as providing new owners information like this that lets them know about regulations as far as short term rentals, directing them to this zoning code, something like that. Councilor Tseng?
[Tseng]: And it might be helpful to do more for the city to do more outreach to realtors and to folks who are helping sell the properties to let them know that they should inform their clients that that use is off the table.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Collins?
[Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and I appreciate this bringing forward because it's, you know, essentially an example of what we've been talking about is what can we do to make it so these problems aren't happening in the first place. And I think the housing stability notification ordinance is a good example because that's using our existing city communication channels just to distribute what is information that's already existing rules that already exist, you know, using an existing communication channel. I think that that paired with having a liaison to you know, Airbnb or a similar company, these are ways of saying, hey, before anybody starts doing anything that you may not know in good faith that you shouldn't be doing, here's how things work in Medford. That paired with more robust enforcement, I think that that's what we should be rolling out for every, you know, all of these frequent flyer city problems that we know we see all the time.
[Knight]: Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. I look at this in a couple of different ways. The first of which is, you know, all of this, getting involved between someone trying to sell a house and someone trying to buy a house and the regulations and restrictions that surround it is part of the due diligence process when you're purchasing a home. or when you're purchasing a piece of property. And I know that that's a process that's heavily regulated as it is. I think we better be very careful in how far we're going to be going in performing the due diligence for these private landowners conducting private land transactions. So, with that being said, you know, I can certainly see the issue going on with the lack of enforcement of BMPs in the community, the strict code that we've established that would provide you only 90 days a year for rental. But at the end of the day, you know, I think that there has to be a spot where government doesn't get so involved in people's lives. So, we have to draw our line somewhere. And I think that when that line is doing the due diligence for potential homebuyers. It just doesn't really fall within the scope of what a government service is. And I think that at the end of the day, we'd be providing far too much energy and effort and performing an exercise that's not going to reap great results. I think we'd be much better off putting our energy, efforts, and time into enforcement. So that's where I stand on this matter, but thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Going to Sneha on Zoom. I will unmute you. and name and address for the record, please.
[Sneha]: Hi, Deb. This is Sneha. My address is 108 Medford Street. I understand this discussion is rightly so about enforcement, but I just wanted to introduce a note of skepticism in that regard because honestly, just hearing about neighbors sort of keeping an eye on the number plates coming in and who's coming in, who's coming out and having this, It almost sounds like a kind of vigilantism, which is very terrifying to me, frankly speaking, because I think as much as we care about going by the book and making sure homeowners don't exploit certain loopholes in the law, we should also be careful about not building up a resistance to any kind of outsider as a sentiment coming into the community. So I just wanted to have that on the record. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for public participation at this time? Please come up to the mic. And I know we have multiple folks for public participation. We still have an agenda that folks are here for as well. So I will be enforcing the council rules, five minutes each for public participation. Name and address for the record, please.
[Ducey]: Yep, it's on, there you go. Hi, Mary Anna Ducey, 2 North Street. I'm here tonight because I wanted to call attention to the fact, you all know that Walkland Court is being redeveloped. They have had meetings for the community, but the community doesn't feel as though our voices are being heard. So in talking to the residents in the neighborhood, I decided that maybe we should do a petition to see what gauged the sentiment of the community, which I did. And I'm going to give you a copy tonight. I'm going to also present this tomorrow night because the Community Development Board is going to have a meeting on the zoning there. Now, basically, the neighborhood around Walkley Court is not opposed to rebuilding, renovating, upgrading, or whatever. It's the size and the scale that they're proposing there. They're cramming, we feel, too many people in too small an area, and they're putting six-story buildings in a residential neighborhood besides single-family homes. So I have all the issues that the residents are concerned about in the petition. And for your information, there's very strong, and I mean very strong opposition to this, of the design, not the fact that they're going to redevelop the community, but it's to the... I'd like to get the names on that. And this is for the clerks, for the permanent. I have collected 1,131 signatures opposing the current design. 99% of the people that I've approached signed. They don't know anything about this, most of them, so I showed them a copy of the design that's being proposed. I have to educate everybody on what's going on there because they've only notified people about the change within 400 feet of the complex. Now, everybody's touting the fact that it's gonna be good for the housing authority and they're gonna add this, but what is it doing to the neighborhood? There has to be some compromise here. Yes, we'll be supportive of whatever they wanna do there, but within reason. They have to consider the neighborhood and how it's gonna affect the neighborhood. So all the points that have been raised are in the handout that I gave you tonight. And the copy of the permanent sign petition is gonna be filed with the clerk's office. Tomorrow night at the 6.30, well actually during the day tomorrow, I'm going to the community development office and give them their copy. But since the city council was meeting tonight, I thought you should have your copy tonight. So I'd be happy to answer any questions if you people have any. but I want you to know that the community needs some help in mediating what the housing authority wants to do and what is good for the residents of the city of Medford.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mary. We are going to be holding as committee of the whole next Tuesday with the executive director of Medford Housing Authority on this project to get an update, to hear from residents and address concerns. So we will be hosting that as a committee of the whole next week. Okay.
[Ducey]: Well, the points that I bring out in the letter should help you start that conversation. Thank you.
[Morell]: All right. Great. Thank you so much. Going to Councilor Knight, unless your hand is still up.
[Knight]: That's an old high five, Madam President, my apologies.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Haynes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Navarre]: William Navarre, 108 Medford Street, apartment 1B. I just want to make a point regarding the Walkley Court concerns, particularly the one that we're cramming so much housing onto a particular lot. basically the size of the land there is fixed. So if you reduce the density, that means there's going to be less housing for people there. We desperately need housing. And I think it's just very important that we recognize that if you want less density, there's going to be less housing. Fewer people are going to benefit from the project. Big part of this project is not just to renovate, but also to expand the ability to have an offering for people who need a place to live. This is a very low income, deeply affordable housing project. And there's a very big demand for that housing crisis in general, but we're way short of where we need to be at that deeply affordable as well. And I think it's just really important we recognize, you know, less density means less housing, less people benefiting from the project. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. And we have someone else for public participation. I think you're We're good through every, if you wanna come up, we're good for everyone. We can also go back to public participation at the end if you wanna get through everything, but okay. Did you have something else? Elliot.
[Jockelson]: I wanna support my neighbor over here. She's fantastic. She goes around with petitions and she went around for the bus. And I live on Marshall Street, which is a block away from where they're proposing a new road that will lead into all these six-story apartment buildings. And I've been following the issue closely, and I've been surprised when I checked to see what the requirements were for who they had to speak with. It was just houses that touched the property, which is like six houses. And they're proposing to open up a road with several six-story buildings onto a street that they don't repair. It's one six-story building. Sorry, one six-story building. It's two six-story buildings. Is it not, Zach?
[Bears]: I believe it's one large six-story building and then smaller outbuilding.
[Jockelson]: I'm actually in favor of it. I do think it's a little large. But if you're opening the road onto a street, adding all those people, and you don't ever fix a street for 10 years, maybe you want to go down the street and talk to every house on the street and see how they feel about it. There's going to be a lot more traffic there, that's for sure. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. Okay, if there's no one else to participate, you can come to the mic, please.
[Page-Lieberman]: Yes, hi, it's Matthew Page-Lieberman, 15 Canal Street. First, yeah, I got here a little late. I imagine some of the things that were on the agenda were covered. If so, Justin, so as Councilor is saying, I'm very thankful that you got work on the Gender Equity Commission started again.
[Morell]: I know- We haven't gotten to it yet, but- Oh, you have not. See, we voted for it.
[Page-Lieberman]: I'm speaking on behalf of, in the last term, it looked like there was a lot of aversion to moving on it, particularly by the president. It seemed like there were mothballing, and I'm glad to see that there'll be movement on it again. Oh, sorry about that. I had a big, quick walk over here, but there's another issue about this whole Airbnb. I've watched these meetings long enough, To hear Councilors different different instances of the council and members here just target lots of groups there was years ago developers were targeted and then some of the same Councilors changed their minds and then Targeted the Historical Commission. I've heard masseuses get attacked here. I've heard I've heard there's this threat about Oasis and the clientele, and now it's people that are in Airbnbs, and you hear it again and again and again. I know part of it is this game, right? We got to target somebody this week. But I'm just kind of trying to speak that there are many people who don't speak, but there are us out in the community, and we see what's going on when yet another group is targeted. But uh-oh, they might be having some fun, and I'm not. I'm miserable, I'm pissed off, and I want to stop them from having some fun. So, you know, last month I had a bilateral Ernie operation. And my mother came, she's a retired nurse, she came from Florida to help me out and help me through the recuperation. The recuperation is still going on. We really want to stay here in Medford. We really did want to. And some people don't know how to do searches on Airbnb, and they actually think that there are thousands of Airbnb units in the city, but they're not. But we were able to find one in Malden. All we were looking for was two units and a kitchen. And we simply could not find that. This was an actual need. This isn't like some party. And it wasn't here in the city where I wanted to stay in my own city during my creation. It was in Malden. And I think we may want to reflect upon that. There are many people that use Airbnb besides what we imagine are troublemakers partying. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. Anyone else for public participation? Mr. Castagnetti.
