[Morell]: Six regular meeting of Medford City Council is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: 7 present, 0 absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise and salute the flag.
[Morell]: announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 23-064 offered by Councilor Caraviello will be it resolved that the Medford City Council send its deepest and sincere condolences to the family of Vincent DiClemente on his recent passing. Mr. DiClemente served his country during the Korean War. He, along with his wife, volunteered running the St. Francis Food Pantry for 32 years. He was also honored as Citizen of the Year, along with his wife, Jerry, for their work in the community. His presence in our community will be missed. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. For those who don't know the DiClemente family, you want to talk about a family that is the salt of the earth? It's Mr. and Mrs. DiClemente. They ran the St. Francis food pantry for 32 years, pretty much on a volunteer organization. Talk about somebody also flew under the radar. No one ever, no accolades were ever asked for or given to him and his wife. The only accolade they ever got was they were husband and wife citizen of the year. But, you know, it just goes to say, you know, their work in the community was just outstanding. And as Councilor Scarpelli keeps mentioning, nobody's stepping in. to fill another giant set of shoes in the community. So I just want to thank Mr. DiClemente for all his years of service to our community, and hopefully someone will step up to fill those shoes going forward.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Madam President, Councilor Cavillo, thanks for putting this forward. I've known the DiClemente family since I was a baby. Mom and dad worked side by side with them at St. Francis for almost every fundraising event for the church and the community. And Mr. and Mrs. DiClemente took over so many other efforts to help the members of this community, one mostly being the food pantry. he would be there and he's stickler. I mean, he, you know, the stories are well-known that he wanted to make sure every family was serviced. So a gentleman, someone that we'll miss and to his wife, Jerry, I know that when you lose your second, your half like that, it's difficult, but just to let her know that the community supports her and are behind her and we send our condolences. So thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. Please rise for a moment of silence. 23-075 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council commend and congratulate Joan Gatto on being selected as this year's Citizen of the Year. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. I think the Chamber of Commerce couldn't have made a better choice for the citizen here. Joan, small business owner from West Medford for many, many years, volunteering the community, really out there. Anytime anyone asks anything, Joan steps up. I know she does a lot for the firemen, especially in the West Medford area, but another superwoman. And I say, I think, Chamber could have made a better choice. So congratulations to Joan. And I think the banquet is on April 27th. And for anyone who wants to go, thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you again, Madam President, Councilor Caraviello. Joan is a legend. It's funny when you first ran, when I first ran for school committee, someone said, you need to go sit with Joan. I don't think you can get elected if Joan's not supporting you. and that's the type of person she was. And what she'll tell you is the truth, the honest to goodness truth. So she was someone that always, again, always the first business to give, and always willing to help anybody in need. So congratulations to a fine, deserving individual. So congratulations.
[Morell]: Thank you. On the motion, Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. Growing up in West Medford, I too had the opportunity Knowing Joan Gatto for a number of years, I grew up with her daughter, Julie, and I actually was at her daughter, Julie's wedding when she married my dear close friend, David Topper. And over the years, she's been a fixture in the West Medford community, a fixture at the St. Raphael's Parish, and someone that's always been willing to put herself out there for the community, a volunteer, someone that puts her money where her mouth is. She puts community first. And when you go down to her muffin shop in West Medford, you can see that it's a place where relationships are made. where communities developed, and it's really something that makes Medford a great place. It's really something that helps build the fabric of our community. So I thank her for all the work that she's done. As Councilor Caraviello said, the chamber couldn't have picked a better selection this year, and I congratulate her.
[Morell]: Thank you. So on the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. Records, the records of the February 28th, 2023 meeting were passed to Councilor Bears. Councilor Bears, Vice President Bears, how did you find the records?
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, I found the records in order and I move approval.
[Morell]: On the motion of Vice President Bears, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor?
[Bears]: Aye.
[Morell]: All those opposed? Motion passes. Supports of Committee 20-020, February 20th Committee of the Whole. This was a Committee of the Whole on updating the food trucks ordinance. We had some back and forth, some motions made and some adjustments made as far as I think a lot of Yeah, if anyone wants to add anything more to that, it's something that remains in committee, I believe. Continue to work on that. On the motion of Councilor Caraviello to accept the records of the Committee of the Whole, seconded by?
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Morell]: Councilor Collins, all those in favor?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Morell]: All those opposed? Motion passes. 22-605, March 8th, Subcommittee on Ordinance and Rules by Supervisor Farris.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. This was regarding the proposed Waste Hauler Ordinance. We reviewed that in subcommittee. We also reviewed the existing ordinances around recycling. Per that review, we've gone back to Commissioner McGivern and Director Hunt for further comment, and we'll hopefully have another subcommittee meeting on that in the next few weeks to pass, or at least send to a committee of the whole, an updated draft of that ordinance that better fits with what we have in the city ordinances now and what we need out of that. We're also working with Director O'Connor.
[Morell]: approval on the motion by Susan bears, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. 19-070 March 8th. This was on the proposed trees ordinance. We looked at an ordinance that was split into three parts with the tree committee, the public shade trees and the private trees. And I think the biggest thing is we had some minor edits to the public and the trees on the tree committee establishment, and then we actually, Building Commissioner Forty is gonna give us a red line or updated draft of the private trees ordinance to see what we can do within either zoning and permitting and things like that. Do I have a motion? On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. 22-514, March 15th, Committee of the Whole, report to follow. This was outdoor dining. We had some good back and forth about that. I think a lot of it just related to safety and just finalizing it. And we report that out of committee with amendments. So that should be on a future agenda. On the motion of Councilor Garbiel to approve, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. Okay. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 23-065 offered by Councilor Knight. Be it so resolved that the city administration provide a dollar for dollar breakdown and explanation of all ARPA expenditures to date. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. Yes, this is a request for the administration to provide us with a dollar for dollar breakdown relative to all upper expenditures to date. It's been brought to my attention that there was some concerns relative to the way that our funds are being expended. When we had our previous federal funds manager in place and that's my understanding that there's some litigation that's going on relative to the separation of the prior federal funds manager in the city right now, related to some of the directives that she had received and whether or not they fell within the compliance of the operative directives that were issued by the Feds. So what I'm asking for is a dollar for dollar breakdown to be sure that the money is being spent in accord with the federal requirements, Madam President. Ultimately, there are certain places that money can't be spent. For example, it can't be spent for legal services. So I'd just like to be sure that the money is being spent where it's supposed to be spent. It was a lot of money. We spent a lot of it. It seems like the man wants to spend a lot more of it this evening. So if that's the case, I want to be sure that we have a strong financial auditing and accounting of it.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. 23-066 offered by Councilor Knight. Be it so resolved that the Metro City Council request that the potholes on Lawrence Road between Lincoln Road and Governor's Ave be addressed. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. These aren't the run-of-the-mill portals. These, I think Mike, if you fell into it, you'd end up in Australia. These are the deepest portals I've ever seen in my life. They're definitely something that could damage public safety vehicles, ambulances, police cars, fire engines, and the like. We've seen tonight that we already have a request from the administration to spend some money to purchase some new public safety vehicles. And I think it would be safe to say that the conditions of our roadway have an impact. on the wear and tear of the vehicles. These departments operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and the conditions of our roads have a direct impact on the quality of our vehicles and the longevity of their routes. So with that being said, Madam President, I ask that the administration go down there in the interest of public safety and take care of these puddles.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? All those opposed, motion passes. 23-067 offered by Councilor Knight, be it so resolved that the illegal dumping on Doonan Street be addressed by the city administration. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. Yes, on Doonan Street, a washing machine, looks like a living room set, bed. We're all spread out between those, say number 16 in the corner of Highland Ave. So when you take a look at what's transpired, let's say around February 28th, this was reported through C-Click Fix. Around March 7th, it was acknowledged by the administration. And to date, as recently as two days ago, the resident has said that those materials still lie outside their home. So I'm hoping the administration will get on this as promptly as possible. This is an illegal dumping issue. It's not something that's uncommon throughout our community, especially on roadways that abut state-owned and controlled roads, especially on properties that are French properties on the Metro Malden line as well, and that's some of the line. So with that being said, I'd ask that the administration take the necessary steps to address it.
[Morell]: Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Knights, seconded by Vice President Bears. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. 23-068 offered by President Morell and Vice President Bears. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the council leadership and city clerk implement new agenda and meeting management software for council agendas, documents, and meetings. Vice President Bears, I'll let you take it away.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. So something that council leadership, President Morell and I have been looking at with the city clerk over the past few months, going back to last fall is the meeting and agenda management software right now. We had the system from IQM2 that was installed in 207 and 201. That system is not really being used, obviously, since the pandemic. We were still signed up for a contract up until last fall that was costing some funds. And given the hybrid meetings that are now in our rules, given the setup of this chamber, given that Medford Community Media and the city administration have said that both 201 and 207 should also, at least at some point, be made available for those hybrid meetings. That software really was deprecated. It was not useful software. The camera technology is not compatible with the hybrid meetings that we use now, et cetera. In addition, it just is not great agenda software in terms of accessing information. So given that we weren't using it, hadn't used it for multiple years, we moved away from that system. The clerk and myself and the president have been looking at other potential meeting and agenda management systems. And we ended up finding that the company, the vendor that provides MuniCode also provides a system called Civic Clerk. which will allow for agenda and meeting management software to be significantly improved, to have all packet materials and agendas provided through the system, you can track resolutions through the system, as well as it, you can even use it during the meetings itself to put up information on the on the screen and directly connect your agenda and documents into your meeting. that's actually going to cost less than half of what the prior software was costing. So really, just implementing this is going to streamline a bunch of different work that the clerk's office does right now, you know, in spreadsheets or on Word documents or in agenda postings on the city website into one software service. And part of what we've looked at also includes the training necessary so that all people involved will have the training they need to get up to speed on the software. So it is a will be a real improvement, I believe, for the clerk's office, although I wouldn't ask the clerk to speak to it, but in our conversations, he's been really excited and thinking that it will really improve the workflow on this meeting and agenda work in his office. And he's nodding yes for those who can't see. And it's less than what we're spending now, and it's already in the budget because it was a software, it's replacing a software that we were using in the past that we haven't used since 2020. So that's my general summary and happy to answer any questions having been in the process.
[Morell]: Thanks for that summary, Vice President Ferris. And yeah, just to build on what you said is it's it's a tool for the council, but it's really a tool for the public to make sure that they can access, you know, the same things we're getting physically every week that they can track resolutions, they can have better following of all the work that's being done. Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Thank you, President Merle. Um, it sounds like This would be super helpful for increasing transparency and civic participation in terms of city council meetings I know a lot of residents. After you know contentious debates or big meetings that we have they do ask for some of the meeting materials or presentations that we see on the screen and, you know, a lot of that work we have to do separately but if we could it sounds like if it's integrated into the meeting software, it'd be easier for them to kind of get involved in the materials that we're working with and see the debates that we're having from our perspective as well. I think that's something that oftentimes, because it's harder to get, it's not as easy to get access to some of the materials. We don't see the whole debate. And I think it'd be more fruitful for our discussions for everyone to be able to participate fully. I'm also glad to hear that we found an option that saves money. And I think it's pretty straightforward that if we have something, if we have options that are more efficient and saves money, I think that's a pretty decent investment for us to make to bring our city processes into more contemporary, more modern process.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. President Bears.
[Bears]: just two other quick things that I forgot. This is also going to integrate directly with Muni code. So meeting records and documentation will seamlessly move forward instead of having to go through an upload process and all of that burden. And there's the least as far as I know, and we'll see through the implementation process, it may be possible for other boards and commissions to use the software as well. So you'd be able to access other public meeting information and agendas through this as well. But that's We're focusing on the council first, but hopefully if possible, and it's just already built in, then maybe we can make it available to boards and commissions as well.
[Morell]: Any other discussion from the council? I do see a motion for approval by councilor. I do see one hand up. I actually don't have co-hosting privileges. Do you wanna? for the record, please.
[Browne]: Can you hear me?
[Morell]: Yep. Name and address for the record, please.
[Browne]: Eunice Brown, Greenleaf Ave. Just a quick question on this. I think this is a great idea. Is this something that your friends over in the school committee will be able to partake in as well and use for their meetings and agendas and packets and such?
[Bears]: I mean, potentially, I don't know. we're gonna try to get the software implemented for the council and see what kind of availability is there, but also I think it would be up to them and to any board and commission if they wanna stick with what they're using now or the process that they have now versus using this software or not.
[Morell]: Right, it's coming out of our budget.
[Bears]: And it is coming out of, is it technically coming out of the clerk's budget or the council budget?
[Morell]: I think it's coming out of the clerk's budget. Okay. Okay, thank you. Any further discussion? On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by... Councilor Tseng all those in favor. All those opposed. Motion passes. 23-069 offered by vice president bears. Be it resolved that the Medford city council expresses its support of HD 577 and SD 1144 and act relative to pesticides. Be it further resolved that the city council that a city clerk for a copy of this resolution to the Medford legislative delegation as well as house speaker Mariano and Senate President Spilka. Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I think as folks know, a few weeks ago, one of the bald eagles at Mystic Lakes died because it was poisoned. And these were the pesticides that killed that bald eagle. And I know a lot of folks were obviously distraught about that specific case, but it's not, you know, this is a statewide issue. That's why there's a statewide bill. It's also a state law regulates this. So it's not like Medford can say, we won't let you use this type of pesticide here. It really has to happen through the state. One person who I communicated with a little bit about this was our animal control officer, Pat Hogan, who was especially distraught at this happening and losing such an amazing animal to something like this. Basically what happened is a rat ate some rodenticide and it The eagle ate the rat and the eagle died. And there are alternatives that are not this kind of anti-coagulant as far as I understand, no expert, but alternatives to this option that are not going to cause such detrimental impacts up the food chain when we're talking about rat control and rodent control. So he was one person I talked to, I said, hey, I'll put a resolution on it. And he said, thanks, because he had put out a call asking people to call their lawmakers about this bill. And there's several other folks from many communities who've had incidents like the one that we had, who are also hoping that this law will change and that this will not be something that our animal control and other folks have to deal with on a regular basis anymore. So that's the intent here. And I ask my colleagues for their support.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and thank you, Vice President Bears, for putting this on the agenda tonight. I too received a lot of messages from constituents after this very sad passing of a very beloved local bald eagle passed several weeks ago. And I think this is a problem that can really only be appropriately addressed regionally, not only because cities kind of can't address the issue of what rodenticides are being used on a piecemeal basis. We can't, you know, influence what private individuals are using. But also, you know, I think a statewide regional approach is what's going to make these less harmful approaches cost effective for places like municipalities and institutions to implement, so that we can make sure that what we're putting into the into our food chain, into our ecosystem is preserving the biodiversity such that we have along the mystic that I think we all really care so much about. So I'll be happy to support this this evening. And I really hope that this advances on the state level. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thanks. Um, thank you, Vice President Bears for putting this on agenda. I think I would like to reiterate the local effect of, of something like this. When we think about rodenticides. Um, you know, we have the anecdote of the beautiful bald eagle, unfortunately passing away from them. I know pet owners, especially cat owners, are concerned about their cats going out there and eating rats or catching mice that have swallowed this, you know, right on the side. This is something that I think residents at the local level should be concerned about. And I've also received a good number of messages from constituents about this issue. It's also important to underscore, I think this council very much recognizes that there's a rodent problem in the area. It's a regional problem, but there are other alternatives out there that are just as useful and less harmful. And I think we all have to step up, but in terms of spreading out a public education campaign about how we tackle this problem. But I think this is a good step from the state level that we should support because it has true local effects.
[Morell]: Thank you. Any further discussion from the council? Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, I just ask that on a second, a side note or a side motion that this paper be sent to a director of the Board of Health to see what impact if this paper is passed at the state level, what impact it will have on our road and control ordinance here in the city of Medford, and whether or not we can take the steps that are raised in this ordinance at the local level, because that's really what we are as local officials, not state officials. We all know how I feel about sending this stuff up to the state house if they're not gonna give us money, or we're not asking for money. But with that being said, if we could send it to our Director of the Board of Health, so that they could review our existing ordinance to see how that complies.
[Morell]: Thank you. Any further discussion? On the motion of Vice President Bears, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. 23-070 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council again request funding for legal counsel to complete the zoning process in Medford. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. So this council worked two and a half years recodifying zoning laws. And now a year has gone by and we've done nothing. We're on the verge of hopefully passing our first project under the new zoning. So I think at this time, I'm looking to move forward and actually bringing back Cheney Borbowsky to actually help us do the actual zoning process, which is really the most important part of this issue here. He's done it. hundreds of cities and towns across the state, and I'd like to bring it back so we can get the final chapter of this done, so we can move forward with some development in the city.
[Morell]: Thank you. Yes, and as we discussed, just to provide an update, I've been working with, as well as Vice President Bears, with Director Hunt, just because to do the zoning work we want to do, I think we discussed that we need a land use planner as well, so then that kicks us into the bidding the RFP process. So I'm just, we're refining the scope with Director Hunt and her staff. I hope to have that to the council by end of the week, maybe next week. And then once we agree on that scope, we can start that process and get that moving. And I did get it affirmed by Director Hunt that we, the $50,000 is in the budget again for next year. Ideally we can use, you know, the whole 50,000 We can get the whole 50,000 done, or at least some of it this fiscal year, we'll also get the 50,000 next year and Dr. Hunt did mention it's going to be enough. She did mention there will be money coming from her budget as well to support the work.
[Knight]: So that's just my update on that counter night, Madam President, I was wondering why it's taken 10 months since the mayor sat up here and told us that we were going to be able to get an assistant city solicitor and continue our zoning work but I think you answered the question it's been time Alicia is involved so of course it's going to be 10 months. Right, but ultimately the zoning falls under the purview of the city council. All right, and this is something we requested 10 months ago, and this was part of the deal that we made we negotiated settlement of the budget. So here we are now with two months left in the fiscal year, right two I'm sorry two months left in the calendar year and 10 months ago we made this deal, and we still move forward. All right, so it's just another indicator. that the administration is not going to cooperate with city council just another indicated the administration is not willing to provide us with the tools that we need to succeed. The administration needs the hand and everything they need to control everything that's going on. All right. I can't believe that we were able to get the zoning actually I can't believe it you know why because it was under the prior administration. That's why we're able to get the zoning completed that we got completed because the process started under a prior administration. Under this administration, we have not been given any transparency or any of the things that we have promised. And it's ridiculous that Councilor Caraviello needs to bring this up now, 10 months after the budget. As we sit here and we wait, we twiddle our thumbs and say, when can we get to work on the issues that really matter to this community? On the issues that are gonna generate revenue, right? On the issues that are gonna create jobs and on the issues that are gonna be the bridge to our future. I thank the gentleman for bringing it up.
[Morell]: President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And certainly I share the idea that this should have happened sooner. I want to on my own own a piece of the delay. I mean, I think we met last on zoning on the on the scriveners errors, the zoning changes suggestions from the building commissioner. I think that was in December. Um, my hope was that we would have the scope not at the end of March, but maybe the end of January. Um, So, you know, we have made some progress since we did the last zoning I hear what you're saying about the frustration. I also want to say that I do feel like we're on a good path to getting a good scope and RFP for us to look at discuss vote on and get out the door so that we can work on the process. And part of that, I was involved in that process as well. And it's, and you know, I have had, you know, been looking at Draftscope and it's taken me a couple of weeks longer than I thought to send back suggestions. So I may be part of the delay and I want to own a piece of that.
[Knight]: But to that point, right? Why is it growing into something that needs to go to the RFP process, right? When it's legal contract, it's legal services contract, doesn't need to go out to bid. We know we want Mike Wabrowski. Now we're going down this road, right? We're going down this road because they're trying to grab a job out of it. They're trying to create a new position out of it.
[Morell]: I believe at council meetings we discussed that we need a land use a lot of things to do a deeper, but to do a deeper dive into the zoning we need a land use planner to come with and that kicks it then it's not just legal and it's not just that part and it kicks off the bid process, and we've had
[Bears]: if I may, Madam President, we've had some conversations with Mark Brodsky and him saying, here are the pieces of this that I can do. And here are the pieces where you need additional support. I'm a lawyer. Here's the zoning. Here's the pieces of part, you know, there's a lot of the record and the actual legal language. That's my expertise. He mentioned that he's brought on some other folks. I think Jonathan Silverstein now works at a part of his firm. And he said, but here's the pieces of this. Like, you know, he's not going to run public meetings for us to discuss, you know, potential zoning changes with the public, he's not going to work with the Community Development Board or Zoning Board. I mean, there's pieces of this that he said, like it's it needs to be a partnership. And if I just want to add this, and, you know, when when we brought on Brabowski in 2020, in the end of 2020, I think it was, or I can't quite remember. But in 2020, or 2021, he initially submitted as part of a group We got a response to an RFP where he was part of a group working, I think, with a land use consultant and a planning consultant and him as part of a three-pronged package. And then we looked at the RFP and said, hey, we want to split this out. And we understand you submitted as part of a group, but we want to split it out and do this RECOD part first, which we can just do as a legal contract just with you. And then the phase two is going to be this larger question of where you have a planner and you have land use experts who are willing to help with the public process as well so I understand the frustration, I wish it had happened sooner.
[Knight]: I mean, I made the motion Madam President, I made the motion for us to go down the coast of reclassification and not rezoning. I did it and I made the motion and I believe the motion said as phase one of a two part project and that was then. Right, right.
[Bears]: Exactly.
[Knight]: So what I'm saying is what the heck, what's going on with this administration. What is going on in the time that they've been elected, they haven't had a full staff of senior officials. And over three years, they haven't had a full complement of senior staff.
[Caraviello]: And because of that, we can't move as a community.
[Bears]: That's definitely a piece of it. I just wanted to own my piece of it.
[Morell]: Thank you. And I will. I mean, I will say Director Hunt is putting all of our staff on this right now. And I think to your point, Councilor Knight, we're asking her to do the work that an assistant city solicitor would have helped us with. So I understand that maybe it's not moving as fast as any of us.
[Knight]: I'm not asking her to do it.
[Morell]: Right.
[Knight]: But I'm asking the assistant city solicitor that the mayor said she was gonna hire to do it. And she said she was gonna do that in June. And here we are in what, March now, we still wanna have the assistant city solicitor. I'm not asking director Hunt to do anything.
[Bears]: We're trying to make it work, but I hear that.
[Morell]: Any further discussion? So on the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. 23-073 offered by vices and bears, be it resolved by the Metro City Council that the city administration present an update on the capital improvement plan. Vices and bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. As we all know, there's been lots of conversations and discussion about a capital improvement plan. I think we've heard at least in this council session recently, I think from members of the city staff that They're working on a capital improvement plan update. I'd like to see it. And I think that we should be part of the process and I'm hoping we can see that sooner rather than later. So that's my motion.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you council. Yes, bring this forward. But again, I think this is, this is an exercise for this council to understand what we're seeing. We keep, the mayor keeps putting capital projects in front of us and we keep voting it. At least I haven't, but we keep voting these different agendas, her agenda through. and we still haven't seen anything. Truly haven't seen the finance piece yet. Although the finance director was here, wasn't enough, at least in my opinion. Second, we have papers in front of us today that should be in a capital improvement plan. So if we're gonna vote for firetrucks tonight, is that part of the plan? Or is that outside? Are we just gonna start voting piece by piece by piece? So until this council, stops with giving everything they want, we're gonna keep going down this road. We're gonna keep going down this road because it's acceptable. We're being treated like we don't count. We're being treated with no respect. But at the same time, this initiative is something that was brought up by a department head that talked about this capital improvement plan. that when you're going to present it, we start the budget process when, but when should we start the budget process? So we're going to do a budget process at the same time we're going to see a capital plan. It's just distorted. This isn't how you do business. So again, though, thank you for bringing this forward because I do think it's very important.
[Morell]: Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. And Councilor Scarpelli is right. It's another, everything we do in this council is piecemeal. There is no plan. I would hope that when our budget comes forward, it isn't like the budget we had last year. We were getting it the night before in another piecemeal project. So again, capital plan should be done. Listen, I'm not saying that the things that aren't there tonight aren't good things and they should be voted on. But again, it's just part of the continual piecemeal, one at a time, one at a time project. And say, and Councilor Scott is right. Shame on us for keep on voting on them and passing them. So, but they are good projects, but should be presented all at once. Not every other week or every two weeks getting something.
[Morell]: Thank you. And we do have a meeting, a Committee of the Whole meeting scheduled for next Wednesday for an update on the capital improvement plan based on-
[Knight]: If it's the first and the third, I'm good, but you know what I mean? Then if we're supposed to be off the second, you know what I mean? I get some childcare issues. I have a young family, you know what I mean? So I'm trying to do the best I can, but I can always come on Zoom. So you know what I mean? But Wednesday shouldn't be a problem.
[Morell]: Any further discussion from the council? So on the motion by Susan Bair, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. 23-074 offered by vice president bears be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we meet in committee of the whole to discuss options to increase transparency, accountability and democratic oversight in city government by providing the city council with greater authority over the budget process, allowing the direct hiring of staff to support the city council and requiring city council confirmation of city board and commission appointees, vice president bears.
[Bears]: Yeah, I mean, it flows right from the last conversation. Really what I intend with this proposal is that we've seen how the process is broken. We've seen this question of feeling respected, feeling included within the process. And we've seen over the past couple of years what it's taken for us to force the conversations that we need to have. I don't think any of us were know, just barely four of us were comfortable with what happened in the last budget meeting last June, right? And I respect my colleagues who didn't want to go down that path, because that's not how government should operate, right? It should never have gotten to that point. It should never have been 1.30 in the morning. It should never have been we have to say this is gonna be a cut or we won't approve or put us into a period of uncertainty because we didn't have the information that we needed, residents didn't have the information that we needed, and we didn't have the good faith collaborative process that quite frankly, the city deserves. And this is really calling the question, I mean, my thoughts here are, you know, I have thoughts I want to meet in committee of the whole to really outline what this would look like. But there's these are the big three things for me that really I think will hit on a lot of the complaints and frustrations that we have voiced right here in this meeting and that we've voiced pretty much every meeting because I think we all share them. a budget process where the council actually has real authority. Right now, we are the final vote, quote unquote, but all we can do is approve, reject or cut. We can't adjust, we can't amend, we can't say, you know, we really think that this priority is essential and it needs to be funded. And instead we were in the situation we were in where it was cutting some sort of deal. That's not how it should be. We should be able to say, hey, we need 50,000 for zoning. We're amending the budget to put 50,000 for zoning. We need legal counsel. Well, maybe we'll put that in the budget directly, you know, and quite frankly, other cities have this, other cities have implemented it recently. you know, it's not like we're, you know, the city council's going and moving around 10 2030% of the budget, it's still on the margins, it's still, you know, a few hundred thousand dollars and like less than 5%, or even less than 1% of a budget. But those priorities and really being heard. If we want to, if we want to have that respect, we need that power. And that, you know, means going through the discussion of what that what that would look like. The two other things that I put in here are two other things directly related to that one is this question about boards and commissions. As we all know, we only approve a certain small number of boards and commissions. We've been trying to put into the ordinances more recently, adding, you know, confirmation. But I really think that moving towards a real collaborative process where There really is a public process for who gets appointed to what boards and commissions and this council is consulted is another valuable change in power that needs to happen. And finally, this third question around the direct hiring of staff to support the city council. And to me, that could mean a lot of things. I think having the authority to make that decision on our own is important, but specifically I'm thinking legal counsel, you know, sometimes I don't like to say it, but sometimes I, you know, Adam Knight was right. And here we are in... It's in the record.
[Scarpelli]: It's in the record.
[Bears]: But seriously, I'm as frustrated, I think, as you are, that we're sitting here on March 21st of this year, after June 28th of last year, and there's no one working in the city solicitor's office. Now, there's a million potential explanations for why that is, but I'd like to give us, maybe people would wanna work for us. maybe that's a difference of opinion. And we don't know that, maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to at least try it. A lot of other communities have multiple clerks working for councils, have a separate legal council working for city councils. These are not crazy ideas, they are just things that we would need to change. The process for us doing that, again, I think we should really look at it and have this committee of the whole, that's why I'm proposing this, but the process for that, and I think focusing on a small number of things makes the most sense here, is we have the authority under state law to put forward discrete amendments to the city charter. Not a full charter review, not addressing representation or ward representation or who serves on the council, but specific targeted amendments to the charter to make sure that the balance of power is really fair in this community and that this council has the teeth to demand respect. and to demand a part in the process because it's in the charter and not just because, you know, we have one vote that we can hold up or something else. I don't disagree that there are other strategies that we need to do in the interim, but to me, how this would look is let's all sit down. If we can all agree, or at least most of us, you know, five, six or seven of us can agree on some language, we can suggest that. We can recommend it to be put forward to the voters to decide if they think that this balance of power would work. That can go forward if the mayor says it goes forward she can be a part of that I mean obviously she can block it if she wants but if, again, all seven of us agree on that. I'd like the voters to make that choice. I'd like the people to make that choice. And the other fallback position, I have thought this out a little bit. We as a council have unilateral authority to put non-binding ballot questions on the ballot. So if the mayor chooses that she doesn't want to put forward these amendments to the voters, if we agree on something that we would all like to put forward to the voters, we could put it on as a non-binding question in November, see what the people think, and then go back to the mayor after that and say, hey, 70% of the city thinks this is a good idea. You really want to stand in the way? in any case, or to whomever is the mayor in January. But I just think these are common sense ways where not just today, not just last year, this year, next year, but for a long time, we can make sure that the Medford City Council, while still maintaining the form of government we have, has those tools that we don't have right now under the charter to do our job and do what residents want us to do. So that's my thought here. Thank you.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Pierce for bringing this forward. But let me start off by saying it's a sad day when elected official, when I became that elected official, we used to watch the council and laugh. They were laughing stock. It was all over YouTube because you had councils that were passionate. And here I am sounding like one of the disgruntled city councilors. But I tell you, it's frustrating. When we have to go to the lengths that Councilor Villes is going through right now and asking this, to go put this forward because we're not getting any information. We're not getting any respect. We're not moving the city forward at all in a partnership. It's disheartening and depressing. A good example. is the effort that our council president has put forth. Months ago, I asked, I recommended, requested a meeting with the council, the school committee, the mayor, and the superintendent. And we talked about And the concerns that I wanted to bring up is really just understanding the budget in a better way in the eyes of the school committee and how we can work together and also get a report of what has happened in the school district that has been absolutely devastating this year. And we haven't, from what Council President, I won't speak for you, but I know that she's done her due diligence, reached out to everybody, but it's falling on one person. And what it's telling me as we proceed with the budget for one Councilor, I'm going to have to assume that the school committee budget, the school budget is fine. I'm going to have to assume that the school committee members that came to us and said, you won't meet with us. I'm to assume now that the budget is all set. The school budget is tight. They've got plenty of money. because that was asked for a couple months ago to sit with that committee. And when I say the committee, it falls on the mayor because she's the president of that committee. She's chairperson of that committee. And not to have that meeting in place and be realistic now, we're not gonna have this meeting. We're coming up into budget season, talking about capital plans, we have enough on our end. So I could only assume, maybe we'll get a response back from one of the school team members in their Facebook posts, that the budget is perfect. because if you're not willing to sit with this council to understand the needs at the most crucial time that we've had in our community and our school department and over a few years since last major incident with the previous administration, it just shows you the lack of disrespect. It just shows you that we have It's comical in the fact that people come to me and ask me questions and I can only say, I don't know. That's embarrassing. And why is it embarrassing? Because when I met with the mayor, and I met with the chief of staff in that office, And we're talking about, I wanted to meet and talk about how I felt and that I felt contentious. And I want to get over that. And I asked them to their faces. I said, please allow the council to be part of the victories and part of the failures.