[Bears]: Oh, can I go first?
[Morell]: Hang on, Mr. Castagnetti. Advice isn't fair.
[Bears]: Thanks. I wanna acknowledge what Mr. Paige Lieberman just said. I think it's not targeting people who use Airbnb. I think there's obviously cases and situations where there's need for people to have short-term accommodations. I think it's the question of, historically, until these app companies came in and said, oh, we're gonna make a premium off of people's homes, renting them out, people stayed at hotels, which have regulations, they have specific security requirements, taxation requirements, there is a suites, I think it's a town place suites or some Marriott suites in Medford that has a kitchen and some bedrooms in it, right? Like, but while there are certainly reasonable and valid use cases, I think when you have a there are people renting single family homes for $1,000 a night. If you can make $360,000 a year, and maybe you won't rent it out every night, but say you rent it out half the nights, you can make $180,000 a year, why would you ever rent it long-term to a long-term tenant? You just wouldn't. I mean, I wouldn't do that, but if you're just buying property to speculate on and seek profit motive, if you can make $180,000 a year versus $40,000 a year, you know, someone who has that profit motive or chooses to speculate on the land and housing in our community. since we don't regulate it, they're gonna do that. And I just think that's, it's not about targeting the people who use Airbnbs, it's targeting the people who are buying housing and land in the city and turning it into micro hotels in neighborhoods that are unregulated because they can make an extra $100,000 a year off of land that should be used for people to live here, to live here. And that's really more where I'm coming from on it. I'm not one to, Be mad that people are having fun. I like having fun too. So I just don't think that the landlord making $100,000 a year in profit by taking a housing unit away from a family who wants to live here should be able to do so. Thank you.
[Morell]: Going to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. The address for the record please.
[Castagnetti]: Hello, President Andrew Castagnetti, Medford, Massachusetts. I don't know much about this Airbnb business. However, I feel for Mr. Elliot Jockelson from Marshall street and all his neighbors who have to deal with all these different vehicles, maybe on a nightly basis, they should not be allowed to rent out a home, especially an absentee landlord. Um, and they rented it as a hotel. That doesn't make any sense to me. And this is unjust to the, to the people that live in the neighborhood. so uh I mean for lack of a better word um if one of your councils live next door to one of these hotels on a daily basis in a house it would really for lack of better english it would really suck plain english hopefully you have federal or state or local laws or local ordinances that you can uphold and have teeth because this should not go on it's not just Marshall Street's problem. I'm sure there's many locations. Thank you for listening.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Knight]: On that point, Madam President.
[Morell]: Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: I think it's important to point out that we probably do have one of the strongest short-term rental ordinances in the region. But again, it's an issue about enforcement. To Mr. Castagnetti's question, this has been reviewed at the state level extensively, and it's been determined that local municipalities can't ban them. But what we can do is regulate them, but we can regulate them only to a certain extent. And we've utilized our legislative power to do that to the fullest. The question now is, can the administration put the teeth that we gave them to good use, and be sure that our ordinance is enforced to the level that the taxpayers deserve?
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Is there anyone else for public participation at this time? Moving to 23-393 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council have the T Medford Disability Commission Parking Commission address the issue with the lack of handicapped parking at the Tufts T Station. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. This is something I was brought to my attention by a young lady sitting in the audience there who made me aware that we have this brand new T stop and we have no handicapped parking there. I just assumed that there was parking and after she brought it to my attention, I went up there, I looked. And I see none. I mean, we have our mayor who's the vice chairman of the Tea Advisory Board. I would hope that the mayor will be on top of this and have spots put up there immediately. And the other issue is all the tea workers park their cars there with the little tea badge in there, and our parking commission doesn't tag them. It doesn't work. Parking's at a minimum at the best up there. T employees should find their own place to park or take the T to work, like everyone else. And I say, I think the young lady may want to talk, but I say, I would hope that the disability director and the mayor, who's vice chair of the committee, immediately act on this, get some spots there immediately. Thank you, Madam President.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Would you like to speak? Just name and address for the record, please.
[Driscoll]: My name is Anne Driscoll. I live at 77 Quincy Street in Medford, and it was worth coming just to hear Mr. Caraviello call me a young woman. So there is a population being underserved by not having parking spaces at the Medford Tufts station, and that's the handicapped and the elderly. You may be aware that in the United States, 13.67 of the people are disabled, which is a more proper term. Handicap means hand in your cap. It's an outdated, but it's still on the signs. That's an underestimation because to have a handicap, a placard for your car, you get a permanent placard or a temporary one. A permanent placard is for those who cannot walk 200 feet without needing to sit down. Those with heart conditions, elderly, A temporary is for those people that are disabled for more than two months, broken ankle, broken leg, perhaps cancer treatment. And this is a segment of the population that's being very underserved. And I have been to the mayor and had... On May 12th, 2022, I've been bounced from department to department. No action has been taken until Mr. Caraviello graciously met with me last Friday, and we discussed that and several other issues in which we are underserving our disability population. I am 79 years old, so I love being called the young one, a young lady, and we bought our first house in Medford at age 35, then had a rental unit in addition to family, and now we're into a downsized in Medford. So we're long-term Medford residents, and it's now in our older years, with, of course, my disabilities, that we need the services that would support us to make this a livable city for everyone. And I've lived in the Tufts Hillside area. So I know the students and they can be daunting, but Tufts has always worked very well with the community. And when we call, they break up the 200 people parties. So Tufts, the fellow from Marshall Street I have to say I sympathize with him because I recognize that overpopulation can really be a threat. And that's why we moved five minutes away to Quincy Street. So I think to be fair and to serve the entire population, we need not just to have one little handicapped parking spot. We need to have a number because there are those people that have caretakers and they're bringing people. And I have been in a wheelchair and I have been on crutches, and I have been using a walker. And to have an easy way to get to a doctor is important, it's critical. And for heaven's sakes, our elderly and our disabled might like to just go sit on the Boston Common and enjoy the weather. Thank you for hearing me. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. I think most of us were there at that grand opening of the T with much fanfare. The governor was there and everybody was there. And I don't know how an issue of handicap parking got overlooked on there. So I would say our mayor is the vice chair of the T Advisory Commission. I would hope that, I don't know why this wasn't acted on sooner was this woman put it in in May, but now September. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I apologize. May of last year. It's been over a year, and it's something that should have been rectified immediately.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Um, it's, I live a block away from Medford Tufts and, you know, honestly, it's, it's not a hard solution. There's, there's space on Boston Ave where you can put in handicap parking and there are garages in the neighborhood. There's a Tufts garage where people can, people who don't need that proximity can park at. Um, and so I would really hope that, um, the administration really work to, to make it, I, I just don't know how this got overlooked as well. Yeah.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I also just want to say thank you, Mr. Scullin, for working with Councilor Caraviello to raise this issue. I'm sorry that it's taken you such a long time and been bounced from department to department to try to give voice to this issue. You speak very movingly about the need to, as a city and as working with our state agencies, to keep doing a better job of, you know, not always just catering to the average user, but centering people who are disabled, either temporarily or permanently, All types of people need to get on the T, and this T station was built for all of us. So thank you for bringing this forward, and I'm sure that we're all going to stay on it to make sure that there are disabled parking spaces near this T station. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Anne, for coming down and bringing this forward and for working with Councilor Caraviello on it. I just want to propose an amendment to just add the traffic commission, because I believe the parking on Boston Ave is city-owned, so it would be the jurisdiction of the traffic commission, and a petition could go before them soon, and they could put the markings and signs out. I mean, it would be under their authority to put that out, so.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Bears, if you drive by there, you'll see 8 to 10 cars that are parked there in our parking spots.
[Bears]: Yeah, I've seen that, and they're not paying.
[Caraviello]: With the T badges, and our parking department just ignores it.
[Bears]: And the reason I just want to add the Traffic Commission is because there's the two things here. One is the Traffic Commission could mark those as handicapped spots at their next meeting, changing enforcement and requiring enforcement that, you know, we've had a lot of discussions about that tonight, haven't we?
[Scarpelli]: a few different issues when it comes to our handicapped community and the lack of respect, whether they were having a city event and they're blocking handicap ramps or issues like what we're hearing tonight. I think that, I know that the, I know that Neil Osborne used to have the position. is so frank. Has anybody can we actually make a motion to send that to Francis as well? So I think this is an issue to with the Disability Act that it's not just the T issue. It's just not, you know, a situation with with, uh, you know, Todd Blake, but this is also something that legally that the city has to get involved in, and we can send, you know, our enforcement agency to look at that as soon as possible to see if something could be remedied sooner rather than later, because if we wait for the T, they'll be building a blue line going through Metro. So if we could do that, I appreciate that. Thank you.
[Driscoll]: The American Disability Act does require 20% parking for services for people that will need it that are disabled.