[SPEAKER_05]: Let us share in that. Cause that's what you're supposed to do. Absolutely. I don't believe I've talked to the mayor since then.
[Scarpelli]: The mayor hasn't come to this meeting. The chief of staff is sometimes on Zoom. We wouldn't know that because we don't have it in front of us. I don't know if she's on tonight or not. Not at the moment. It's comical because in neighbor communities, you have representatives sitting in the front row that work directly with their council. That we don't have to try to reach out to department heads to get things done. That shouldn't happen anyway, just doesn't look right. It's a liaison that works for the council and the mayor's office. We know the mayor's busy, but not to have a representative here to talk with us and share these concerns? When you have this much contention and this much anger, because that's what I feel, how do you expect to move the city forward?
[SPEAKER_05]: I don't care what anybody says, we're a mess. Streets are a mess, parks are a mess. The riverfront, this is what we're cheering. We're revitalizing. What are we revitalizing? We're promoting Porch Fest and all these great things. But in the meantime, the castle's falling in. Everybody keep dancing on the dance floor, but the castle's falling in.
[Scarpelli]: And excuse my frustration, please forgive my frustration because I know you all share it. I know your personality probably doesn't match mine in the sense that sometimes I'm too vocal, but I'll be honest with you. I appreciate Councilor Bears bringing this forward, but I will tell you, I hate it, but I'm gonna bet my son on this. The city can have my son, my 20 year old son, if we have a meeting here, if something comes out with these resolutions. That's how confident I am that nothing happens. But again, I'm gonna reiterate to my colleagues, let's keep giving her everything she wants because this is an election year. Let's make sure they get everything they need, make sure all the fluffy stuff looks good so she can move forward for another two years. Some days you have to say, stop. So we need we get the respect that we need to help move the city forward. Thank you, Madam President.
[Morell]: Thank you. And yes, to your point that draft agenda for the joint meeting was sent to the council and it's it sits the mayor and her role as chair of the school committee and I continue to await her response as far as scheduling it and she has acknowledged receipt of it.
[Scarpelli]: I appreciate that.
[Collins]: Thank you. I appreciate the discussion on this issue so far for my fellow Councilors. And I just want to note I think that this dovetails with the conversation that we just had about the discussion of a capital improvement plan I think that this dovetails with the conversation that the rules and ordinances subcommittee was having immediately before this meeting about measures that we can take within our power of the city council so that we can be a better more meaningful, more actual source of representation, source of influence in the budget on behalf of this community. I think President Morell, you say it all the time, a budget is a statement of values. And I think that the measures proposed in this resolution kind of cut to the heart of some of my most frequent frustrations with what we hear from constituents. Why isn't this happening? Why isn't this, which essentially comes down to why isn't this budgeted for? Why is the supportive service not exist in our city? Why are things like this in this department? Why are things like this infrastructurally? And to have no real other recourse or explanation, but to say, I wish that we could at least have the discussion about what it would look like to appropriate funds so that this would change in the schools or this would change in the roads or the sidewalks or that we could entertain forming this new department to better support the segment of the constituency. We don't have that power. All that we have is the power to cut, to make line out of subtractions. And I think we're all very aware of what that kind of power results in, in a budget process. I think it's not democratic. There are a lot of elected officials in the city of Medford and there's only one that has a meaningful role. in the budget process. So I think that these measures could potentially get us to a new solution around that. Another one of our, I think our most common refrains in terms of deep, deep frustrations is not having the staff to carry out even the things that are within our jurisdiction to do. And that's, I don't really have words for how frustrating it is sometimes because I think it is a rarity for a council to be this unified on so many issues. That's a really big hurdle to overcome in any public body, I think. And yet we hit a stumbling block because we don't have the resources, we don't have the personnel to execute the work ethic that we do have on a disparate set of issues. So I think that whatever form this takes, if it's the form of a home rule petition, I think this is a discussion that needs to happen because I think these are roadblocks that could really be orders of magnitude in terms of increasing our influence to better represent the will of the community in these chambers.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Um, and thank you Vice President Bears for putting this on the agenda. Um, I think this is a fairly straightforward resolution, but at the end of the day, I think it's about, um, having more accountability, the idea that more accountability is better between different arms of government, more transparency is better, giving residents more of an opportunity to participate in the whole budget process in the running of our city, giving them a chance to speak up about what they want to see in our budget, and not just to see a budget come back with two or two and a half percent slapped slapped on every department right. I think this is this is about getting residents in us involved in giving us more of a balance in our relationship with the city. I think it's fairly fairly obvious anyone watching the council meetings and who's been paying attention to city politics in the last, maybe even decades. Sometimes, you know, our relationship with the executive office isn't the most collaborative. might be an understatement, but when that relationship isn't as collaborative as we want it to be, I think we also need to take up the steps to build the structure that will force us to collaborate with each other. And I think at the end of the day, this is what this resolution is about, about building those structures to have us talk to each other and to force us to have those conversations and to build that forum for residents to participate. I think Councilor Bears' last point about, is really important. He said that oftentimes residents come up to us and ask us questions about what we can do. And they assume that we have some powers that we don't actually have. And it's oftentimes a shocker that, you know, what residents are asking us to do, we can't carry that out. And I think it's really important to have those conversations about, you know, residents are asking us to be, have more oversight residents are asking us to do X, Y, and Z. How do we have that conversation about what needs to change and what we need to put forward to voters to have that change take place? And so I think this is, I'm very much looking forward to this committee of the whole and to the whole process that hopefully happens after it is all.
[Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Morell]: Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. Councilor Bears shouldn't have had to put this forward. This council is not a partner in government at all. This is my third administration serving with, and you can say what you want about the other two. They may have been, but we were always a partner in government with them. We are not a partner at all. We were elected by the same people that elected the mayor. And as Councilor Scapi, this group gets virtually no answers, no respect or anything from anybody in this building. I have to go to people directly. Someone asked me something, I go to directly to the office. I don't call anybody, I come in in person. This is not the way it should be. We shouldn't be asking for this resolution for things that should be here already for us. You know what I'm saying? He's not asking for anything crazy here that's not out of the ordinary. We're not a partner in government. And it's a shame because we're all elected by the same group of people. And again, I support this. And again, it's something that shouldn't even have to be out there.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Vice is embarrassed.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, I just want to I want to speak to what all my colleagues have a specific accounts to Scarpelli's points earlier I mean, you know, I do think we all share the frustration we may all express it differently and that's that is what it is but but I do think we share it. And I think to Councilor Caraviello's point. shouldn't have to put this in the charter. To me it's it's it's bad politics to not just do this. Right. I mean it hasn't worked out that way, apparently, but you know, keep some money aside, so that council priorities can be considered in the budget process, give the council some time to consider the process give enough time to have a good process, say to the council are there staff and supports that you need that will provide and you don't have to leverage to get it. Give the council you know, time and consideration and an actual packet of information when you're appointing someone to a board and commission so we can review it and approve it. I mean, it's not just Somerville, it's like every other city in the Commonwealth that does this this way. And I think, again, just on a pure politics, it's like, while you're not doing it, you're just taking an L for no reason. And that I don't get at all. So, you know, if suddenly there's a policy to just start doing all of this without changing the charter, I'm all for it. That's a lot easier. It's a lot less time that I'm going to go around all fall hopefully saying to everyone I talked to is voting, hey, this is a reasonable thing that this council needs to be a fair partner in government, please vote for it because it's just like basic governance and due diligence for a community. You know, what I rather spend my time actually doing the process and doing the thing. Absolutely. But again, I think really it would comes down to the only reason to not do this as you maintain power to control power to withhold power to stall power to hide, and that's where Councilors got placed point comes in, you know, when we don't have the information that we want. And I can hear you that an answer to you feels like we just shouldn't do these things because we're giving them what they want and we're not getting what we want. And I hear that, you know, on principle, I probably agree with that. It's just, then I go and I hear, well, we're gonna lose this person and this person and this person, or, you know, I hear directly from Tim or Chief Friedman, like, these are essential needs that we have now. It's gonna take three years to get a fire truck, you know, from the producer. And it's like, so can we hold off and wait on that? I don't wanna be the person saying no. I also don't wanna be the person put in the position of feeling like I should say no, because I don't know if it's a good idea. And that is what this is about. not we should never be in that position. It should never be people are coming here and saying, please let me do my job. Because there's that lack of mistrust and partnership and collaboration. That's just not the way to run a thing. And again, I just think it's not good practice in general. Would I rather not do this? Honestly, probably Yeah, but you know, There's a charter review process going on. Maybe there's a new charter by 2026. I don't want to wait three and a half years to see if we can do that. If we can put common sense stuff that I know that, again, the different political people in this room disagree on a lot, but we kind of agree on this. People I talk to in the community say, hey, that sounds like a reasonable good idea. I think if you put these three simple ideas in front of voters, they're gonna say, yeah, that's probably a good way to run a city. And that's really all this is about. So if there's another alternative that can come down the pike and we can go down that route and have this collaboration without having to go through a process like this, great. But I don't see it either. That's, you know, if I had a son to give to the city, that would be. But that's really it. I appreciate the discussion. Thanks everybody.
[Knight]: Madam President, um, you know, I really don't think this should be about politics at all. Right, it should be about the city of Medford, and what's the best course for our city, what's our city's best course. Right. And ultimately, you know, Council of business right. All right. I don't think this is bad politics though. I think this is bad governing. That's what I think I think it's bad governing I don't think it's bad politics, I think it's bad governing. All right, it's not political at all. It's not political at all. It's bad governing. It's bad governing. And bad governing leads to bad outcomes. And that's what we're getting. So when I sit here and I think back, am I better off now living in the city of Medford than I was four years ago? What do I say to myself? What do I say to myself? I say, we have teachers taking a vote of no confidence in the school committee and the mayor. We got kids in our schools getting stabbed. Every street you drive down, you can't even, you can't avoid a pothole if you wanted to. We're failing in the delivery of city services. We haven't had one successful construction project since Mayor Burke closed the books. We're bringing out a brand new plan, a brand new plan for Medford Square that they took off the shelf when Stephanie left, blew the dust off of and said, it's mine. Is that it right there? Exact same proposal that was there from before, right? You know, it's not bad politics, it's bad governing. And bad governing leads to bad outcomes, and that's what we're stuck with right now.
[Morell]: Any further discussion from the council? Name and address for the record, please.
[Branley]: Nicole Bramley, my address is on record. So I think Councilor Scarpelli has given enough of his son through the years. just as I've given enough of my daughter, okay? So I also have been frustrated that there was no joint meeting. President Morell can confirm that I have emailed her repeatedly regarding the meeting. So I did speak to you, I think it was last week and still really didn't get an answer of when it would happen. So I emailed the mayor myself And I did get a response. So I'm hoping that it's okay that I share this. And it was from her public account. So I'm assuming it's okay. Please do, because I did not get it. Yeah. So, you know, not to ever go over anybody's head, but when I don't get an answer, I think that you know that I'm pretty persistent and look for the answers myself. So it says, Nicole, I am discussing the draft outline guidelines, which I actually thought was already done. So it says, which I'm not saying it's a lie. I'm just saying, I thought that that was already done. It says, I am discussing the draft outlined guidelines with the members and then hope to send around a doodle poll on dates people are free after that. Okay. So just FYI.
[Morell]: Yeah, and that draft is something that vice chair Graham and I put together and it's not, you know, it's nothing crazy. It's modeled after other cities that have these joint meetings with some frequency.
[Branley]: Correct.
[Morell]: So, yeah. So I just thought I would just. Yeah, I appreciate that.
[Branley]: Thank you.
[Morell]: Let you know that.
[Branley]: Any time you want.
[Morell]: Any further discussion? Madam Chief of Staff, do you have something to speak on this?
[Nina Nazarian]: There was a delay on the aired live meeting, so I'm not sure which topic you're specifically on, but I wanted to speak on the last discussion that was relating to the budget and charter change and various matters.
[Unidentified]: We're still on that.
[Nina Nazarian]: Oh, excellent, excellent. So if I have, if I may. Thank you. I just, I was listening to the discussion and frankly, I think there's quite a number of pieces that are not being discussed here tonight. And I think they're important for discussion and inclusion in this topic. It strikes me that there have been a number of different conversations with city council members that are not coming up here tonight. It strikes me that, you know, the city council knows that we're working, you know, at all hours to try to further the government in all aspects. But yet we're standing here and this council knows that it voted for three in, you know, essentially what failed, a charter change. That was certainly an option by this council, but only four out of three members voted it and it doesn't move forward at that point.
[Knight]: I do believe the paper before us as to whether or not we want to have a committee of the whole, no more, no less.
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. President Morell, a point of information is not to interrupt the speaker.
[Morell]: I hear what you're saying. I'm chairing the meeting. I'm chairing the meeting, and it's under my discretion. Understood. Historically, yes. If we look at Robert's Rules of Order, we would use it at wrong for probably 40 years, but I'm not. I'm not tackling it tonight.
[Nina Nazarian]: So I understand. And the only thing the only final thing I will say on that is I am constantly interrupted by Councilor Knight using point of information, and I simply request that I be given the same opportunity to speak as others are given. He interrupts everyone, but please continue. Thank you. So you know, there are a number of our account counts tonight. Give me a break. Please continue. Thank you. So all I'm saying, all I'd like to share here tonight is the fact that there are, you know, Councilor Caraviello, you were in the mayor's office two weeks ago discussing matters with the mayor, were you not? Other members, I'm just pointing out that there is communication that's going on. You mentioned that you haven't stopped in any offices. You need to go direct to individuals. Yeah, and that's perfectly fine. And I welcome you to come directly to me. I welcome you to come directly to me. And so, Well, that was a part of today's discussion, Madam President, you know, that was a part of the discussion that was occurring today where there's no communication, members, other members of the city council with the Vice President and the President were on text messages with the mayor all day today discussing matters with regard to tonight's meeting and I appreciate that and she appreciates that.
[Knight]: My point here is, if anyone will share what type of communications with this.
[Nina Nazarian]: communications, Madam President, through you, communications with regard to tonight's meeting questions that members have.