[Morell]: Thank you. And to echo my fellow Councilors, thank you, Councilor Caraviello, for bringing this forward. Thank you, Anne, for coming out for this. And I appreciate just the background facts as well, because I think something that I've heard in one of these meetings that stuck with me is it's something that Americans with Disabilities is the largest minority group in the country, and it's the only minority group that you can join at any time. So it's something that it's not a niche issue. It's something that affects every single one of us and every single one of us should be focused on. So I really appreciate you coming here tonight and reminding us once more of all the things that we may not see that are really impacting people's lives. So hopefully we can get this fixed. Going to Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. I think moving forward as we go through our zoning reform, this is something we also might want to take a look at where the ADA requires a minimum of 20%. I don't think there's anything that could prevent us from requiring more than that, number one. Number two, as we've established policies in this community as a council through zoning reform that's reduced the parking minimums in certain developments with that obviously would come a reduction in the number of parking for handicapped blackout holders. So again, you know, an unintended consequence of policy change. So it's something that needs to be addressed. And I think a good way to approach that might be through our next round of zoning codification and maybe increasing the minimum number of parking spots that would be required or reserved for our disabled residents here in the community and elsewhere that are visiting our community.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. So on the motion of Councilor Caraviello, as amended by Vice-Mayor Bears and Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Morell]: Yes. I mean, if earners here and then I get the motion passes to 3.400 offered by Vice Affairs, whereas thousands of civil code violations are going on address each year due to underfunding and misallocation of city staffing resources for enforcement and inspections. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the city administration provide a plan to increase civil code enforcement and inspection services staffing, either with new funding or by reallocating funding within or between the city's enforcement departments to match need, be it further resolve the city administration report on efforts to address numerous major code enforcement violations in the hillside neighborhood.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I think this has kind of become the theme of the night, so I'm happy to just kind of quickly move through this resolution. We can move to the specific resolution that Councilor Caraviello filed. But really, the intent here is just to say that we need to have a discussion about code enforcement and inspectional services in the city, getting them the resources they need, putting that under the correct structure, because there's just tons of civil code violations happening all the time that are, you know, either going unaddressed or are overwhelming code enforcement or, you know, a lot of them are getting reported by residents. So if there isn't a resident in a place who knows how to report something, or doesn't have access to the systems or is new to the area, maybe that thing just never even gets to the people who can enforce it. And there's also the specific issues that I've definitely had communications from and have annual communications from folks in the Hillside neighborhood as it relates to Tufts University students and landlords. So that's the intent of this resolution. Happy to move through it and have the discussion that folks are here to have on Councilor Caraviello's resolution.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Bailão, for bringing this forward. Again, for the last 12 years, I've been on code enforcement consistently. It's nothing I have ever waived on. In the past two mayors, three mayors, I've always wanted more code enforcement. Sorry, I went up to the Board of Health the other day with a rat situation. I was told that the inspector for rats was on vacation. I'll have to wait until she comes back. We only have one person doing rats. And again, it's a systemic thing throughout the whole city. I thank you for bringing it forward. And it's something that needs to be really taken care of quickly.
[Tseng]: I want to thank Vice President Meares for introducing this. I think tonight it really exemplifies why we need to invest more in our code enforcement. We need our laws to have some meaning. This is also something I should note that the first budget I worked on here, the one I guess, in 2022, 2022, we, as a council and our Committee of the Whole sat down and advocated for more money put to code enforcement. That's something that we coordinated our efforts on. I think it's, it would be, that's something that I know Councilor Caraviello and me were particularly passionate about in that meeting, in that Committee of the Whole meeting. in the upcoming budget season, no matter whatever the format or the makeup of the city council may look like after elections, I would really hope that the city council redoubles on its efforts to push for more code enforcement.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. So on the motion by Susan Bair, seconded by Councilor Knight, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: 7 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative, the motion passes, 23-405 offered by Councilor Caraviello.
[Morell]: Be it so resolved that city administration provide a written explanation as to why the city attorney defaulted on a court appearance related to 41 Emory Street proceedings. Be it further resolved the city administration provide the city council with all correspondences, communications, records, reports, and any materials related to the distressed property located at 41 Emory Street. Be it further resolved that the disability director have the owner remove the overgrowth as the sidewalk is impassable to wheelchairs, strollers, and pedestrians. access in the interest of public safety. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, the person who lives next door reached out to us, reached out to the whole council to go by and look at the house and what was going on. So I had the opportunity to go over there last Thursday and meet with her. She gave me a little walk through the neighborhood. And I was appalled to hear that our city of Medford took the homeowner of 41 Emery Street to court and we did not show up in court. Okay, we're paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a law firm who couldn't even send the first year law student, a law associate to go to court and show up for us. Shame, shame, shame, shame. Nevermind the overgrowth at this person's house. This house has been abandoned for a while, they know who the owner is. I know there was some work done on the property over the last weekend. It's still not acceptable to the owner. There's overgrowth all over the place. It's not fair, again, similar to this gentleman's, but not fair to the people who live in that community that's been taken over by students for years, and it's not a new problem that this house is gone. left like that in this condition where you can't even walk down the sidewalk. Never mind if someone had a stroller or someone had a wheelchair, impossible to get by there. But again, shame on us for defaulting a court because they said they didn't have an attorney available. KP Law's got to have 50 lawyers in their office there. Totally unacceptable, Madam President.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Tseng]: Um, I concur with Councilor Caraviello that that was perhaps the most shocking part of that email. I mean, why would we go schedule a court date without talking to Kate, without making sure that someone from KP Law would be there and without making sure that someone from our city would be there. It just doesn't make sense. You know, this is something that would be inexplicable if you went to a law firm and asked them, you know, how are you scheduling your court hearings? So I support this resolution. I think we need answers because this is unacceptable. And, you know, are there more cases of this, you know? And that's why I would want to amend, if you're so amenable, Councilor Caraviello-Velo, to ask also for a written explanation as to how we're going to prevent things like this from happening again. So a written explanation as to how the city of Medford will prevent defaults on court appearances from happening again.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Madam President. I don't want to say it, but I'm going to say it, but I told you so. We had an opportunity this budget season to hold the mayor's feet to the fire, and we didn't do that. The answer to Councilor Tseng's resolution is very simple. It's called a city solicitor, an assistant city solicitor. It's unheard of in the state of Massachusetts. the city of this size, not having a team of city solicitors representing the residents, the council, of this community. So we're finally getting some redacted bills. I believe it was last month, maybe you can correct me, I believe it was over $100,000 K.P. Law. I believe this month, last month that we just got, a slow month, I believe it was another $60,000. Correct me if I'm wrong. But this is money we're paying to a law firm that doesn't have to answer to us. And this is what's frustrating. These are basic necessities we need that every city needs to move forward. Even tonight, some of the resolutions we're going through, we're talking about I'm afraid to open my mouth because we have no legal representation. Because one one of our residents came up and said, Well, you're starting to pick on people. I don't disagree with them. And the fact that we don't have legal guidance to say careful how you say this, because you could be sued, because that's happened to us. Did we not forget that? And we're still in court with it with the BJ situation. So again, Thank you for bringing this up. Again, for the neighbors, what's going on in that neighborhood is ridiculous. I think that, again, the fact that we don't have code enforcement officers is another big issue, but we wouldn't know that because we couldn't discuss these issues at the budget hearing. Because the mayor got what she needed. She got her four votes. And now here we are again, bringing up these same things and sounding like a broken record. Well, I will tell you, I, on the school committee, we realized we had the toughest mayor that negotiates in years, and Mike McGlynn. And when we needed things done for our school department, the school committee stood together and would not vote a budget until we got what we needed. And I know people don't like to hear this, but that's politics. That's part of the whole gamut of why we're here. This mayor is doing whatever she wants to do. And I don't see any benefit for our community, whether it's neighbors with Airbnbs, or whether it's a simple question that people, no one's picking up the phone. So I'm frustrated, yes. I'm not as animated, because I think I'm getting tired of being so animated. But again, this is a very simple issue, very simple solution. Hire a city solicitor. Hire an assistant city solicitor. In most communities, that's like saying, breathe. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Pastor Garbelli.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. As Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, so we're just on two months, we're at $160,000 for two months. So the comment was made, well, we're not paying enough money. We're spending probably $800,000 to $900,000 a year on legal fees. We can hire a Supreme Court justice for half a million dollars. So don't tell me that there's no money to hire a solicitor or an assistant solicitor because we're spending way over budget on outside legal fees that could be done in-house.