[Bears]: I believe one of them was a question from the President, if you don't mind me saying it, about why a press release went out about stuff urging us to vote on something before we'd even gotten an email saying that free cash was certified. We communicate. Things have been slightly better in the past few months, and I appreciate that. We're getting things done. And I understand your frustration with me putting this forward in the presentation, but there's a difference between having a little bit better communication and having real collaboration and the intentionality. I'm glad we're getting more stuff done. I'm really glad, but that doesn't change this. We had the presentation from Bob that we were promised November 15th. in February. We got the legal stuff today, but it's not really all the legal stuff. It's a part of the legal stuff and some of it was missing. And I understand mistakes happen. And I understand we're not all gonna be perfect. And I'm sorry that I cut into this conversation, but if you're gonna talk about the text messages that I sent trying to get that information that we have so we can have a meeting where we don't have a blow up every time, That's all I'm trying to do. If we could call it bad government, call it bad politics, it's just like, how many unforced L's are we gonna take, man? Like, I can't take it. There's just things that are mistakes that don't need to happen that happen, and I'm not trying to blame anybody, but at a certain point, It's just really frustrating and I'm sure you're really frustrated with things that we do that some of us do that all of us do that we as a body do. That's okay. We're not always going to always agree, but the way that the balance of power is set up right now. It's just not right. It's just not fair, and it's just going to lead us back to these situations where Maybe communication's a little bit better. Maybe instead of 20% of what we asked for, we get 60% of what I asked for. So maybe the problem's only 40% bad instead of 80% bad. It's just not how I want to operate. And I'm sorry that it came across as accusatory. And I never said no communication. I said collaborative, transparent. I said balancing power better. I said opening up more democratic processes so that like this council has a real balance of power with the mayoral administration across the hall. You know, the Charter Review Committee knows, everybody knows we have the strongest plan A charter. Basically in the state, the mayor is incredibly powerful. And all I'm saying is that there's negative externalities and effects from that. I would never, if I was sitting across that hall and this was the discussion, would I want to give it away? No, because I have a lot of control, and I can control the timeline I control when something comes out and I can control, you know, the situation I can try to insulate myself from from from problems and I understand the appeal of that. It's just not what I think is best for the city at this point. I really, again I understand the frustration I appreciate you being here I appreciate this, having this dialogue. I'm going to stop talking now I want to hear your response to everything that I just said, not going to cut you off and I don't know that I've maybe done it once or twice in the past two years and I'm, you know, I'm trying to be someone who doesn't do that but, you know, it's a fundamental question and, you know, I don't always have six people on behind this rail agreeing with me but for the past year and a half, I pretty much we all agree on these basic things and, you know, you can be the most progressive person in the city, you might be the most conservative person in the city or very conservative person in the city this appeals to them. And I hope that we can move forward with maybe changing the balance of power to have a different kind of discussion and collaborative relationship going forward. It doesn't mean I'm, you know, trying to diss the communication that we have been having, although I understand that it's a difficult conversation that may come off that way. So thank you.
[Morell]: And I do just want to, you know, affirm what Vice President Bears said. But again, just to add background, you know, I got a text from the mayor today telling me who's going to be at the meeting, saying our free cash was certified didn't say didn't say the amount didn't say anything. And I very much appreciated that. And then we get a missive of a press release, urging the council to vote for something that has not been presented to the council that has not been asked for us to vote for tells us this free cash number via press release, and then we get an email from you after the fact that says see press release. And seeing us, speaking from the chair, I shouldn't be getting this specific, but seeing us as partners, if that wasn't a mistake saying, dear city council, I'm sorry that this went out before it got to you, as opposed to an email that just says see press release.
[Nina Nazarian]: We're partners. And I'd like to address that because there was just a drop in communication in the office and I failed on my side to get certain communication out in a timely fashion. So I take responsibility for that. So and I'm happy to say right now to the city council, I apologize. I genuinely apologize. It wasn't meant to be so disjointed. We wanted to get you the information on the free cash amount prior to the press release going out. It's quite simple.
[Morell]: And I get that. And just one comment as a communications person, ask and urge have two very different meanings and feelings. Asking the city council to approve something, which we've never been asked before versus urging which has the subtext of, I've asked them and they're not doing it. These things matter. Maybe that's not for you. Maybe that's for the comms director, but just, if we're gonna get into the weeds, I'll get in there with you a little bit.
[Nina Nazarian]: But- I do look at these releases, not every one of them, but I do look at these releases before they go out. So I take that. Thank you. I don't and Councilor bears Vice President Bears I don't have an issue in the way it's presented I what I'm here to talk about and here to discuss with the city council is the fact that I don't feel like, you know, the entire council is presenting all aspects of this discussion. And part of it is, look, if the mayor had control concerns about giving up control, why would she present and vote for historically a charter change and ask this council to vote and consider a charter change for a review? That was for the intention of trying to make these changes, which she feels if the community wants it, the community wants it. She believes the community wants it. So what's holding us back from actually pursuing a charter review? That's a perfect opportunity to have these types of discussions, have these types of changes. If the community wishes to modify the amount of authority that's vested in the mayor, which I agree with you about, Vice President Bears, it is vested there. And so if somebody has that authority, they also have that responsibility. And she takes that responsibility very seriously. And she will continue to take that responsibility seriously to do her job. She is up against a mountain of challenges that exist historically. It's not a scenario where she's come through the door and she's, you know, just kind of keeping the wheels in motion in this organization. There's a lot to be done. So, I mean, I don't need to tell you because our finance director has stood before you has spoken before you the challenges that we have in our financial software they hold us back. We have a tremendous amount of work that we need to do that affects our ability to get things to the city council in a timely fashion, I wish that wasn't the case. I wish we had. And I'm not going to rehash the historical challenges we've had. in coming before you with information. But all I will say is we're working on those pieces and we hear some of your points, and we don't have any intention to slight you, but if anyone wants to come meet with me or the mayor, our door, if it's not physically open, is always open to meet with you all. Individually, in a smaller groups, not quorums obviously, but we're happy to do that. There are certain pieces of information that are, truly the executive offices to handle and they're not matters of the city council like personnel issues that comes up often here, we're not going to come before you we're not going to talk about personnel issues we're not going to go into detail about what's going on in personnel matters, I don't care how many times the Secretary Treasurer of this teamsters comes before you and rants about the various issues that exist, and all the problems that exist.
[Knight]: This administration has been horrible to the working people in this community. Absolutely horrible. All right, absolutely horrible to say it's all Steve salts, making stuff up is an absolute joke. An absolute joke. They're putting GPS trackers on people's personal vehicles. They're hiring private investigators. It's absolutely they just drove their own HR director out of town. Come on, continue.
[Morell]: Do you want to continue? If you want to present, we want to focus on a paper hand and just just narrow the scope.
[Nina Nazarian]: Well, it's challenging to narrow the scope, President Morell, with all due respect, because the council members who speak and go off and out of the scope are the ones who are attempting to hold me responsible to a narrowed scope. So it's challenging to do that and stand here, I'm happy to speak, I'm given the same opportunity to speak, but I won't come to the city council meetings and I won't speak in present, and I'm a nursing mother so I do need to pump on a regular basis so if anyone has a challenge with me not physically being present, it is a challenge for me. So, I'm gonna, I'm happy to come here I'm happy to be here and I'm also happy to speak before all of you and, and actually connected actually give you answers, but I won't be disrespected every time I come here in a way that doesn't allow me to speak but other Councilors can speak in specific Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: I believe I'm a Councilor and this is a council meeting. And as a Councilor, I have what they call a bully pulpit. All right, I have that. And that comes with the honor and privilege of being elected to represent the residents in this community. I need 5,000 votes and I got them. She only needs one, the mayor, and that's it. All right, so the only person she reports to is the mayor. But the people that I report to are the taxpayers in this community. I don't get in my car and drive to my suburb.
[Bears]: I get in my car and I drive- Let's not have this argument again. I mean, honestly, we're having a- Please, hang on.
[Morell]: Please know, attending via Zoom, when you can attend, one nursing mother to another, I understand how extremely challenging it is. I've been shouted out of this council because I had to leave to pump, so I understand that. So any manner you can attend, if you can attend, I appreciate that. I think that we would much appreciate, or I can speak personally, would much appreciate information in advance so that you don't have to come and defend everything because I don't, I don't want to put you in that position beforehand is great. So you don't have to go line by line and say, here's what we did.
[Nina Nazarian]: So that's just me speaking as a person. And it sounds good. Sounds good. And as far as, you know, this is my last piece, as far as the ARPA information, that information's on our website, that information is available.
[Knight]: Does that mean that the administration will not be giving us that report?
[Nina Nazarian]: We can certainly share it. I think we recently sent some information as well, but I may be mistaken. I was on vacation last week. Thank you. Thank you all. President Ferris.
[Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. I just wanted to say that I do appreciate what you said about reaching out and sitting down and that you want to have conversations. I appreciate that. Again, I think as one Councilor, I have had some opportunities to do that. However, I just want to also say on the topic at hand, There's a difference between a comprehensive and total charter review, whether by home rule petition or special act or, you know, mass general law provisions and discrete charter amendments. A full review of charter opens up everything in the charter. It's not just the question of this specific question of balance of powers between the mayor and the council. We may not all agree that we should go to word representation, Councilor Knight I know for one has very strong thoughts that he kind of likes to play in a form of government that we have right now. I don't want to speak for you Councilor Knight. I do think there's general consensus on a specific and discrete thing probably something that the mayor would have supported sitting here around balance of power. And that's something that be given the authority and the laws that, while a full and comprehensive charter review, certainly won't be effect until January 2026, at best, could be in effect January 2024 around balance of power and looking at that and I think that sooner than later, in my opinion, is better on that. So I appreciate you bringing up the full charter review process. You know that I've voted for it multiple times and strongly support going through a full charter review. I've actually, you know, I'm sure that members of the charter review committee that the mayor has appointed the ad hoc charter review group probably are saying, what's he talking about doing something before we've had a chance to look at everything? I'm happy to talk to any members of that committee. I'm certainly not trying to step on their toes or trying to take out the idea of doing a comprehensive charter review at some point. This is just something that this group, which again, Councilor Knight made the very strong point, thousands and thousands of people elected us. If we can all agree to do something, mass general law says that's good enough to, it's certainly good enough to put on as a non-binding resolution and with the support of the mayor, it's certainly enough to put on the ballot for the voters to make a choice. And I think that's where we should go from here. And I'll leave it at that. Thank you for bring that up, but I just wanted to clarify that that was my meeting there.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Madam President. So appreciate the chief of staff coming before us. But what in the past was called bullying. My, my passion really derives from the understanding I sat beside the mayor. And we shared different concerns and we shared the lack of transparency for other administrations. And I supported the mayor when she ran for office. And what I saw was totally completely opposite of what we talked about. It was completely opposite of what she ran on. So our first term, I was very contentious, I was angry, and I called for the meeting with yourself, I don't know if you remember, yourself and the mayor, and we sat together. And I asked you, tell me if I'm wrong, if I'm lying, I asked you, I asked the mayor, please allow the council to share in the failures and share in the successes. Absolutely, that's what we'll say. I haven't gotten a text message from you about what's going on in the community. I haven't heard any outreach from the mayor's office or your office. The only contact we had that I appreciate was with the last chief of staff accepting thousands of dollars worth of free furniture from the Furniture Trust Company that refurbished many offices in this building. And then the situation, that same furniture trust company that worked with this yellow office or some office at City Hall to donate more furniture, and then get a phone call from the CEO saying, George, what is this letter that won't be signed? Which we agreed, we needed us to sign. With furniture that was already in the building, already being used. Why is the lack of communication coming from the CEO instead of the chief of staff, knowing that I put my name and my reputation for this organization to come help this community? This is the little things that maybe you don't understand. You seem to think that it's bullying or it's anger. Yeah, it is anger because I am passionate. We are a mess. There is lack of transparency. You just said it yourself. I guess if you're not the president or the vice president, we don't get text messages. So there's the frustration. That's why I support Councilor Bears's initiative. As a charter review, at the beginning I did, I voted for it.
[SPEAKER_05]: And I changed that because the administration that led, that would lead this charter review,
[Scarpelli]: would put the steps in place for what they wanted and that I didn't believe in because I've lost that communication with the mayor. I lost that professional partnership with the mayor. So absolutely I voted no to the charter review because I have no faith in the mayor's office that's gonna lead that charter review. That's why I didn't vote for charter review. So, Thank you, Madam President.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins.
[Nina Nazarian]: I'm sorry. Thank you, Councilor Scarapelli. I recall that meeting. I recall that meeting very well. I also recall at that time that the mayor had mentioned that there was a matter that was coming up at that time. If you wanted to serve on a border committee, I know a number of council members on this council have done that. I know Councilor Tseng has I know Councilor Collins has members of this commit this council are always welcome to serve on task forces to contact us to join and have discussions with us. you hopefully would also recall the text message exchange that we had that evening with regard to, or that day with regard to the Furniture Trust. I had only received the agreement from them the day or the days leading up to. They never told me that an agreement needed to be signed before the furniture was in City Hall. I can't be responsible for something I wasn't aware of.
[Scarpelli]: You can't, the city can because it was done prior to that.
[Morell]: I have a motion from Councilor Knight to move the question.
[Hurtubise]: Councilors would, what?
[Morell]: Understood, thank you, thank you. Okay. That's okay. Councilor Cabrera.
[Caraviello]: Madam President, thank you. I served with this mayor for 10 years, and the mayor I served with on this council would never ever accept what is going on here now. And I value my relationship with the mayor. I've known the mayor for many, many years and I still maintain a relationship with her and I have the utmost respect for her, but I don't think I've gotten more than two or three calls from the mayor over three years on issues or anything. Do I feel slighted? Most certainly I do. I'm the senior member of this council. If I have an issue, I come to the mayor, because if I feel it's important, I'll come to her. But as I said, the mayor I served with for many years would never, never, never accept what is going on here now. And that's where I feel bad about it.
[Morell]: Thank you. On the motion of Vice President Bears, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? To refer to Committee of the Whole. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Communications from the mayor 23-044 to Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council regarding loan order sidewalk construction and equipment bonds. Dear President Morell and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following loan order.
[Bears]: Madam President, motion to waive the reading. since it's already been read and in favor of a summary from the commission.
[Morell]: On the motion of Vice President Bears to waive the reading as one, it's already been read and also in favor of a summary from DPW Commissioner McGivern, second by? Second. Councilor Scarpelli, all those in favor to waive the reading. All those opposed, motion passes. Commissioner McGivern, if you could give us a summary of the loan order requests before us.
[McGivern]: Sure, thank you, President Morell, and thank you, our fellow councilors. Tim McGivern, Commissioner of Public Works. So before you, the $1.5 million loan, I gave a brief presentation on it last time I was here. So that really hasn't changed. This will allow us to continue sidewalk work that I think if it hasn't already started, it will start for this season very soon. and the passage of this loan will allow us to continue that work once the current contract ends, so without too much delay. So trying to get ahead of that. Part of this loan is also equipment, because I think what we heard loud and clear from this council, and in my opinion as well, to try to transition some of the work that we do in-house to better serve our asphalt needs. As everybody knows and was mentioned tonight, we have a fair amount of potholes. We have a good pothole operation, but what we're trying to do is transition to more of a permanent patch grind and non overlay. So that's part of this. And also that can be used in sidewalks. The machine we're wanting to get is a smaller paver. So it would actually be, could be used in sidewalks as well. And then what is also included is a sidewalk grinder. So if you remember, I described a, heave in a sidewalk panel that's less than two inches, that's a lot of our sidewalk defects, to take care of those in-house would be very valuable. So with that said, it is approximately $275,000 worth of equipment. So that's a grinder, an asphalt grinder, that's a bigger version than we have now, and a asphalt spreader, a relatively small one, an eight foot wide one. and then a planer for sidewalks, which is the machine that will take off that two inch lip. So that is what this loan order is comprised of, and I hope you vote in favor of it tonight.