[Morell]: Dr. Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I appreciate you bringing this up and I think that this, these two, this resolution and vice president beers is for it. They rhyme together because when you look at the experience of this particular household on Emory Street and I had the opportunity to speak with one of the neighbors there as well as with representatives from our Board of Health Department and There were a lot of details from this particular episode, which would not shock most people in the city who live with, you know, chronic code violations, you know, as a matter of course, but are still shocking to hear, you know, the way in which this particular, you know, quote unquote resolution was trying to be achieved to a truly unsatisfactory way, how much time it took. But we're talking about the need to reallocate or find new resources to make sure that we're spending money where it's going to be meaningful for our residents. Because currently, you know, I spoke to the Board of Health and they said, I think it was about a different household with a vermin problem. They said, you know, same thing that you heard. The one inspector that we have for that in this apartment is out on vacation. And when she gets back, she will start to work through the queue that has been amassing for her ever since she took her vacation, which I'm sure was extremely deserved because she's the only person doing this type of inspection in the entire city. No person is a superhero. This is an extremely severe misallocation of resources problem. And the downstream effect is that residents feel the lack of responsibility and the lack of communication. And they see their complaints going under investigated and unresolved. And that's not because our city staff are doing a bad job. It's because there just aren't enough of them. And I know that we all feel that frustration day in and day out when we get these emails and calls, and we know that we feel it every meeting. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. And to that point, we did get a email earlier today from the Director of the Board of Health, Mary O'Connor, saying that she would be back by the property tomorrow, understanding that it wasn't cleaned up in a satisfactory way. Going to you, Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. I am at a loss sitting here hearing that after the amount of money that we spent on outside council, that represents the mayor personally and not the city of Medford, an amount of money is some of the totals close to a half a million dollars. over $450,000 we spent on KP Law's legal fees in what appears to be violation of city ordinance, Madam Mayor, Madam President. Once again, I'm calling you Madam Mayor, because I'm just wishing it would be somebody else, but the one that's in there. When I think about this, Madam President, it makes me crazy, because for three years, I feel like I was talking in an echo chamber. saying we need to hire a city solicitor. We need a city solicitor. We need to hire a city solicitor. We still don't have a city solicitor. Instead, we have a private law firm that we paid a half a million dollars to. It's too busy to go to court and represent the interests of this community. That shows you where their priorities lay. It also shows you how inept this administration is. when it comes to the deliverance of basic city services, number one. And number two, the protection of the taxpayers' interests when it comes to having in-house legal counsel that represents the taxpayer and not the corner office. So here we are again, two months after the budget passed, asking for more money for a code enforcement office. So when we had an opportunity, when we had an opportunity to hold up a budget and get what we needed, number one. Number two, And we're coming off the heels of a budget where the mayor said she was gonna hire a solicitor and an assistant city solicitor for the council and never did. Unfulfilled promises, Madam President. Unfulfilled promises. This has been the number one issue, the number one underlying theme throughout this past term for this council is where is our legal representation? We're driving a ship without a compass. We're going into uncharted territory, and we need guidance. Please help us. Please help us. That's the council asking, and the council gets ignored. Now, Madam President, we have residents asking. They're saying, please help us. Please help us. And they're now being ignored. And KP law is defaulting on court appearances that they filed, that they filed. KP law is directing the board of health not to put clean it and lean it notices on homes after the council is directing them to do so because such levels of dissatisfaction in the public administration of the enforcement of code. So again, we can put the record on repeat. Madam president, here we are again, the same spot we were 12 months ago, the same ones we were the same spot we were 12 months before that. I sit here and I scratch my head every day and I say, let's name one thing the city does well. Let's name one thing. Our school test scores are down about eight, 9% across the board in the last three years. Our city streets look awful. Our sidewalks look terrible. We can't get trees trimmed. We can't get stumps removed. We can't get crosswalks repainted. We can't get 3-3 paved. The only saving grace we have in this community is we pick up that phone and dial 9-1-1. And we know that the police and the fire are always going to show up with or without a contract for 700 plus days. So when I sit here and I reflect on what's going on in this community and I ask myself, what are we doing well? What are we doing well? That's one of the hottest questions I have to struggle with every day. Because when I look around, I don't see anything that we're doing well, that we're exceeding at, that we're excelling at. I don't see anything that's putting Medford on the forefront, that's keeping Medford where it was. 10 years ago when I got elected, Medford was the hottest zip code in Massachusetts because of its large inventory of single family homes and its small class sizes. Boy, how times have changed. Boy, how times have changed, Madam President. We're a community that's losing its identity. And pretty soon we're going to be swallowed up and become just a pocket of Boston. The zoning reform that's coming up is going to be very important to us. And I hope the mayor keeps her word this time around and provides us with the tools necessary to succeed. Because right now, I feel as though the city is not in a strong position for now or for the future. Thank you, Madam President.
[Morell]: Thank you. I'm sorry. Name and address for the record, please. And you can hit that button if it's, there you go. Oops, sorry, maybe they, there you go.
[Narelle Marr]: Hi, Narelle Marr, 39 Emory Street.
[Michael Marr]: Michael Marr, 39 Emory.
[Narelle Marr]: I wanted to address the issue at 39 Emory Street. It's, there's, you guys all got my email. There's a lot going on there. but it's not a new issue. It's been going on. I just looked through my records. 2011 is the first time I emailed the city council about it. And it's just, there is no enforcement. There hasn't been any enforcement and people get up in arms and talk about enforcement, but it just doesn't get done. So I heard the enforcement issue come up many times today. And I also heard the rat issue come up. Those are two really important issues that need to be funded.
[Michael Marr]: Yeah, I mean, it's 20 years ago.
[Morell]: Just lean towards the mic.
[Michael Marr]: Yeah, City Solicitor 20 years ago, we had Mayor McGlynn and we're living in the exact same neighborhood today that we had 20 years ago. We've been fighting this fight We have landlords, absentee landlords that come in, buy a property, walk away and rent overcrowd, do not take care of anything. And the more that this happens, the more of the good people like Rich and Tracy, Rhonda Randy, ourselves, we're gonna move out. I could make a fortune on my house renting to students, but we don't. So we're here again, just asking for the help of the city to step up for the good people, because if you don't, you're gonna get more of the difficult people. So really could use your help.
[Morell]: Thank you for the discussion from the council versus affairs.
[Bears]: Yeah, I mean, I just want to say to the points that you made, you know, You've been fighting the same fight for a long time. You haven't seen the enforcement. It's because the enforcement hasn't been funded the whole time. And that's fundamentally the question. This council doesn't have the ability to increase funding for anything by a single dollar. All we can do once a year is cut. We can take more away. That's the only power the city charter gives us. And I know I've communicated with all of you here about that. I'm glad you're voicing the issue again. I'm glad we're setting resolutions up. I'm sure we'll get responses eventually. It's an incredibly difficult position to sit here and say, here you say can you help us and me basically have to think, and I'm just going to voice it now and say, functionally no. Right, you've come up and you've asked the Council for 10 years for help, and it's the same charter and different members of the Council completely right, you could say people love the Council 10 years ago and they hate me and you know whatever completely different Council, same issues, and quite frankly it's going to be the same response because this Council whether it's the people here now or the people here 12 years ago, neither of those councils could raise any funding for any department by a single dollar. That power only lies with the mayor. And I'm sorry that we can't do more for you to help you other than try to be advocates from the position that we're in.
[Knight]: Thank you. I have a question regarding enforcement.
[Michael Marr]: Does an enforcement create revenue? If you start going after, as soon as you started enforcing some of the fines on some of these landlords, things changed. So the money would come in if you enforce it like a revolving door there. You lay out the fines on parking, lay out the fines on absentee landlords and money comes in and helps pay for the enforcement. Work with Tufts, maybe Tufts can help up because they are providing the students or good kids, but for the most part, they're creating havoc in our neighborhoods. So maybe Tufts can help out for our particular part of the neighborhoods. It's a revolving thing. I would assume so. Maybe it's not, but that's what I was hoping.
[Bears]: You know, I don't know if other Councilors have haven't answered the question. My understanding is that other than the parking parking and permitting. I haven't seen civil code enforcement violations as a major source of revenue for the city. I don't know if that's because it actually costs more to send people out to enforce it than we're allowed to fine. I think we're limited at our maximum to $300 per issuance on the fine by state law, 350 maybe. So I don't know the answer to your question is all I'm saying.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Tseng]: Councilor say Councilor bears is understanding is my understanding as well. Given our limits on how much we can charge violations and fine for violations and given the, I mean, it could be that we're just we haven't done it so we don't know but realistically, given the number of possible violations out there, probably would not amount to a full-time salary for the position. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be investing in that. I mean, we should be doing that. And so I would definitely say in the next budget process, no matter who's mayor, who's not sitting on this side of the rail, that we come up to residents, like you come up to the city council and advocate for more funding for code enforcement and more hiring, more staff in that aspect. To the rodent point, we passed a resolution two weeks ago from Councilor Scarpelli, asking us to sit down with the Mayor, with the Director of Public Health of the Board of Health on the rat issue to talk about solutions. I've mentioned in email to you folks about some of the things that the resolutions that we've passed on our end. as another enforcement issue. We have strengthened our ordinances with regards to that as well. I'm trying to think of what else. Oh, we need to be working with Tufts, as you guys have said. I'm sure the students are well-intentioned, but there's a lot that they don't know with regards to some of the kind of quality of life issues that they're causing in the neighborhoods. And so I think we need better communication with cops, better, more pressure on cops to, to have them communicate better, to have them enforce better. Um, we need to relook at our community benefits, um, with them as well, relook at the pilots because they don't pay property taxes. Right. Um, but we, we need to leverage that to, to have better pilot agreements with them as well. And I think the enforcement aspect could be something that we talked about.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. Actually Tufts through their development has agreed with the city to pay taxes, property taxes, I believe in all the new purchases of land and I've done so for over a decade now. But I think Madam President that the most moving thing that was said tonight was take care of the good people because if you don't, you're going to lose them. And you're just going to get more of the bad. I really think that was the most moving thing that was said this evening. Take care of the good people. Give the good people some help. because that's all they're asking for. So I appreciate the gentleman. That's something that really resonated with me. I think that, you know, we all know what we need to do. We need to get action on this. We need to hold the administration accountable for their failures and delivering the basic public services that these people deserve. And I can't understand why we don't have a program or a maintenance plan or a review plan where we go out to these distressed properties, which we know we've had problems with. year after year and do a spot check once every 6, 8 or 12 months. I mean, it's basic, basic, basic stuff. The person that's answering the phone knows the phone's gonna, knows they're gonna get the phone call and when they see who it is that's calling them, know exactly what it's about. It's gotten to that point with people in this community. So I don't understand why we can't take a couple of steps and be a little bit more proactive and have an outreach program where, you know, when we know we have these distressed properties and these properties that are failing to do right by the neighborhood, that we don't go out there and do a little bit of outreach and preventative maintenance, as they like to say, to prevent this from happening and rising to this level of frustration.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Madam President. And I think it's time to maybe make a motion that we become a little creative. I know that working with the building department, the inspectional service department, maybe working with the unions, maybe we ask the city administration and the mayor to sit down with those unions like they do with the police department and bring in retired police officers and maybe pay them to actively to go out and do, you know, assist with the code enforcement. And, you know, especially with our retired police officers, I think that might be an opportunity that we can think outside the box. And, you know, other communities use grant writers, bringing in grant writers and use grants that they would write to bring in money to our community and pay them through that. Maybe there's an avenue there that they, you know, having some incentive that we can, you know, do a few things at once where we're sending more people out, qualified people out, to understand our code enforcement and start, like our neighbor said, is start policing it better and giving them the avenues that we haven't given them at budget time. I'd like to make that form of motion that we ask the mayor administration to look into that process to try to immediately enhance the code enforcement office, both with the health department and the building department.
[Morell]: Please. Going to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. Mr. Castagnetti.
[Castagnetti]: Hello.
[Morell]: Yes.
[Castagnetti]: Okay. Are we on?
[Morell]: We can hear you.
[Castagnetti]: Thank you. Yeah. With all due respect to our city council at night, I disagree because this city does one thing really, really well. and that is collecting our real estate taxes. Also, is it time to adopt Mass General Law, Chapter 59, Section 5C? So the owner-occupied exemption will go to the homeowners who live in their home, and our savings will be shifted to those absentee landowners, house owners. On my street alone is three, Winchester, Andover, and Wellesley. Maybe it's time. Thank you for listening.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Melanie Tringali]: Hi, I'm Melanie Tringali. I live at 116 Forestry. I just had a couple of questions and then maybe a couple of suggestions. Councilor Bears stated that the revenue from the parking is the only revenue that fees that has the most, but I have not been able to see or find in the budget the actual amount of money that we get from parking fees. I've seen the cost it is to support our parking department, which is four people, and I've seen the revenue generated from our excise taxes. but I've not seen any breakout of revenue from our parking. So that's a question, I don't even know if we're making any money off of that. That was delivered to the council.
[Morell]: I have the budget, I couldn't find it. Yeah, it wasn't in the budget.
[Melanie Tringali]: Oh, okay.
[Morell]: And I think it was referenced during a meeting, so we can get that to you.
[Bears]: We have a lot of issues with how the budget is formatted by the mayor.
[Melanie Tringali]: Yeah, that's true. The other thing I was going to mention was it's building off of, Councilor Scarpelli is pilot programs, working with Tufts and our other nonprofits and helping with a lot of the code enforcement and getting some restitution or help in that situation. And then also, my understanding, and I could be wrong with how I read the budget, but isn't there $25 million put aside with the fact that the mayor only wanted 10% of our full budget? So if I read that budget correctly, that means she wanted to put about 14 million aside for a rainy fund, but that's still money that's left over, no?
[Morell]: We can't access it right now, because we can't access it again until it's free cash and certified, which is not until next year, end of this year? At least it would work. Okay, so yeah, maybe it's yeah, October, November. So yes, but we can't access that money currently, currently.
[Melanie Tringali]: But you said October, November, November. So that's not that far away.
[Bears]: We still get access. Only the mayor can ask it to be spent, right?
[Melanie Tringali]: So you guys don't have authority to ask to be sent, but you can recommend to the mayor that she make adjustments in the budget to enforce codes. in ordinances, is that correct?
[Bears]: We nominally have yes. That sounds beautiful. Okay. We've made a lot of recommendations.
[Melanie Tringali]: I know. So then in other words, then the citizens really need to get on her in residence of Medford to ask her to really push for this, but all right. Thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate it. Thank you.
[Bears]: even if we use free cash reserves, which are basically just the reserves of the city for one time enforcement, they're one time funds, so wouldn't be hiring a permanent code enforcement officer if we use those reserves. So it really is this longer term, bigger question of, are we funding enforcement in the city correctly? Councilor Caraviello's sixth term and every term, I think his answer has been, no, we're not. And he constantly is recommending every budget under three mayors, if I'm correct, to change that. Fundamentally, and Councilor I talked about earlier, I think we've all talked about it earlier, whether it's reallocating funding, reorganizing divisions, organizing a more proactive enforcement to bring in enough revenue to support the department or using funds, finding new revenue sources to fund it, whatever option we pick on any of those things, that is the administration of the city and that's under the executive branch. And we are the legislative branch. And under our current charter, we don't have the authority to order, you know, maybe maybe we could pass an ordinance to say we reorganizing inspectional services, but I'm not necessarily even sure that the mayor has to follow that, right? Like, as we've noted tonight, we have an ordinance saying we will have a city solicitor, we haven't had a city solicitor for what 30 months. So it's Yeah, it's just an incredibly frustrating situation to sit here and be trying to voice and engage and and work with residents to come up with to voice have hear residents voice in their concerns and difficulties and wanting to see the city become a better place. In addition to, I agree that we do collect the property tax I would say the other thing that we as a city to effectively is this city council for the two terms that I've been on it has passed a lot of good ordinances. We've done a lot of good legislating we passed the road and control ordinance we passed the zoning ordinance on short term rental, we've tried to pass things giving code enforcement clear authority we've passed are working closely to pass a new waste ordinance right. And we passed all these ordinances, and the staffing isn't there or the, you know, for whatever reason. the administration doesn't enforce those ordinances to the letter, and that is where the difficulty comes in, is we can pass the strongest and as many ordinances as we want, but if they don't get enforced by the mayor and her team, or the mayor doesn't come to us and say, I need more resources to enforce this ordinance, then we end up where we are, which is passing good ordinances that then don't get the follow-through that they need. Thank you.
[Knight]: I want to commend my council colleague for suggesting that we move to supplement our code enforcement staff with the use of, whether it be retired police officers, was it, Councilor? Or code enforcement?
[Scarpelli]: Right, I think anybody that can be trained for that, Councilor Knight, that works with the union and the code enforcement department right now that can do something that can assist with these concerns and issues so we get ahead of it.