[Morell]: Thank you, Commissioner McGovern. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Merlin. Thank you, Commissioner for being here again to speak on this again. I think this all sounds really reasonable. One of the things that I hear about from constituents most often is repairs needed on sidewalks. I think this is something that we all care about a lot because it's an accessibility issue and we need to make sure that, you know, all of our sidewalks in our city are traversable for all residents, no matter how they're getting around. So for a lot of intuitive reasons, I think this is something that it is important that the city is able to continue moving forward with because this backlog of repairs will only grow and get more expensive over time. So I'm happy to motion for approval for first reading.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. I think I asked you last week. How much money is left over from last year's million dollars that we gave?
[McGivern]: I don't have the exact number, but we've about halfway through, I'd say. I think we basically stopped when the weather got bad and we just picked right back up again. So we anticipate that contract will be done.
[Caraviello]: I know I got a late email about the site and never just read. Yeah. About how many sidewalks got done with half the money?
[Hurtubise]: Approximately
[McGivern]: So in the first round, about 34 locations and probably about 45 left. We fixed 34 sidewalks? Locations, yes. Yeah, we get about 45 left. So that's what's the list is the first round and second round.
[Caraviello]: and we get 45 left? Approximately. So will the money that was left over from last year cover the next 45?
[McGivern]: It should, yes. So what we have here is the second round that's already, we're working with the contractor to line those up. So a million dollars only gets us 90 sidewalks? No, that was, I believe it was a million over two years. So this is the second year of it. But a million dollars gets us 90 sidewalks? Each location is different. So sometimes it's one panel, sometimes it's a string of panels, sometimes it's multiple locations on the same street. You can see like, for example, just pulling one out. I didn't have the opportunity to read the- Yeah, that's okay. Like cabin concrete panel at utility pole, north of driveway. So it goes into specifics about each one. So this is basically addressing defects in the sidewalk. And one of the reasons I'm trying to transition more in-house work, because it's more cost effective, but without having the, the in-house team in place ready to go, the best option is to try to do both. So to contract sidewalk repair, as well as getting our in-house team the right equipment and the right bodies, which is part of a bigger strategy to continue to do more work in-house. It's a better use of money.
[Caraviello]: Okay, so a million dollars last year got us a hundred plus sidewalks, I'll say, right? is a million and a half and how many sidewalks do we have planned for that money?
[McGivern]: I don't know the number off the top of my head, but we'll have to, we plan it out. So we have a list of, you know, hundreds of side locations. I know the list is nonstop. I mean, you can never, you know, they can work day and night.
[Caraviello]: Absolutely, yes.
[McGivern]: So we could just keep going, figure somewhere between one and $3,000 per location. So that's what you end up getting. Yep.
[Unidentified]: Yes, go ahead.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Madam President. I think, thank Tim, because I know that he's putting forth an initiative that I've been asking for since I joined the council, and that's having our own hot top and sidewalk crew. I think that would save us millions of dollars over years. But again, Tim and I talked, and it's not personal, I think that, the way that we're receiving papers and not understanding the budget, not seeing a capital plan, I think to me would be, is why I won't be voting for any money paper, unless it's time sensitive. And right now this isn't time sensitive. I think that, I think we've been going through the slippery slope without legal representation guiding the council. Attorney General did respond with the phone call. Mr. Clark, is that correct? And in essence, the result was talk to your city solicitor. I believe that's exactly what the Attorney General's office representing the state said, you need to talk to your own city solicitor. And again, these are issues that I think Unless it's not time sensitive, I think this council has to be very cognizant of what we're approving. As a matter of fact, I'm gonna make a motion as well that we ask for copies of all of the signed ordinances from the attorneys making it a legal document that is specific that we've worked on because what Like I said, I've had the ability to talk to former city solicitors and other communities and these are questions I can ask. And they're under the understanding that we should really get notification whether all the work that we've done, and all the money they put into that, that we've asked them to put in that the bottom line is somebody signs that to make that official. If it's not signed, all the work and the money we spent for them and all the work and time we spent in this room was all for naught. So I'm gonna request the administration give us a copy of the signed ordinances that we've sent to KP Law with their signatures making it a legal ordinance. So again, believe me, I despise being that person on this council. I despise it, it's one of the reasons why I ran, because I hated it. But unfortunately, like I said, and I thank Tim for understanding, my dad said, at 14, when you open this checking account, we're gonna put $100 in it. If something costs $101, you can't buy it. Well, if we can't see what's truly coming in front of us, we're making decisions without knowing. This would be great if we all vote for new equipment, and then we come to find out that we don't know if we have enough for staffing to put people in that equipment. So all we're gonna have is hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of planters that grind in one place. So I'm just a little, again, this is why I'll be voting no, but this is what, I'll express until we get the answers we need. So thank you, Madam President.
[Tseng]: I was gonna make the point, but I believe that you were gonna answer something.
[McGivern]: I was going to ask President Morales if I could respond. Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Oh, sorry.
[McGivern]: I have put a lot of thought into this. And I think, you know, we have a team right now that does potholes almost every single day. So the idea is transition as opposed to brand new crew. So what I'd like them to do is spend some of that pothole time doing larger cutouts and patches, which is they need they need this equipment in order to do that. So it's an incremental approach when we're talking about building up our capacity in-house. So I have strategies in my own mind for what I'd like to see, but this is something that I've discussed and coordinated with the highway department to make sure that we're not buying equipment that's just going to sit around. So I want to make that point clear. I wouldn't want to come here and ask for equipment that's just going to sit in the garage.
[Scarpelli]: I appreciate that, but again, like I said, Tim, and I appreciate your hard work, but again, if we don't know the climate that's ahead of us, the last director stood in front of us at previous budget meetings that said we're devastatingly low or short for what is passable capacity of employees at DPW. So I think that's when we have to look at, without knowing or understanding the budget, like I said, I know the finance director came up, who by the way, I'm a little confused about that too, because it's the same software that's being used under Leish Anomaly, correct? The software that was used under Aleesha Nunley that gave us all the reports that the mayor as a city councilor asked for, that was given in a timely fashion is the same software that our finance director right now is using, I believe. Maybe the chief of staff can answer that too.
[Morell]: The finance director is on the call too.
[Scarpelli]: Well, maybe we can ask him that because the previous finance director didn't use a software as an excuse. Everything we asked for is money papers to keep us involved and knowledgeable to make these decisions Tim, we received. So again, this is why, again, maybe it's the seat. Maybe it's the seat that turned you into somebody you don't wanna be, but I can't support it. Yeah, thank you.
[Morell]: Director Dickinson, can you answer that question as far as, is it the same software that was under the previous finance director that you're using?
[Bob Dickinson]: Yes, it is. It's not a question of getting, it's a question of time. And it's a question of resources. And obviously, the previous finance director was on the job for much longer than I have been. So there's a lot of knowledge that I need to accumulate in order to get you the reports that you need.
[Scarpelli]: I completely understand that. I believe the chief of staff mentioned that as a software as part of this problem why this isn't happening. So I just want to make sure that's clear. So thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Okay. I just, I wanted to get across my way of thinking with this in front of me tonight. I think we've discussed a lot about our approach to money papers coming in front of us and generally how we maybe agree to disagree on how we kind of treat these papers. For me personally, I am pretty concerned with the state of the sidewalks as is and concerned with quality of life here in Medford. I, I understand the frustrations that perhaps, you know, with the previous loan order we've only done x, x amount of sidewalks but I would also be very skeptical and you might be able to confirm this I'd be skeptical that cost goes down in the future if we keep holding out and waiting, just because of inflation because of rising costs in general for projects like this. And so with, with the problem at hand, you know, it's, it's, if it's not going to be cheaper to solve it over time, it makes sense for me to make the investments now in, in terms of the cost effective, the more cost effective solutions that I think you've been pretty transparent with us that you plan for. I think we all kind of we all agree that sidewalks are a priority here. It's, I, you know, we disagree on many issues but this is one of one of the many issues I think almost everyone in the city can agree on. I think we also agree with the approach that bringing things in-house will be more cost effective. I think the evidence is out there. And so for me, this is a question of, you know, fiscally, I think it makes more sense in the long run to invest in the resources and the technology we need to bring things in-house. And I think it sounds like you would agree with that perspective on the issue as well. And another kind of way that I think about it is, you know, if we hold out on this, right? Well, what are the consequences? And it sounded like from previous meetings that because of supply chain issues, and we see this with fire trucks as well, will take a longer time. It's not just we put in the order, we get the equipment. We have to wait a certain amount of time. And we've already been waiting and waiting and waiting. The city's been waiting, the residents have been waiting. And so for me, it does seem like a matter of urgency and accessibility, right? We don't want someone tripping and falling. We want people to be able to move around town. And if we keep waiting on it, not only is the problem gonna be more expensive to deal with, we're gonna have more people hindered in their transportation as well.
[McGivern]: I'd agree. Through the chair, I think just a couple of points in response. You are exactly right. So there's increases in cost in two categories mainly. One is the longer it sits in disrepair, the more damage it gets because water gets in, freezes and thaws and makes the damage worse. So you may have a two inch lip or one inch lip that gets heaved one year but we could have repaired it with say that sidewalk line to the previous years and sealed it. So there's that, and then there's also inflation, cost of fuel, cost of labor, all of that is going up. So it's really a twofold increase. And another important point I think everybody really needs to understand citywide is that this isn't going away. We are going to need to spend some portion of money through a contract to continue sidewalk repairs because we have so many of them. We also are looking at increasing in-house capacity to help with that. We also need to look at more production work. So what we're trying to do with this particular loan is get away from spot repairs. And we tried to do this before too, and we're heading in this direction. We did a pavement management evaluation, including sidewalks. So we have GIS locations of our sidewalk obstructions and defects. And we also have somebody working on in my office now, taking our master list and putting location markers on them so we can upload those to the GIS system. So when we're looking at this money, we want to look at mobilizing a crew as least as possible. So the way it used to be been done was pick the locations on the list, mobilize here, mobilize there, mobilize there, or you're wasting money in mobilization. So if you can do a whole block at one time, you just saved yourself all that mobilization, right? So there's a, I think there's a, strategic thinking that's happening now that we have the data to do that with that we didn't have before. So, this isn't the last loan that we're going to be asking for from this Council for sidewalk work. But it is one of the first loans where the approach and the strategy is such that I believe we'll be making a better, efficient use of the money. Because doing 100 sidewalk locations, give or take, for the half a million dollars or whatever it was, that is getting better than what we used to do, but there's room for improvement. And my job is to continue improving that. So, you know, we have more of the tools to do that now. But I guarantee you, moving forward, the city is going to need to do both contract sidewalk repairs and road repairs and in-house sidewalk repairs. We have to do both, really, to succeed.
[Tseng]: Right, we can't, even though it might be more cost effective to do things in-house, it's unrealistic to assume that, you know, we can just do it overnight.
[McGivern]: Correct. And also think about if we fix everything all at once and we have an in-house crew and everything's all fixed, then we have an in-house crew that we then, we have to figure out what to do with them after that. So there's a balance there as well, but we're talking over long spans of time, decades. So, you know, When we think about this stuff, when we talk about this stuff in my office, we talk about it in decades because these are the life of our investments that we're talking about. Our water pipes, for example, last 100 years. So we need to immediately do something now. Well, we're talking about it in the next decade. That's immediate for like a water pipe. Same with sidewalks. Sidewalks have been around for bottom 100 years. So that has to be a part of the consideration.
[Morell]: Thanks. Thank you. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. We talked about earlier, This should be part of the capital plan. This is what we've talked about. This is another piecemeal approach. Does this need to be done? Most certainly, and I'm really sitting here torn on how I'm going to vote for this thing. I know you need it, and I know it needs to be done, but I also know that I agree with my other Councilors. We need to know what our financial status is before we keep voting on these things. That's really what the issue is. No one's saying that we don't need this. We need it. And you're right. But can we afford it? That's really what the bottom line is. This should have been part of a capital plan so we know where we're going.
[McGivern]: I just, through the chair, I have submitted these pieces of equipment on the DPW's recommendation for capital improvement plan. I know that that doesn't mean that you've seen it. It just means that- We haven't seen it. Right, right.
[Caraviello]: I'm just assuring you that- We haven't seen it.
[McGivern]: But I'm just assuring you- I mean, I'd like to see it someday. Yes, I do have a plan and it was- And I'm sure you do. Integrated into the CIP, so- I'm sure you have a plan. Understood, but I'm just- And I say, you're not wrong.
[Caraviello]: I say, I'm sitting here kind of torn tonight. As a Councilor, I think I should vote for this because the city needs it, but as a responsible Councilor, I don't know.
[Knight]: Point taken, I hope you do.
[Morell]: Any further discussion?
[Knight]: Madam President, if I may.
[Morell]: Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Tim, this is a paper that I think you're well aware I've supported in the past, I've led debates on in the past in support of it. I think it's something that we need, as Councilor Caraviello said, and I too share the same concerns that he has. I know the city needs it, but as someone who's very concerned about the lack of fiscal transparency and financial constraint that we have in the city, about our administration's inability to provide us with simple documentation as to where they're spending their money. And we've been waiting since January of 2020 to get that and still haven't received it. Speaks volumes, speaks volumes. Everybody says when you can't get an answer to something, you follow the money. And for three years, I've been trying to follow the money. and I'm getting stonewalled. And I don't know why, I don't know why, but it leads me to believe that there's something strange going on. The fish is rotting in Denmark or whatever they say, right? Now, I think you're doing an excellent job and I think you've done a great job with that department. And I think you've really moved it ahead, all right? And my vote this evening has nothing to do with you, with the job you're doing or with the department you run. My job really has to do with the fact that, you know, the first day, of January, when we all stood behind this rail, the first thing that we did was we raised our right hand. And we raised our right hand and we said that we're gonna do our best to uphold the Constitution in the United States of America, the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the ordinances in the city of Medford. So we sit here and we look at this paper that's before us and it's a loan order. So this is a loan order, it needs five votes. per state law. Pursuant to city ordinances, the city shall have a city solicitor, and the city solicitor is responsible for reviewing all legal instruments, a loan owner being one. We have no city solicitor. So we have no city solicitor that's here that works for the people of this city. We have a private law firm that's already come forward and said they work for the administration, but we have no attorney or solicitor for this community that works for the people of this community. All right, and that's been stated by legal counsel that we're paying. I don't know how much we're paying them, Some have set up to $2.7 million. KP law has been paid so far this year. That's a lot of money. I don't know if it's true or not. I'd love to know if it is or not, because I've been asking for the paperwork to look at it, but I just can't seem to get my hands on it. So ultimately, you know, we have a lack of fiscal transparency. We have an administration that comes forward for job classification changes every other week to create new positions and give certain and select individuals raises. All right, so when I'm sitting down and I want to look at the full financial picture of this community and what's going on, And I wanna say to myself, this is where the money's going and this is where it's being spent. I can't do that. So it's very difficult for me to sit down and take a vote for $1.5 million of borrowing. This isn't our money that we're spending. This is money that we're asking somebody to give us that we're gonna have to pay back. All right, so it's very concerning to me. I feel like you're a sacrificial lamb sometimes when you come down here. I know that you're working with one hand behind your back and I know that this stuff would be helpful. But I also know that as a financial stalwart for the taxpayers of this community, the people in the city deserve better. So it's very difficult for me to take a vote where I'm not confident that it complies with the ordinances in our community. And I'm not so certain as to what our actual fiscal picture is right now. It makes it very difficult for me to make this vote. And I know what's gonna happen. The next time somebody calls the mayor's office and they say, I need my sidewalk fixed. Well, the city council voted against the money, so you just got the way. That's what it's gonna be, right? Because it's not about governance, it's about politics, right? We went over this already. It's about politics, not governance. Governance versus politics is a big difference. So for those reasons, I can't support the paper this evening. I'd like to see a table for 90 days and maybe we can take it back up in June.