[Knight]: Yeah, I mean, I think that's a great idea, especially when you look at how human resources in this community is handled. I mean, how many times have we had per diem department heads? We've had a per diem assessor, right? We've had a per diem building commissioner. We had a per diem veteran services director. Why can't we do that with code? That sounds like a great idea to me.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I appreciate this discussion and I always find it, I'm always gratified we have the opportunity to make it clear. I think for the benefit of residents and knowing how to navigate our government, what specifically the powers of this council are and on what matters, we have to be advocates. And sometimes being the role of an advocate can be very gratifying. I mean, we've talked a lot about different ways of addressing this enforcement problem. Throughout this meeting we've talked about you know the resolutions that are out because we've talked about we've tried to do in budget seasons, we've talked about convening a meeting with the building department and code enforcement and dpw and the mayor's office to talk about how can we address this from multiple angles we've talked about. better allocating revenue to better fund these specific departments that we know need to be at least doubled, it seems like, if not more so. I also really appreciate bringing up pilot, you know, pilot agreements. I, you know, as a Tufts alum myself, I feel like it needs to be, I try to say as often as possible, This is specifically an area because the neighborhoods that that affects that Tufts puts a lot of I would call, you know, abstract or immaterial things into its pilot agreement with the city, and we have existing material needs that are going on that that are exacerbated by the presence of the university for all the good that it does. This is another issue where I think it's one where this council, what if it could would make direct appropriations more directly. help with these problems, and in a lot of cases we can't do those things, you know, just like making resolutions to advocate in the budget for allocations that should be made to put more resources into code enforcement and whatever else we need to start meeting residents' needs, you know, I would love to see us build up a process like that with PILOT as well, so that it's more related to the actual needs going unmet in this community, and not these, you know, less than immediately relevant community functions. When, you know, I mean, we've been talking about code enforcement for feels like five hours, you know, it can go on all week just talking about code enforcement with the issues that get brought up to us. So I, I appreciate all the energy around coming to this issue from a lot of different angles, I think that we need to advocate for all of it, you know, the stuff that we can do directly legislatively, we'll continue to do. We'll continue to advocate around the budget. I think that we should redouble our efforts to, you know, for this council to advocate around pilot as we do around the budget as well. But I appreciate everybody who's weighed in on this.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: I'll finish up with this, Madam President. You know, we've all sat around and touted all the ordinance that we passed in order to be good. But at the conclusion is, Are any of those ordinances that we passed enforceable? Because by our city charter, we're supposed to have a city solicitor. And if you recall, we sent something to the state attorney general's office for an opinion, and the opinion came back was what? Ask your city solicitor. If you recall that we did that not too long ago. Again, so, and that's a really a grave concern that, Isaiah, we talked about all the great work we've done, Is all that great work that we've done, is it really enforceable? So just something for thought.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: I'll just be fast. We've been here so long and talked so long that I'm sure some folks have had to use the bathrooms at City Hall. And I think that the bathrooms at City Hall are actually one of the best examples of how deeply underfunded the entire city is. I don't think they've been updated since the building was built in 1937. You know, it is not it is it is not a good experience for a resident to use the bathroom and city hall for any staff to use it, and I just bring it up because On every single issue, all of the capital infrastructure that the city owns and manages, we have one of the worst water and sewer systems in the state. We have roads and sidewalks that are in a state of disrepair, trees, you know, we have public buildings like this building that are needing massive renovation, and that's just the capital side. You come to the operating side, and it's a massive underfunding of code enforcement, health sanitarians, rodent control and animal control, you know, people to look at the ADA issues around the city, teachers. basically everything that the city is doing, with the exception of a couple of things that have been highly prioritized, like public safety and emergency response, have been massively gutted over the last 40 years. And, you know, if the plan is, hopefully there'll be enough, you know, we're gonna pass the zoning and new projects are coming in and that's great. If the plan from the administration is fingers crossed in five to 10 years, the council zoning will bring in enough commercial development that maybe we'll start being able to fund things again. It's just not acceptable. So, you know, we talked about being a broken record we've I think brought up all the great broken record subjects tonight of all of our different priorities. I'll bring up mine, which is the city needs more money to do its job the city does not have enough money to effectively staff, basic operations or maintain basic capital infrastructure. And I don't think that new growth and waiting to do that is the plan, but I also agree with my fellow Councilors that in addition to that understanding, and those are just the numbers of the budget if you look at over the last 40 years, we're in an even worse position, because we're not even using what we have to the best of its effectiveness. So it is a double-edged sword. It is both not having enough resources to do everything we need to do and not prioritizing the limited resources we have to be used to their most effective. And I think that basically rules the day on almost every topic that comes before this council at every meeting that we have.
[Morell]: Thank you. So we do have a B paper from Councilor Scarpelli. Do you have the language for that B paper, Mr. Clerk?
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli's B paper was to ask the administration to sit down with the unions and bring retired people in to assist city staff with code enforcement efforts.
[Scarpelli]: If we could amend that too, Councilor Knight brought up a good point. Per diem payments to assist.
[Hurtubise]: Is that amendment for you or from Councilor Knight?
[Scarpelli]: No, if you can add that to that amendment to that B paper that add that or either word it. Okay. Mr. Clerk.
[Hurtubise]: So in other words, pay those former employees with per diem payments.
[Scarpelli]: As she's been doing, as the mayor has been doing multiple times in multiple positions in City Hall. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. So on the motion for the B paper for Councilor Scarpelli is seconded by... Vice President Bears, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. It looks like Councilor Collins is temporarily absent. Councilor Knight, is your hand up again or still up?
[Knight]: That was an oldie but goodie.
[Morell]: Thank you. I figured you would let me know.
[Hurtubise]: I will call the roll. Vice President Bears? Yes. Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Collins, temporarily absent. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent, the motion passes. So for the main paper from, do you want?
[Hurtubise]: Would you like me to hold that or?
[Morell]: Councilor Collins, do you want to vote on the main paper from Councilor Scarpelli? So seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, motion passes. Thank you, Councilor Collins. to the main paper from Councilor Caraviello, seconded by.
[Hurtubise]: Second.
[Morell]: Second as amended. As amended. As amended by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes. Seven the affirmative, zero the negative, the motion passes. That is the end of the motion. Seconded by Councilor Baer to revert to regular order of meeting. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Morell]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Petitions, the reverting to regular order of business. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers. 23-391 offered by Councilor Knight. Be it so ordained, chapter 78, traffic and vehicles. New section 12, in the interest of public safety, liability, accountability, and maintainability.
[Knight]: Madam President, I will be happy to waive the reading and give a brief synopsis as my intention is to request that this go to some subcommittee or committee.
[Morell]: We have a motion to waive the reading in favor brief synopsis synopsis second by Councilor Chang. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Knight]: Jesus Christmas.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Sorry, where are we sending this?
[Hurtubise]: Well, we're getting out. It's to waive the reading. Sorry. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. else's capillary. Yes, Councilor Tseng, Yes, President room.
[Morell]: Yes, I mean it for zero negative motion passes Councilor Knight we look forward to your brief synopsis.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. I bring this resolution forward requesting that we have a little bit more accountability and some tracking and measurement of data when it comes to the use of take-home vehicles here in the community. Now, there are certain positions in the community that one would expect as a take-home vehicle, the chief of police, the chief of fire, the DPW commissioner, but there are other positions in this community where people are allowed to take-home vehicles. So the question therein remains, how much use and wear and tear is being put on these vehicles that's being utilized for purposes work. Ultimately, this council has appropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars for the replacement of equipment and part of our fleet. And as we go through the process of replacing vehicles that are becoming, I guess we'd say, less equipped to deal with the wear and tear of our everyday work that we perform here in our community. It's interesting to see where these new vehicles are going and what their uses are for. Ultimately, you know, I think that there are some protections that we need to put in place to prevent the city from getting into circumstances where we might be liable for things that we didn't anticipate we were going to become liable for. Now, whether or not these trucks are provided by contract or by grant, the department head or the mayor, they do have implications. For example, Madam President, if someone were provided a take-home vehicle and they were injured in the line of work, the cost of that take-home vehicle goes towards their wage. So when they're out of work collecting compensation, they'd be compensated based upon the wage that they earn plus the value of the vehicle. So that greatly increases the city's liability when it comes down to certain issues of employees that are into the line of work, number one. Number two, take-home vehicles also increase the city's liability if there were an accident to occur outside of working hours, outside of city limits. There's also a question about how much of the city's resources in the form of gasoline and other maintenance and upkeep necessities are being placed on these vehicles through the commute to and from work and they're not used inside the city limits or for city purposes. So the intention of the ordinance, Madam President, is to put some restrictions upon this and put some data reporting requirements on this so the city knows where their fleet is, what their fleet is doing, when they're doing it outside of city limits and outside of city operating hours and how much wear and tear is being put on these vehicles that's being done not in the performance of the city duties but in the performance of traveling to and from work commuting and other items for life. I mean ultimately a take-home vehicle would be only utilized for the purpose of going to your house and from your house and when you get home you're going to get into your own private vehicle so tracking this mileage is very important I think for us in this community to be sure that our fleets are being maintained in the proper and most satisfaction in the court. also take on vehicles to present tax implications, if I'm not mistaken, Madam President. So these are things that we need to take a look at and be sure that we're complying with all standards of our federal state statute as well going forward. So that's why I raised the issue. It's something that seemed important to me. It doesn't seem too important to many of you, but I certainly think that asking that a city vehicle isn't something that's too much to ask, and that we track where these vehicles are going when they're outside of city limits, outside of working hours isn't too much to ask, and that we track the mileage on these vehicles when they're outside of city limits, outside of working hours isn't too much to ask, Madam President. So that's the basis of the ordinance, and I ask for my council colleagues to support sending this to subcommittees so that we can have a further discussion with our future legal counsel.
[Morell]: Thank you for that synopsis, Councilor Knight.
[Bears]: I'd like to propose a B paper to ask the clerk to compare the length of the captions to the length of the ordinance. But I would also, that's a joke. I'll move to refer to, do you have a preference of subcommittee, Councilor Knight?
[Knight]: It's up to you guys, really. It's an ordinance, so it probably should be fitting to go to that subcommittee, but if it wants to go to public safety, or if it wants to go to, I do believe there was a request prior to put together a subcommittee on legal services and litigation that we're still waiting to see. It could go there once that gets created, but whatever it is that you see fit, council, if it has any divine wisdom, I'd be happy to support.