[Morell]: We have a motion on the floor from Councilor Collins to approve the first reading. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. So we got an email late this afternoon saying that we have 25 plus million dollars in free cashes. Is that correct?
[Morell]: I'm sorry.
[Caraviello]: We got an email earlier today that we have 25 plus million dollars cash.
[Morell]: Yes.
[Caraviello]: Why are we gonna borrow a million dollars at probably five or six or 7% when we have the money here. I would think this would be a reasonable thing to take out of free cash.
[McGivern]: I don't have an answer.
[Caraviello]: I know that's no, that's not your decision, but you know, with the interest rates being the way they are in the banking, you know, the finances, you know, Maybe you can answer why we're not taking this out of free cash.
[Nina Nazarian]: I'm under the weather, so you may want to just go a little bit further. Not COVID, but still sick. Thank you. All right, I'll try. I just wanted to ask President Morell that you defer to our finance director. My introductory comments on this, Councilor Caraviello, are essentially that we have a finite amount of funds in terms of the available dollars in free cash, and we can't keep going to that well for $1 million, $1 million, $1 million for street sidewalks. Those are items that are long-term capital costs. They have long-term capital lives, so to speak, and that's perfect for capital improvements plan. But again, don't take it from me. Take it from our finance director. I just ask that you ask for his commentary on this. Thank you. Director Dickinson, can you?
[Scarpelli]: Well, Chief Esteves is here. Would ARPA funding fall into this category with what could that have worked?
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you for the question through you, President Morell. ARPA funding could be used in terms of the flexible funds that are available in terms of what's called the so-called revenue replacement, but it likely wouldn't fall under the categories of an eligible use under the other many categories. Thank you, but yeah.
[Morell]: Director Dickinson, can you speak to the choice to use to bond out as opposed to using free cash for this?
[Unidentified]: Oh, do you need to? There you go.
[Bob Dickinson]: All right, I'm on. As the chief of staff said, well, two things. Yes, free cash is not an inexhaustible well that we can keep dipping into. Also in considering this, quite frankly, we didn't know what free cash was gonna be until this afternoon. That said, for a lot of projects like this, when you're looking forward at your debt service costs and maintaining a somewhat level amount that you have to pay in debt service, when you're thinking about projects like this that are going to be aiding the community going forward for 10 years, et cetera. It does make a certain amount of sense to use borrowed money to fund that because it spreads out the costs over the years that the community is actually getting the use of better sidewalks, the equipment that can fix them, et cetera.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Caraviello]: And what interest rate are we borrowing at?
[Bob Dickinson]: I do not know. We'd have to take that up with Hilltop and figure out exactly what we'd be getting. We haven't done a GOB issuance for a while. So that changes on a daily basis.
[Nina Nazarian]: The only thing I wanted to add, and Director Dickinson just mentioned it, but The way that borrowing works is when you go out for your long-term borrowing, you secure and you lock your rate at that time. So there's no way to indicate what we're borrowing today for when the actual borrowing occurs. And the borrowing typically occurs when the project is complete because you want to borrow the exact number and the exact amount. So that would be later down the road.
[Caraviello]: We know the exact number.
[Nina Nazarian]: Certainly, we do know the exact number. That was maybe more an inference to like a building project, for instance. But the point ultimately is you don't complete what's called the permanent borrowing until once the dollars have been fully spent. You do a temporary ban, which is a bond anticipation note in advance of the permanent borrowing. It's, I mean, as with anything, there are niche specific people who are really fine-tuned in these areas. We have a financial advisor and we have bond counsel for these very specific matters.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Director Dixon, just a quick question for you, if you're able to answer it, and if it's off the cuff, that's totally understandable. But I was just curious, if you knew the amount of our certified free cash when this loan order was being submitted to the council, would it have changed your opinion or your posture on this issue?
[Bob Dickinson]: I don't think I can answer that. That would be a discussion that we would have had at the time. OK, thank you.
[Morell]: Vice President Bears, do you want to start?
[Bears]: I was just going to say, I, for one, would much rather bond this than spend free cash. Bonding spreads the cost out of our lucidum in a period of time. It's going towards a capital expense. We've done bond issues for roads and sidewalks stuff in the past specifically for that reason. I'll leave it at that. I mean, you know, today we're certified 25 million free cash. Great. We're all very happy about that. There's like nine, seven, eight, 9 million of that going out the door requested to out the door tonight. I mean, so like that, I'm not saying it's all going to go. Cause I, I don't know.
[Caraviello]: Going down the line here, we're going to, so we're going to use free cash to buy fire engines, but I'd rather, bond that out versus free cash.
[Bears]: I'd be happy with that.
[Caraviello]: Or bond or do a lease loan like we did with the other fire engines versus bonding this money.
[Bears]: Hey, we haven't gotten the paper yet, but I don't disagree with that at all.
[Caraviello]: It's coming right after this.
[Bears]: Yeah, yeah, no, I know.
[Caraviello]: If I were picking, which one would I- I'd rather bond the fire engines or do a lease loan like we did with the other fire engines and take this out of free cash. Maybe we can do both.
[Morell]: We have a motion on the floor for this paper if we want to keep on.
[Bears]: I don't disagree with you. I would rather bond both. I'll leave it at that.
[Morell]: Any further discussion on this paper specifically? So we have a motion from Councilor Collins to approve for first reading. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Caraviello]: I'll vote to let it take its first reading.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Knight? No. Councilor Scarpelli? No. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morelle?
[Morell]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, two in the negative, the motion passes for first reading. 2-3-0.
[Knight]: Madam President, motion to suspend the rules to take the fire engine paper, please.
[Morell]: On the motion of Vice... Second. Sure. giving you a call back. 22-071. 22, all right. Let me get a thought out. It's a red paper, it's a big red paper. Let me complete a thought, just, all right. Motion from Councilor Knight to take 23-071 out of order. That's the last one, right? 23-071, seconded by Vice President Bears. All those in favor? All those opposed? Great, thanks for that. Motion passes. 23-071. Just very quick on this on this very time I'm going to, I'm going to read it for just so people know what we're talking about. 237071 to our president and members of the city council regarding use of free cash to your present morale and members of the city council I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves and appropriation of free cash and the amount of $2 million to purchase two pumper trucks for the fire department delivery time for these trucks are 820 calendar days from the completed order. The following department heads will be available to answer your questions. Superintendent of Equipment Mike Wenzel, Fire Chief John Friedman, and Finance Director Auditor Bob Dickinson. Sincerely yours, or respectfully submitted, Mayor Brantlinger. Madam Chief of Staff, you had something to say? Thank you.
[Nina Nazarian]: Just on the last discussion, as it specifically pertains to this item, there's a mass general law that specifies each type of borrowing that can occur. you can take a look, it's chapter 44, section seven. It talks about how many years you can bond for each item you want to invest in, and it sets maximum terms for bonding. Typically for vehicles, it's not explicitly written into the mass general law, but typically for vehicles, that bonding year maximum, we'd have to consult with bond council is five years. So I just want to provide that information because of the discussion that occurred a moment ago, just as information for the city council. and also to defer to Director Dickinson as far as the methodology and thinking as far as use of free cash. And part of that was of course, the time sensitive nature of this matter and the availability out number of 800 and some odd days to purchase these fire trucks and not wanting to delay the purchase. So there was some atypical factors that contributed to our planning and thinking on this particular matter, just as information.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. On this particular one, did we examine the lease to own like we did with the previous fire engine?
[Nina Nazarian]: At this point in time, we could certainly look into that. That was not a very straightforward process because I went through that firsthand when we actually executed documents. It was not It saved a little bit here in terms of funds, and I'm not criticizing the decision or the plan that was- We stole all the money no matter what.
[Caraviello]: Oh yeah. But it's spread it out over 10 years. Sure, sure. I would think rather than that, I'd rather spread it out over 10 years, but don't use the free cash on that.
[Nina Nazarian]: And that's an option that can be pursued. It delays the purchase, the process to get the purchase order submitted to the vendor, which takes 800 and some odd days.
[Caraviello]: That's what we were- I don't understand why we can't order and then figure out how to pay for it at another date. process.
[Nina Nazarian]: That's I defer to Chief Friedman, but it's my understanding that's not possible.
[Caraviello]: Chief, thank you very much for your work for the last two days and last three days.
[John Freedman]: A lot of fires is a busy, busy couple of busy couple of days. Good work. Thank you. Um, and that's a testament to the men and women under the work underneath, right? That work really hard at those.
[Caraviello]: Thank you.
[John Freedman]: Thank everybody for all the work they did. Okay, so I heard the words time sensitive with the council and this project is time sensitive on multiple levels. So I will just try to be as clear as crystal clear as I can. And I tried to get the mayor and her staff up to speed on this. And I believe, you know, that's why we're here before you today because they heard us loud and clear. So a couple of things are going on here. The trucks themselves, you heard 820 days. The actual quote, the price quote, they're only guaranteeing them 30 days. And we have locked in this 820 days for that 30 days. And what we're seeing with the other manufacturers is they're going beyond 820 days. In fact, some of the other ones are up to 1,400 days. So that's four years. And what's happening is a lot of the other departments are looking around at other manufacturers, and then they're actually canceling those orders and jumping into the other, so they can get the lower. number. So, um, this is time sensitive, like I said, because of the 30 day window. And then what happens then is not only does that 820 days could go up, the price could go up. And I've seen it since I took over. I've been quoting these, you know, as I've been on as chief chief.
[Caraviello]: I don't think anyone is questioning Yeah, I think we're just questioning, how are we gonna pay for it?
[John Freedman]: You know, understood. Understood, but what I'm saying is, I don't know if there's time, like if that 30 day clock runs out.
[Caraviello]: Why can't you put the order in? Why can't you put the order in? It's gonna get paid for, whether through free cash or a bond or a lease loan. It's gonna get paid by some method. So just put the order in and get the process started. What are we waiting for?
[John Freedman]: Okay, well, that's kind of what I'm saying. We're both saying the same thing. Get it.
[Caraviello]: We'll figure out how to pay for it. We got 800 days to figure out how to pay for it.
[John Freedman]: All right. Right. Am I wrong? So like I said, I know there's a process though. When we say, okay, yeah, just order it. There's a process it has to the contract has to be looked at. And then the mayor has to get that back and then sign off on it and it's the clock has already started once we pulled the price. You know it's ticking. So, and then I want to lock this in because I know the parts are going up everything's going up and I've seen it over the course of a year. It's absolutely crazy. And then I'm hearing with the other manufacturers, it's going up to four years.
[Caraviello]: So, so I think in this case, I think in the past, you said you've needed you need three trucks. Correct. I'm sorry. I think you said you needed we're in the need.
[John Freedman]: Originally, when I put it in the capital improvements plan, I asked for three. And if it takes two years, why are we just ordering the three trucks now? Well, I mean, I know when we I sat with the mayor and her staff. We, we settled on to the third one is still in the capital improvements plan that's a living document that we look at all the time. This is real relief that's going to come in the form of two new trucks will rotate the fleet at that time when they arrive and, and maybe during the during that time frame, you know that she finds the money for the third one somehow we figure that part out. You know, that's above my pay grade so I put it in the capital improvements plan, and I communicated. And the reason we pulled this out and the reason why before you tonight is because of this sensitive nature of this and how quick it has to be decided on. So, you know, we just can't afford to wait. Okay.
[SPEAKER_07]: Thank you.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_07]: When I order equipment, I have to secure funding prior to them accepting the order. And I think that's in this case as well. So I think that's what the urgency is.
[Caraviello]: Well, again, you'll secure funding because you're doing it through free cash, but
[SPEAKER_07]: through the process, through the process. Right. I think what the chief is saying is if we go the lease route.
[Caraviello]: We have the free cash. We're going to take this money out of free cash, but along the process, we could maybe change the process. I was going to get paid. Is that not an option?
[John Freedman]: I, you know, I'm not a lawyer.
[Caraviello]: I'm not a finance person here either. But you know, and I think you should know this tonight.
[Morell]: Director Dickinson, can you speak to that? Is that something that could happen? It's like if we vote for free cash, can we then bond out for something? Can we change the process or lease to owner the options? Councilor Caraviello is mentioning.
[Bob Dickinson]: I believe that down the road we can change that. From my point of view as the finance guy, When we're putting in a PO, when we're ordering something, I like to have a funding source. In this case, the funding source would be free cash. If down the road, we decided it should be bonding, if we're gonna get into a lease agreement, I would... The problem with those is then you need to fund it every single year. But in order to get this properly in the system, from my point of view, the simplest solution right now is to use free cash, generate the POs, and get this started. That way the vendor knows that we have the money in place to buy it.
[Caraviello]: So you're saying that somewhere along the process, it can be changed, the method of payment, correct?
[Bob Dickinson]: I would have to check with legal about that, but I believe that, yes. That's 600 as soon as we pick up the phone.
[Morell]: Thank you, Director Dickinson, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Hurtubise]: Can I follow up with Barbara real quick?
[Morell]: Yeah, go ahead. Come on, calm down.
[Scarpelli]: Madam President, I yield to Councilor Bears for one minute.
[Morell]: Thank you. It's a lot of crosstalk.
[Bears]: The timeline is not good. I'm right there with you, Madam President. Bob, just my other question is just when does it leave free cash? So if we approve it as free cash right now, does that mean that it's sitting there for 400, 500, 600, 800 days until we're actually paying these people and that's what gives us some time to potentially adjust the source or the method in which we're paying for it?
[Bob Dickinson]: Yes, at the end of the year, it would have to be reserved or transferred to a capital project fund so that it was actually reserved funding. So when we calculate free cash as of June 30th of 2023, necessarily that would come out of what would be considered for free cash.
[Bears]: And just one really quick follow-up. So the 25 million figure that we got certified today, that is as of June 30th, 2022. Is that correct? Yes. So there's even whatever we've accrued this year that's in free cash, but we don't have the certification and won't have it until a year from now when there's a significant lag time.
[Scarpelli]: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Chief, first of all, again, thank you. And more importantly, if I fight is that two giant fires in one week, and then not including, I'm sure, we assisted with the Somerville fire right down the street. So you're talking three fires in a matter of a week that were pretty serious. So these are the situations where it's time sensitive that I need to support. But I'm glad my question was really more of the fact that seeing what we went through this week and really needing the trucks that we need to to function, making sure everybody's safe, is that I was, my question was also the third truck. So I'm glad to see that'll be part of that capital plan. And it'll be something that I'll be pushing for because ultimately, this is about safety of our firefighters and safety of our citizens. So, and making sure we have the equipment needed to do the job. So again, I can't Thank you enough, I think that we rest easy knowing that we have a department that, although we lost some property, no one died. And everybody went home safe so yeah, I thought that that's very important so I just wanted to thank you.