[Bears]: Motion to refer to subcommittee on ordinances and rules.
[Morell]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. Any further discussion from the council? On the motion of Vice President Bears, seconded by Councilor Caraviello, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Motions, orders, and resolutions, 23-392, offered by Vice President Bears, Councilor Collins, and Councilor Hsuang. Whereas the union workers of United Labor of Tufts Residence Assistance, ULTRA, went on strike on Tuesday, August 29th, and whereas the Medford City Council unanimously passed the resolution, paper 22-569, In November 2022, asking Tufts University to recognize the RA workers union and negotiate their contract agreement now. Therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we stand in solidarity with ultra workers on strike and call on Tufts University leadership to return to the bargaining table and provide these workers with compensation and contract they deserve. I will start with Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I'll be as brief as I can. The Tufts RAs went on a one-day strike last week, and I was happy to support them and this council also. asked Tufts to recognize their union and instead Tufts forced an election, which lengthened the process by months. And now we have the contract process lengthened by months. So these folks don't have a fair contract when the new school year started. But the bigger and more important point I wanna make about this is I spent four years working to bring together students and workers and community members and communities to hold universities accountable to treating everybody fairly. And really the most important thing about that is whether it's RAs or students on campus or residents in the neighborhood around Tufts who are not getting fair and equitable treatment by Tufts or Tufts is taking actions that negatively impact the community or the folks on campus, we're all in the same fight. Tufts is a billion dollar institution, multi-billion dollar institution run by a small group of people who make decisions that a lot of people disagree with. And we can all fight our fights with Tufts separately if we want, but we're actually stronger together. So one of the reasons I think it's important for community members and the city council to support the Tufts RAs is because if we build that relationship, we can call on the Tufts RAs to support us in asking for and fighting for a bigger pilot. And there was an interview today, the Tufts Daily interviewed the new president of Tufts, and the student reporters were making that point too. They said, well, what about the impact that Tufts has on the surrounding community? And the president says, oh, we, you know, new president says that we try really hard. And to give him fair credit, he seemed to be taking a better tone on it than I've heard in the past. But he said, you know, we wanted to hear about this. We want to try really hard to support this. And the student pushed back. So we have the narrative that we've been talking about by reaching out to Tufts students, reaching out and working with the workers on campus about the impact of Tufts on the communities and the neighborhoods that it lives in. That message is breaking through. And if we can all work together to hold Tufts accountable to do better, we have a much better shot than we do of doing it alone. So that is the larger message and point of why it's important to build relationships and show solidarity like this, because what goes around comes around. They're mistreating the RAs today. that we mistreat in the neighborhood tomorrow and someone else the next day, and it's better off if we work together to fight that than if we do it alone. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and thank you, Vice President Bears. I think that was very eloquently put. As I like to remind people, I'm a Tufts alumni, so this is my atonement. Just kidding. But as an alumna, I do feel a particular responsibility to speak up in this case for the Tufts resident assistants who are seeking simply just to collectively bargain and a fair contract with their employer. I also want to remind people that we're talking about an institution with a $2.4 billion endowment. This is the same institution with a $2.4 billion endowment that doesn't pay taxes to us and does not volunteer to help us fill the gaping holes in our various municipal civil service needs. Particular to the Tufts RAs fight, you know, I think that, you know, labor is labor and workers are workers and it's time to stop entertaining the narrative that seeking to collectively bargain is anything other than reasonable. I wish that Tufts would more enthusiastically respond with that attitude. All experts, I mean, all workers are the experts on their work and RAs are the experts on their role in the campus community, which of course affects the Medford community in myriad ways. They stabilize and counsel and provide logistical support for the dorms. And I think it's also true that the dorms that they serve have become more complicated and more needful in the past few years because of the pandemic. So I'm thankful to my fellow Councilors and community members for coming together to say, you know, Tufts has to quickly proceed towards a compromise solution and a fair contract because anything other than that would be Candidly, a truly bizarre waste of their administrative time and resources, of which we know they have many. And we know that there's so many more important needs that those could be put to, not just making the campus experience more livable for those living and working on campus, but for the community as well. Thank you.
[Tseng]: I'll be very brief because I think Councilor Bears and Councilor Collins have covered a lot of it. We, I think tonight have talked about the need to cooperate more with each other and with Tufts to make sure that Medford is more livable and that we are tackling a lot of the broader challenges that our neighbors in the Tufts neighborhood see. I think Councilor Bears makes a great point that we need to work with students to bring about that change, because a lot of what we're fighting for is aligned with what they're fighting for as well. When I go to Tufts, and I have more connections there in the way that a lot of them are my classmates or classmates from high school. There are a lot of folks there who've been asking me how they can contribute to to Medford and how their school contributes to Medford. And oftentimes, I have to give the hard answer, which is that, you know, to be fair, Tufts isn't doing enough. And we can be getting the university and students to be doing more for our community as well. Tufts does, you know, that's not to say that Tufts does nothing. Tufts does do things, but it doesn't match up with the shortfall that we get with in terms of them not paying property taxes. And so we need to build those connections to bring them to the table. Ultimately Tufts workers, be it students or faculty or researchers, they're Medford workers as well. And we need to make sure that Medford workers are working to the best standards possible. When you look at what ultras put out what the union is put out in terms of what they're asking for it's really not a lot. Back in college I did, I did similar work to being an RA without the residency part, and I got paid more than what you know I got more benefits than what they they're getting right now. And they're doing more work than I was ever doing in college in that position. And so I think when you ask, oh, and you look at what they're asking for, it's really not a lot. And it's a really, it's really a minimal action for us to pass this resolution tonight and to stand with them.
[Scarpelli]: President, I appreciate bringing this forward as a strong union supporter. I support anything dealing with unions, but I, I would be remiss if I didn't bring up the fact that we're talking about, we're talking about RAs from Tufts University. And if I recall back, we talked about our own unions being affected. and Councilors that are sitting here talking about the effect that it had, you know, on the process of moving forward on a nonunion contract is because maybe we need to move forward. We need to help things going forward. Remember those conversations? We have a fire department that hasn't had a contract in almost 800 days. We have secretaries that didn't have a contract for six years. We're talking about the RAs at Tufts University, a contact at Tufts University today. And boy, I tell you what, correct me if I'm wrong, free room and board, free meals plan, stipend. So when I talked today with the representative of Tufts University, that's what they told me. Not to say, I'm just sharing to you what they've told me. I'm just, and you know what? So what I'm saying is this, understanding that, I'm gonna stand, I'm gonna vote for this because I think any union, any person that wants to work together as a union and have representation, you can never deny it. But I just want you to realize and understand And it's a good point to bring it forward that we have unions right now in our own backyard. My father always told me, don't worry about your neighbor's backyard till you clean your own backyard. 800 days, 800 days without a contract for a firemen and women. They sat through the pandemic, the first ones they applauded how great they were, how amazing what they've done for our community, going into the homes where people are dying and putting their lives first. So I'm using this, yes, I'm using it as a platform that I hope you understand why. It's for the fact that we have unions in our own community right now in Medford, hardworking men and women residents that live here all year round that haven't been treated fairly. Again, two wrongs don't make a right, right? So I'm going to support this paper. I think it's a very important paper. And that's why I share what the representative from Tufts University told me today, so we can all understand. This is the difficult part about negotiations. You hear what you want to hear, what they want to say, to make it sound good. But who's affected? And that's the employee, the worker. And again, I think we need to look at our firefighters, because I think, listen, unified message next week. What can this mayor do to support our firefighters? Update us right now. I know that the negotiations now are now in arbitration, it's out of our hands, but what else can we do for our firefighters that we're showing them the unity, right? That they're standing together and saying, what are you gonna do for them? But thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. I think Councilor Scarpelli is correct. Things at Tufts University aren't very different than things at City Hall when it comes to labor relations. The only difference is our friends at Tufts University have the power to strike. And that's what they did. And I commend them for taking the steps that they see necessary to ensure that they secure a fair collective bargaining agreement. I support their right to organize. I support any group's right to organize. I do feel as though Tufts University this evening has been given a very bad rap. And I, in no uncertain terms, agree with the way that Tufts University is handling this issue with their RAs. Nor do I agree with their position on the issue. However, they've been taking a pretty good beating this evening. And I think it's important that we point out there are many benefits that do come with being host to a university. One is prestigious as such university. We keep talking about the fact that they don't pay taxes. That's patently false. They don't pay taxes on a portion of their property. And they've entered into an agreement voluntarily. But they've said that they will continue to pay property taxes on newly purchased properties. And this has been going on for quite some time. So Tufts University is not the villain that we make them out to be. Do problems come along with having Tufts University in our community? Absolutely. Every problem in every community stems from something. Tufts is not a villain. when we look at the benefits that they bring to our community, like diversity, like economic stability during unstable and poor economic times, or like the community of academics that tend to call Medford their home after being employed at one of the most prestigious universities in the United States of America. So, Madam President, I can understand that being a good neighbor is one thing, but I think that they've always been a good partner, they've always lent a listening ear, and they've always invested in this community. Whether or not you feel as though they're giving enough is one thing, but they always have been some of us willing to come to the table and sit down with us, and I think that that's important to point out. I just wish that Clemson University took that same approach with their RAs and was willing to sit down with them at the table and put this issue behind them and reach a fair collective bargaining agreement for all involved so that we can move on because ultimately the ones that get affected the most are the students and the school. So with that being said, Madam President, these parents are making a $70,000 investment for the kids to worry about whether or not their IRAs are gonna have a contract. So we need Tufts to get back to the table and negotiate this, because these Tufts students are residents of Metro, and the IRAs are residents of Metro, and they deserve our support. I support the people of Iowa. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Bears?