[John Freedman]: So these, these are what we're asking for the tools for them to continue to see that good work. It's absolutely in the capital improvement plan. And it's my job to sort of expedite it like this when I see how long it's gonna take to get them. It keeps increasing, the price keeps going up.
[Scarpelli]: I see the issues you're facing.
[John Freedman]: I'm trying to bring the council awareness up to where we have the mayor now. Well, thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. That's what we needed. So thank you, Madam President.
[Morell]: Thank you. Any further discussion from the council? I move approval. So on the motion of Cascara Pelli to approve second by racism bears Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Morell]: We're under suspension for that one paper, where are we going?
[Bears]: Motion to revert.
[Morell]: Motion by Senator Bears to revert back to regular business, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Going to 23-059. To Honorable President Morell and members of Medford City Council, regarding proposed wage adjustment for non-union personnel. Dear President Morell and members of the City Council, I respect the request and recommend the City Council approve the following amendments to revise ordinances chapter 66 entitled personnel article two entitled reserve the city's classifications and compensation plan formally included as article two sections 66-31 through 66-40 by adopting the following change. Non-union personnel effective January 1st, 2021 increase the base salary of all non-union titles by 2%. Effective January 1st, 2022 increase the base salary of all non-union titles by 2%. back to January 1 2023 increase the base salary of all non union titles by 2%. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted.
[Hurtubise]: I always look.
[Scarpelli]: Yeah.
[Collins]: Thank you. Thanks, guys. I appreciate your deference.
[Scarpelli]: Um, we're right.
[Collins]: I think I probably have what might be an unpopular opinion on this paper, so I just wanted to get it out of the way. First, um, you know, another another Councilor said earlier in this meeting, you know, we've spent a long time since we had a full compliment of department heads in City Hall. It's affecting our ability to move forward as community. I think that that's you know, one of the reasons why it's important to make sure that we are doing what is within our power to retain the skilled public service workers that we do have within City Hall. I know for very good reason, we've had a lot of discussions this year about the plight of our unionized city workers for good reason. And we've been asked to advocate for those workers. And I think whenever possible, this council has tried to, and I think that's something that we can be proud of and that we have to continue to do. But I don't think that the narrative here is the non-union titles versus the unionized titles. I think that's a false binary. I think that we need to stick up for the city workers that are unionized as well as sticking up for the city workers that aren't, because everybody is experiencing cost of living increases. And the issue here is fair bargaining for those workers who are unionized at the same time. We need to keep people in the building, to keep the lights on, to keep the wheels turning. So that's all I'll be supporting this paper tonight. And I look forward to hearing my fellow councilors perspective on the matter.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Pele.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilor Collins-Lee. I will tell you, I did receive phone calls from union members that stress the fact that unless the equity and fair negotiations with non-union, with union members and not having their contracts settled with for years, I think it would go totally against what we have been preaching about supporting our union members. So I think that's one of the reasons why I won't and again, not a penny I will vote for until we have a true understanding of what we're doing financially in this community. So thank you, Madam President.
[Morell]: Thank you. Any further advice from bears?
[Bears]: I would just say, you know, these are folks I'm going to race this January 1 2020. the appropriation is $80,000 for the rest of this fiscal year. I understand and respect Councilor Scarapelli's position, but also, you know, we have an opportunity to do this for some employees. I wish we had in front of us contracts to do this for all employees, and I don't want to step away from that position in any sort of way. But again, similarly to prior discussions. We have people who are already working here who've gone without for a very long time. I hear that across all fronts. I don't want us to lose people from city government because they can go somewhere else and get a raise. We've faced that in a bunch of different places. And again, my preference would be to be able to say that for everyone. I'd like there to be five papers on here with five contracts. That's what I want. It's been made clear many times and made clear again tonight. The administration says personnel issues, we're not going to discuss it here. So, you know, I'm not involved in those negotiations, but I can tell you what my position is, is that I think that there should be a fair agreement reached as quickly as possible. And I think the fact that contracts have been out so long and non-union employees have gone without a raise so long are both really major problems. We can correct one of those problems tonight. Thank you.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. Can anybody tell me what titles are covered under this before us this evening?
[Morell]: Madam Chief of Staff, she's joined by Zoom now. Do you have a list of the titles that are covered by this? I'm sorry, I gotta unmute you.
[Knight]: It's kind of important for us to look at that. Go ahead.
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you, I'm just gonna speak without video at this point. Yes, I can read that off if the council would like, it's a lengthy list.
[Knight]: I don't know how you'd like to- I'll be honest with you, Madam President. You're asking us to spend 80,000 bucks on.
[Morell]: Yeah, I'd be happy to have both. Yeah, can we have it read now and also get a copy?
[Nina Nazarian]: Okay, I'm searching for it. I'm not sure if Director Dickinson has it up, but if he does, I defer to him. Let me just find it right now.
[Unidentified]: Oh. I have it. Just opening the document now. Okay. Okay. So let me just...
[Nina Nazarian]: Okay, so in no particular order, this spreadsheet, I don't believe, I don't know if there is a particular, I don't know if the spreadsheet that I have, it's a working document. So I can certainly make it alphabetical. Why don't I try to do that here?
[Morell]: Are you able to share on a screen, Madam Chief of Staff?
[Unidentified]: Yes, yes, I could.
[Morell]: I think she's gonna make you a co-host so you can do that.
[Unidentified]: Sure. OK, so can you see this? Is this large enough? I can zoom in further.
[Nina Nazarian]: Shall I zoom in further, or is this sufficient?
[Morell]: These are names and not job titles. Do you have job titles?
[Unidentified]: I will hold on. Let me see if I have job titles. Yeah, she stopped.
[Hurtubise]: Sure.
[Morell]: I have a motion from sorry, Councilor Tseng I have a motion from Councilor Knight to table to have a second.
[Bears]: We can come back to this meeting just we'll give you time to pull that information.
[Unidentified]: I'm ready to share screen again.
[Morell]: I'm sorry, Madam Chief of Staff.
[Nina Nazarian]: It was just indicating I'm ready to share and I have the information available.
[Morell]: Okay, great.
[Nina Nazarian]: Okay. there's been a number of calculations that have been conducted. And so there are ones that are on this list, like for instance, mayor, the mayor has put it in the hands of the city council. If the mayor, if the city council does not want the mayor to receive a COLA, the city council can certainly vote to exclude it. Same with the city council. If the city council is to get an increase, because it's non-union, it can certainly either include it or exclude it. So this is the list here. There are some, it appears that there is a couple titles missing, but that's not by intent. I'd have to look into that further.
[Knight]: I appreciate the financial transparency and the fiscal constraint that the administration has shown us by offering this paper with such a paperwork that supports it. Thank you very much.
[Unidentified]: You're welcome, Councilor Knight.
[Scarpelli]: Madam President.
[Morell]: Yes, these are the positions.
[Scarpelli]: Madam President, if we could, I'd rather table this to get further understanding because I thought that it was just 2% voting on our raise for us, I believe.
[Morell]: She said we are included in this group and if we want to separate us out.
[Knight]: Well, we can separate, but I have a legal question on that. I don't think we can vote for our own raise. I think we need to vote for a raise to go if it's for this body that we serve on. I don't think we can vote for it in this term. I think it has to be a term that we're not in or it's an ethics violation.
[Bears]: In my opinion, so I'd refer it to legal counsel. No. Well, fine, but I'll move to approve but exclude the mayor and the city council.
[Morell]: Okay, as our only motion has a second. So we have a motion to approve and exclude the mayor and the city council from this second by Councilor Collins any further discussion. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Knight]: Oh, that's what this is photo proof of first reading and we didn't have a print out of the names on the list. I'm saying this is crazy. I feel like we've been kind of, they kind of tried to pull the rug underneath our feet here and stick a paper in front of our face to give the mayor a raise and never said it was for the mayor. And now all of a sudden, we're finding out that the 11th hour, Madam Chief of Staff, do you have your hand raised.
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you, President Morell. In an email from the mayor today, she disclosed that specifically. So I apologize if the members of the council haven't seen that email, but I just wanna specify that she did disclose that. And we don't typically provide a list of names for any contracts that are ratified. I don't see how this is any different from a collective bargaining agreement. So again, that was disclosed.
[Morell]: Thank you. All right, so I have a motion on the floor to approve for first reading. from President Bears, seconded by Councilor Collins, Mr. Clerk. Excluding the Mayor and the City Council. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No.
[Knight]: No.
[Morell]: Yes. Five in the in front of two in the negative. The motion passes for first reading. 23-060, to Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council regarding use of free cash. To your President and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the appropriation of one free cash in the amount of $680,342.38 to purchase the following items. $370,453.90 to pay for 55% of the cost of an electric street sweeper. $131,630 that purchase of two three quarter ton utility block trucks with plows $55,272 the purchase of one three quarter ton utility block utility body truck with plow and lift gate $48,921 the purchase of one three quarter ton pickup truck with plow and $66,000 $66,065.48 for the purchase of one three-quarter ton pickup for the fire department. Two, free cash in the amount of $80,000 for 2% COLAs for non-union employees as per the proposed wage adjustments for non-union personnel paper submitted. The necessary paperwork for certification of free cash will be submitted in the coming days, and it is our hope that it will be certified by the time of the meeting. The following department heads will be available to answer any questions. DPW Commissioner Tim McGibbon, Superintendent of Equipment Mike Wenzel, Fire Chief John Friedman, and Finance Director Auditor Bob Dickinson, respectfully submitted. Breanna Lungo-Koehn mayor.
[Scarpelli]: Madam President.
[Morell]: Councilor Scarpellilli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you. Right off the bat, gentlemen, the sweeper. Does this mean we'll have two street sweepers? Is it functional or no?
[SPEAKER_07]: The street sweeper?
[Scarpelli]: Yeah, that we have.
[SPEAKER_07]: It is far past, it is functional, but it's far past its lifespan.
[Scarpelli]: Okay, I understand. But this is what, again, I'm gonna just, this is my, I'm gonna make this cry every single time. Until we know where we are financially and purchasing these items, it's just, it's irresponsible for us, it is. I'm sorry. I know there are things like the fire trucks at a time sensitive, but this is just irresponsible. Keep voting these papers through. What we just did a minute ago is beyond me. Again, this is money. We don't know where we are. We keep voting for it. So again, I will not vote for this. And I implore my colleagues to think about it. I appreciate it. Thank you.
[Bears]: Just sorry if you already have said this, my understanding is there's a grant for the other 45% of the sweeper?
[Hurtubise]: Correct.
[Bears]: Is there a time contingency on the grant? Like how if we, you know, do we lose the grant if we don't approve the other half by a certain period of time or?
[McGivern]: I do believe that is the case. Yeah, I mean, I would also say just for all these these are also time sensitive. And therefore, just our general operations. But these are routine vehicles that just need to be purchased. Mr. Wentzell can give the council an idea. the state of some of the trucks in our fleet and you know these are really the next round of vehicles on our capital improvement plan to purchase and then you know we'll have routine purchases hopefully every single year that look similar to this because that's what needs to happen in a the properly functioning DPW fleet. So, these are vehicles that are the purchase of these is time sensitive we've been trying to, you know, work with the administration to get the funding for these vehicles for quite some time.
[Bears]: Yeah, no, well heard. And since you, you know, this is something we had a great conversation with director Dickinson. three and a half hours ago, talking about the budget process. And when you mentioned this is gonna be a regular thing, I think, you know, again, I'm not speaking, I hear you on the need here, I hear this grant, the grant funds could be contingent on the approval of the other half, like, I don't have a problem with anything here. I share Councilor Scarborough's general concerns about the overall issue. But if we could figure out a way to build that into the regular budget process, This is all I'm saying is it's just a, it's an issue of perception. We say use some free cash. We're going to use free cash for these things. We know they're going to be regular things that we need to do every year, but we go to free cash and some years, you know, right. The last four years, like free cash, hasn't been an option in a lot of cases. So we delay and we defer on the central capital purchases. And then you end up with an even worse fleet and you guys spending even more time trying to fix old stuff. I'm just saying in general, like, you know, if you're having the discussions that we're having around the budget, if we can build in things that we think are going to be annual recurring costs into the budget process, rather than having to wait on free cash certification to then come before us and use free cash for discrete things like this. I just think it goes a long way for us in the long run.
[Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[McGivern]: plan to come to you yearly to get the money appropriated for operating capital like this. So, but with that said, it is, since I've been leading the DPW, we do have a, and Mr. Wentz leading the fleet, we do have a pretty rigid sort of schedule of vehicle purchases that we need to make year over year. And you'll see that you saw that in the previous capital plan, and you'll see that in the next update as well. So some of these vehicles were in that original capital plan. So out of all the things that we've talked about tonight, and what's in capital plans and not, these actually are in the capital plan. And it is very time sensitive. So I would say, not like some of the other things tonight, but these are very time sensitive.
[Bears]: No, well heard. And again, I'm just, it's a general comment. Absolutely. If we had the capital plan updated every year attached to the city budget. It just changes the conversation. Yep. Thanks.
[Caraviello]: That's great. Thank you. Why aren't these things eligible for funding other cities and towns have gotten trucks and things with their ARPA funds. Why aren't we using our ARPA funds for this?
[McGivern]: It's not necessarily a question for me. We need the vehicles regardless.
[Caraviello]: No, I'm not saying you don't need the vehicles.
[McGivern]: But I believe that the mayor has been working on other things for ARPA funding. We actually, engineering and DPW, more so engineering, has put forth so many projects that are eligible for ARPA. ARPA has a lot of things that are favorable when it comes to sort of like waterline projects and street improvements and things like that, that kind of go together. Buying vehicles, I think, yeah, there are other options for funding, but this is the one that was selected, so.
[Caraviello]: I would have rather spent the upper funds $600,000 on this than $600,000 on parking meters. Maybe, it's, again, it's not my decision, but I will- There's a lot better use of the money.
[McGivern]: I, you know, I don't, I don't know. I will say that ARPA, from my understanding of the whole process, I don't necessarily think that these would be good purchases with ARPA because of the other flexibilities that ARPA has. And also to other points that were made tonight, we really need to get into the groove as a city making routine vehicle purchases.
[Caraviello]: I came in.
[McGivern]: What's that?
[Caraviello]: You're 100% right.
[McGivern]: Yeah, and so this is, you know, there was a few years where we weren't buying vehicles and Mr. Wentzell can tell you about that and what that has done. So this is, you know, we're really trying to get on track here.
[Caraviello]: So hopefully this can be- So this goes to our discussion earlier this evening, capital plan, a piecemeal, and we got three pieces of a capital plan tonight. instead of a whole capital plan.
[McGivern]: Sure, but these are elements that were on the previous capital plan. So these aren't necessarily new. Out of all the things that you've seen tonight, these actually were on the previous capital plan? We haven't seen a capital plan yet. So the one that you've already received a few years ago, a couple years ago. A few years ago, yeah.
[SPEAKER_07]: I've been working on these five trucks for over a year. And one of the issues that I do have is if it doesn't get approved, and let's say it gets approved in June, It's a year and a half to get a truck. These trucks are here now. They'll be ready within a few weeks.