[Bears]: Sure.
[Morell]: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay.
[Bears]: Just three things. One, on Tufts, it's not about villain or hero. their budgets $1.2 billion a year the city's budgets 200 million. They have 2.4 billion in endowment we have 25 million in reserves, they're rich we're not, it's a problem. I'll leave it there. The second thing I'll say just on the union workers, I hear you, I understand the issues with the contracts that workers have here. I know it's not a position that everyone back here wants to say, because it's technically a position of saying that there's an unjust law that public sector workers can't strike. I support state-level legislation to let them strike. And I said to workers that came up here, if you took a strike action, I would walk on the picket line with you. I don't care if it's illegal or not illegal by state law. It's a bad law. And it means that bargaining goes on forever for 700, 800, 900 days with no timeline on it. And the workers have no leverage, right? The point of the union is that you have collective power and part of collective power is taking a job action. I guarantee you if the firefighters in the community, which is an even bigger thing to go public safety, right? The firefighters in the community went on strike for 12 hours. Everyone in the city would lose their minds and they'd have a contract the next day. I'm not saying that's the best policy in the world, but at the very least state law needs to change so that they don't sit for 700 days before a contract goes to arbitration. So I just wanted to put that point out there that You know, we support the workers to, there's a lot that needs to change around public sector bargaining.
[Morell]: On that point, Madam President, I can't go back to you.
[Knight]: It's in the direct rebuttal to the statement. I just know I just don't want I don't want you to think that I'm saying the firefighters should go on strike or that I support that or that number or number two. that the firefighters would even consider that because I think we've heard time and time again the firefighters come up here and say all we want to do is keep Medford safe and we're going to continue to come to work no matter what and we're going to fight to do that and we're going to fight for fair wages in the meantime and if it takes 800 to 900 days we're not going to lie down but we're going to still continue to come to work today and I don't so I don't I don't think the firefighters would support the statement of saying we're going to go on strike. And I don't want anybody to think that that's what I was intending to say, or intended to say that they should do, because I don't speak for them. So I just don't want to be misconstrued or misinterpreted in saying that I think the firefighters should go on strike, or that I think the firefighters would go on strike if they have the power, because I can't speak for them. But from what I've heard and from my conversations with them, these men and women will come to work every day to make sure this community is safe, and they have. and they will continue to do so, and I don't see them ever, ever, ever taking a position where they take a strike action against the city. They'll continue to fight for fair wages in the proper format, but I don't ever see them doing something illegal in order to jeopardize the safety of the residents in this community, nor would I condone it, nor do I think they would. So thank you, Madam President, for allowing me the opportunity. I just wanted to be very clear in my words, and I didn't want to get them misconstrued, because sometimes that happens over social media. virtual Zoom stuff, not social media. I apologize.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Very briefly, and I think that if I might speculate, I think that the point here is not that there's a strategy that should be taken, but just that clearly the process is broken and that's why we see these labor disputes, these labor struggles in our own community. And I think that we all want to see the overarching process change so that workers in our community, whether they're workers in our community that work for City Hall or workers in our community that happen to live on Tufts for now, that they can collectively bargain in a way that they can efficiently proceed to a just outcome. And I'm really heartened, and I think that this resolution and previous ones that the city council has worked on are evidence of this, that everybody behind this rail takes the opportunity. And everybody in this community, I think for the most part, takes the opportunity to stand with labor when they can on the actions that they feel that they can take. And behind this rail, I think it's our right to sometimes have different ideas of what is possible for us to do and what's strategic. That's our right. We have a diversity of opinions, but I think when push comes to shove, we are all doing our best to stand with the laborers and the workers in our community. With that, I would move for approval.
[Morell]: Thank you. So on the motion of Councilor Collins, Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: I apologize for that. I was acting as a non-union plumber in the other room, but someone from the water department is coming down to save thousands of gallons of water that is just going up the- Bathroom's not working?
[Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Caraviello]: Yeah, it's been running thousands. So someone's coming down. I apologize for missing, but I know discussions about union workers, but cost of living is going up at a ridiculous pace right now. All workers deserve fair raises and not waiting for years to get them. So, I support this resolution.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Karygiannis. So, on the motion of Councilor Collins, it's seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Councilor Karygiannis. Councilor Karygiannis. Yes. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor McLaren.
[Collins]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: I don't understand this.
[Morell]: President Morales. Yes, seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. 23-394 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it so resolved that Medford City Council have the DPW repaint the crosswalk in front of 190 High Street in the interest of public safety. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this is a sidewalk, I mean a crosswalk that's been in disrepair for multiple years now. I don't know if people remember a woman was killed on this crosswalk because people couldn't see it as you get run over by a car. So I would hope that in the interest of public safety, that that sidewalk be, excuse me, that crosswalk be repainted as soon as possible.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Knight, your hand is still up. Is this? Okay.
[Knight]: Don't activate me, Councilor.
[Morell]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 23396 withdrawn 23397 was withdrawn 23398. Offered by Councilor Tseng. Be it resolved that the subcommittee on ordinances and rules may discuss ordinances creating a gender equity commission and a youth commission. Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: This meeting's been long. I think we've all voted in favor of something like this. I just wanted to kickstart more action on it. I think these are ideas that are great ideas that have come from a multitude of different councilors. I think since we all agree on them, we can get it done.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion on the motion? Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Refer to subcommittee on ordinances and rules.
[Castagnetti]: So moved.
[Morell]: We're just waiting on the clerk to call the question. Call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears.
[Knight]: Yes.
[Morell]: Yes. 740 is negative the motion passes to three dash three nine nine be resolved the city council asked the administration to place more waste disposals by the mystic river to reduce trash by Medford square and prepare for the upcoming clipper ship connector Councilor Tseng
[Tseng]: Thank you. Um, this is something that some residents in neighborhoods around the square wrote to me because when you walk towards metric square over the bridge, you can see trash by the river and there are some residents who have been collecting the trash on the weekends. It'd be. I so I, I'm going to request that we make one small amendments. So basically, after where it says, ask the administration to, instead of saying to place, I would move to amend it to say, ask the administration to study placing more waste disposals. This is just an idea that, you know, once we're trying to get people to use the Clippership connector to walk more to the square to bike more, people are going to be passing by that area more. And with people comes litter. And so I would like us to kind of tackle this problem somehow. Someone did write in with a concern that trash waste disposals, trash bins might create problems of legal dumping. And that's why I made that amendment to change the language a little bit to soften it and to ask perhaps someone like PDS to, an office like PDS to study what the pros and cons are and how we can reduce litter over there.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Saint. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. If Councilor Saint wouldn't mind amending that, not just on the Clippership Connective, but throughout the whole city. I mean, we used to have those big belly things there, they used to be, but they're all pretty much broken or gone. And you can see where they used to be, there's nothing in some of those spots. So if we can amend it to put more trash throughout those, especially in the business districts where they're firing fuel.
[Tseng]: Yeah, it'd be super amenable to that. Yeah, I think you make a great point that there used to be big belly trash cans. We are disposals. We can do things like that. We can tackle the rodent problem in the squares as well. If we have better disposals, we can put solar powered things on it. We can put advertisements on it. It's a way to generate revenue. There's just so many things that we could potentially do with it if it makes sense. So yeah, I'd be amenable to that.
[Morell]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I know exactly what happened to you happened to me where it seemed seems like it's something so simple as put more trash barrels out and then rebuttal is always that people will just use that as their own personal trash cans with legal dumping. So I think studying is how we start people with more insight on this than us, I appreciate it. So on the motion of Councilor Tseng as amended by Councilor Tseng and Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Morell]: Yes, seven the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. 23-404 has been withdrawn, and that is the end of our agenda.
[Knight]: Motion to adjourn.
[Morell]: I didn't miss, you must have said, I just heard the motion part. So on the motion of Councilor Tseng to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Morell]: 7 the affirmative, 0 the negative. The motion passes, meeting adjourned.
|
total time: 27.14 minutes total words: 4746  |
total time: 14.65 minutes total words: 2124  |
total time: 22.59 minutes total words: 4180  |
total time: 10.44 minutes total words: 1857  |
|
total time: 28.03 minutes total words: 5126  |
total time: 11.82 minutes total words: 2274  |
total time: 11.93 minutes total words: 1972  |
|