[Caraviello]: This goes back till we get the jam down our throat in the last second again. This is what we do all the time. Last second. You got to do it tonight or we lose it. Tired of this. Freaking tired of this. That's all we do. Rush, rush, rush.
[Morell]: Madam Chief of Staff, were you able to speak to the opera question? I see your hand up.
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you, President Morell. I was simply going to say again that this would fall into the same category. These vehicles would have to go under revenue replacement and couldn't fall under the categories that were outlined by the federal government in terms of the different requirements. Each one of them would have to be analyzed. I don't want to speak to the street sweeper, for instance, but I suspect that I don't recall a category for vehicles and I don't recall that as an eligible use. Again, it could probably fall under revenue replacement. And the only other comment I'll say is, look, In this case, you know, there are vehicles that are on order, but I don't think we've used the words that these have to be voted tonight at any time. These particular vehicles are time sensitive because our fleet superintendent has done a tremendous job working to secure these types of vehicles. But again, I don't think we've used the words that these have to be used. They have to be voted tonight. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. Any further questions on BEARS?
[Bears]: I think my comment on timing may have seemed esoteric, but it's very direct to this point. Right. So we know free cash got certified today. I'm hearing you say there's trucks available. We can get them in weeks. If we delay a couple of months, we're not going to get trucks for 18 months. That's a bad situation to be in. I don't want to do that to you guys. Right. So I'm going to vote for the damn thing. But like if we had had a conversation about capital expenses over a period of time and said, hey, we have a bunch of urgent needs. We're doing the procurement and acquisition. We're not going to have free cash certified till the end of March. But here's all the things that we'd known two months ago. then Rick's not sitting here saying it's the last minute getting shoved down our throats when that is what it is. And we're in that situation. And basically, we have to be in that situation. And, you know, again, I come when I make my determination on this, I'm like, I don't want to screw over the fleet people, right? When I don't want to screw over the fire department, I don't want to screw over anybody here. But I'm just, you know, I'm like, this close to being where he's at, on all of it, where it's like, It's just about the collaborative and communication process and making sure that information is presented in a way where you guys don't have to come up here and say, hey, we know it's the last minute. We only have a certain amount of time to acquire these products. It's again, I'm going to vote. Yeah. And I can hear the tension in your voice because you're hearing, oh, my God, it's going to get delayed and then we're going to be in real trouble. And that shouldn't be on you guys to have to come here and justify that. So. I'm going to vote for it, but that's the frustration is like if we had a real process in place where information was coming in in a timely manner and we were getting what we need, then we would be having these conversations weeks or months in advance instead of hours or days in advance and then there wouldn't be the frustration that I'm hearing from my colleagues. So thank you for your presentation.
[John Freedman]: So I just wanted to speak on the fire department pickup. Over the years, we've lost several vehicles due to corrosion and I had to get rid of them, put them out of service because they were unsafe. And then we have a 20 year old pickup truck that's rear wheel drive that should have never been used for what it's being used for. And that, it has multiple, excuse me, multiple uses. And this pickup is going to sort of replace the one we lost. The pickup with the rear wheel drive is now going to be four wheel drive. So it does, it does in the wintertime, it tows the ice, the ice sled around in the summer when we do the smokehouse, it does that. And then it's going to have a plow on it. So when the other plow breaks, we have a plow, we can continue to plow the stations because we do our all the rear parts of our stations. The DPW helps us out with salt and things like that but we have our own plow that we take care of our own stations. So, having a second one when that one breaks, and then also having multiple it's going to have multiple uses towing the boat around telling the trailer around and safe with four wheel drive and the winter time so when they back down the ramp with the ice sled they don't get stuck there. Yeah.
[Bears]: Sure. It's a lot safer in general. If there's an accident 20 years newer than the last one.
[John Freedman]: And like I said, we got rid of all those other vehicles, you know, over time, it just kind of culminated where, and then this truck became available. What happened was we ordered it and then it didn't come in for the longest time. So we canceled the PO we ordered a different truck from a different dealership. And then fast forward to today the truck comes in, and they call me up like hey your truck is here. So, we can, if we approve this that truck is going to be here in days, not weeks. So it's real relief again I just wanted to just kind of hammer those points so you understand well why we're coming forward with this now, every item here in this paper is a good thing for the city that advances the goals that we share for the city.
[Bears]: And you don't have to, I appreciate the timeline stuff, because that's helpful for us to know, because, you know, we hear that from you guys on your end who are on the ground acquiring, you know, looking at the conditions of what we have now acquiring the new stuff, that's all helpful.
[John Freedman]: So I don't think any of our objections, and I don't want to speak for everybody are about the substance of this, and again I said I'm going to vote for it, it's, it's just the one last thing I'll cut you off but when I reached out to the mayor is like we implored her to try to take advantage of this again she heard me loud and clear and that's why we're here, and that's why I gotta applaud her for that you know she She saw it and put it in the paper you do some talking for us chief. What's that and you do some talking for us, maybe she'll hear you loud and rest loud and through you, I think voting tonight on my trucks that's a huge relief that it's it's 820 days away but if we don't start that clock.
[Knight]: It's never going to get worse bad politics is not going to translate the bad governance, we're going to make sure that you guys are safe.
[Unidentified]: Right.
[Morell]: And that's the address your address my question.
[Bears]: It's just it's just the, you know, again, I appreciate you giving us the pitch on these good things and hearing all the details and information. It's just really like, I don't think the issue is that these are not necessary or they don't need to be data now or the timeline is here. It's just like, Mike probably knew two months ago, the timeline, right? Like, and probably communicated that to the administration, but it never got communicated to us. And there can be exceptions where you get a call from a dealership and we want to take advantage of it. I have no problem with that. I'm glad that timeliness is happening, but.
[SPEAKER_07]: And unfortunately in our line of business, we need vehicles and equipment to be able to do our job. Oh, of course. So yeah. Yeah.
[McGivern]: There's a couple of important factors here that we went a couple of years without buying vehicles. And then also we got, we got the next year's round of vehicles lined up as well. So, you know, like I was saying about the sidewalk, you know, these need to be purchased, A, because if we go into the year and a half without having these vehicles, then we're not looking out for our employees.
[Bears]: No, no, yeah. There's no dispute on that.
[McGivern]: I know, I know, but I just don't like, this is not the, it's just my opinion, but this is not one where we want to, delay.
[Hurtubise]: Right.
[McGivern]: And it's already been delayed that we're trying to get this on here. It's been, you know, Mike's been doing a ton of work with the vendors to try to, you know, make sure that we're lining things up. And it's been quite an adventure getting here tonight. And with the last meetings, delays and all this, I think this was supposed to be on a month ago. And it's It hasn't now we're here today and, you know, so anyway, I'm not sure I could say much more but I think talking about the safety of employees, making sure that we have the tools we need to do our job, then this is, this is the meat of that.
[Bears]: No, you didn't say this sorry. Oh, very quickly. It's just you said, I don't think this is the one to do this on. Right. And I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I just think that really captures the full scope of the whole thing. It shouldn't be that we're picking and choosing which one we're going to hold and which one we're not because we have a disagreement around knowing the information in a timely manner. And that's the issue. And you didn't say that I said that, but it really just captured the crux of the whole thing for me. You guys come up here and they're like, which one is it going to be tonight? And that's not the position you should be in, and it's not the position we want to be in. So I'll just leave it at that. Thank you.
[Morell]: Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Tim. Yes. We absolutely stink at street sweeping. We are awful at it. It is something we are not good at in this city at all. I'm looking at this expense and I'm seeing it total more than half of the total expenses before us. I'd like to see us get 10 trucks and forget the street sweeper. Quite frankly, I don't see any value in the program that we're running right now. I think it can be done much better and probably cheaper privately. You know, so when I look at this and streets we've been since since you've been here, since you've lived in the city street sweep has been an issue. We are not good at it this twice a year thing is a waste in my opinion I don't think it does anything to help beautify the city. I don't think that it really meets any objectives and goals other than making people totally angry because of the notification system and the getting told I'm not getting told some streets do some streets don't. It's just a haphazard application. You know, you're in zone one today and we're doing the best we can with what we got without the full blown program. We're just not good at it. We're just not good at it. Is there you know, I'm one that would never say send something out unless we're replacing it with something we're doing in-house. But I'm thinking the amount of money and funds that we spend on the Street Sweeper program could probably be better invested if we gave it, put it out, it could probably be cheaper. And then we could do more internally, hiring more equipment and trucks and plows and stuff like that. I mean, I'm looking at this and I'm saying, the thing really, it comes out twice a year, right? The Street Sweeper?
[SPEAKER_07]: goes out every night. On the main drags, on the main drags only. April 1st and November 15th. On the main drags only. That's right.
[Knight]: But I live on a main drag, and I'm gonna tell you, last year it didn't come out every night. The year before that, it didn't come out every night. You know what I mean? Because I live on a main drag.
[Hurtubise]: Well, it's not doing every street every night.
[Knight]: There's a schedule. Right. So why can't I, so I get a pack of restrictions on my street, it's supposed to get swept, but it doesn't get swept. But you know what I mean? It's not a good program.
[McGivern]: I haven't done the cost analysis that you're referring to, in-house, out-house. We do rent a couple. So we have two. So when we do this big sweep, we do rent a couple. So it's a bit of a hybrid. And I would say that this particular one, the grant required us to dispose of the one that we have that it's replacing. So it goes to all electric. So that was the decision that was made. And then the decision was made to match it here. Is that a fleet decision or is that a? PDS decision. The fleet decision is that we have sweepers that work and we can use them. It wasn't necessarily a decision by us to go out and get the grant for electric street sweepers. But that's what happened and that's what we have to deal with. So with that said, we need the second sweeper. And I will just also say too, A lot of people don't realize this, but I'll just say it. The reason we sweep twice a year, one of the reasons anyway is regulatory compliance, because our water goes into the river. So getting the sediment off the roads is a big piece of that. So there is a regulatory piece as well. We need to be sweeping the streets twice a year. We can get better at it for sure. And that's a different conversation. I'm more than happy to continue that conversation. I'm always looking to make our operations.
[SPEAKER_07]: Like I said- So we have two sweepers. We have a 2013 and a- This is like, a foreign language to me, you know what I mean? 20 tons and this and that, I don't know. I only know that when they take the thing out- We have a 13 and an 18 and they say the average lifespan is five years. So what we normally do is after the, when the second one, the newest one becomes five years old, we rotate it. I was able to apply for a grant to where we could get a electric street sweeper for the same price as a gas street sweeper to do the rotation, that's all.
[Morell]: The one and the two are each item within one. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. On the electric sweeper. Who repairs that when it breaks? Are you capable?
[SPEAKER_07]: I'm actually sending my mechanics to electric sweeper school. The manufacturer is providing school. Anything that we can't handle, it will go back to the manufacturer.
[Caraviello]: How long will that run before it needs to be charged again?
[SPEAKER_07]: The sweeper? Yeah. 12 hours.
[Caraviello]: 12 hours. And is it as powerful as the diesel and picking up wet leaves?
[SPEAKER_07]: Yes. It's actually easier to fix, believe it or not.
[Caraviello]: No, but is it, when it goes around picking up leaves, when we do that, a big sweep, where people throw them all over the side of the road, and they pile them up, will that?
[SPEAKER_07]: It has a different design than the Elgin, to where it has a vacuum portion of it too, so it'll actually, and the conveyor on the machine is different, so it actually, it won't clog as bad as the Elgin still.
[Caraviello]: And what's the lifespan of that?
[SPEAKER_07]: I have no idea. They're giving me a five year warranty on the machine, so.
[Caraviello]: or my parts and labor?
[SPEAKER_07]: Yeah, so I would imagine longer than that. They do have wearable items, just like the gas sweeper, the brooms, and you know, the different tubes and stuff like that. Yeah, I mean, normal wearables. Yeah, regular maintenance items.
[Caraviello]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_07]: But I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the batteries on it are a lifetime warranty. So I'd have to check on that.
[Caraviello]: Okay, thank you.
[Morell]: for the discussion from the council on this paper. Madam Chief of staff, I see you with your hand up.
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you, President Morell. Just want to point out that while I recognize that a capital improvements plan update is needed, there was a 2021 to 2026 plan, which was referred to tonight, which includes these items.
[Unidentified]: So just want to point that out. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. So I have a motion from Councilor Knight to sever of a second. So we are severing just the first bullet point. Second, Councilor Pele. So motion is to sever the first bullet point of number one. So the street sweeper, $378,453.90. So there's a motion for that from Councilor Nunez to sever a second by Councilor Pele. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. So we'll take that one first. Well, if I have a motion to, I need a motion. Motion to approve what? The street sweeper. Okay, so on the motion of Councilor Collins to approve the $378,453.90 for 55% of the cost of an electric street sweeper, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. This is for the street sweeper only.
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: No. Yes. Yes. I've been the affirmative to and the negative motion passes.
[Morell]: on the motion of Councilor Collins to approve the remainder of the free cash request under, it's just item one, just item one? Okay, under item one, seconded by Vice-President Bears. And again, this is just for item one, so the remainder of the items. The clerk's still writing stuff, so I was gonna say it, so I'll be quiet, so he can think while he writes. Yes, six in the affirmative one in the negative motion passes on the motion Councilor Collins to approve the second item.
[Knight]: Yes. This paper that's before us this evening is attached to a paper that we voted on previously. The paper that we voted on previously requires three readings. So I'd ask that in the paper that we voted on previously, we amend it. So the dollar figure is not gonna be the same. So I'd ask that this paper be tabled and that the administration give us an amended paper that reflects the appropriate dollar figure based upon the vote that the council took earlier, excluding the mayor's office and the city council from the cost of living adjustment that the mayor's office proposed for themselves.
[Morell]: Second. Second, okay. I have a motion from Councilor Knight to table the paper and are requesting an updated figure from the administration reflecting the amendments we made from the paper that this is tied to, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. Paper is tabled. Get that information. All right, number is this. 23-061. to my role president and members of the Medford City Council regarding stabilization fund establishment and funding your present morale and members of the city council I respectfully request and recommend that your body establish a general stabilization fund as authorized by chapter 40 section five B of general laws and vote to appropriate free cash in the amount of $5 million and you said fun. The vast majority of cities and towns in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have a general stabilization fund in order to provide for emergencies and unforeseen expenses. A two thirds majority of the city council is required to establish and to appropriate funds into the stabilization fund. Respectfully submitted Brandon Lungo-Koehn mayor. Do you want to hear from Director Dickinson first or do you want to? Director Dickinson, could you just provide some background for what's before us and also for folks who may not have seen the press release that went out, let us know how much free cash we have right now. that is certified?
[Bob Dickinson]: Right now, as of today, we have slightly over $25 million in free cash that has been certified by the state. The purpose of a stabilization fund, this isn't money that we are spending. This is money that we are accounting for differently. Um, as we all know, or well, sorry, it's late. As, as I know, um, our free cash certification only lasts until June 30th, 2023. So the $25 million that we have right now that we can use, we can vote. to use as free cash that expires on June 30th, 2023 and will not be available again until free cash is certified for July 1st of 2023, which would this year, obviously that took nine months. The purpose of the stabilization fund would be simply to move $5 million there. So if An emergency or another unforeseen circumstance arose when we did not have free cash certified because we hadn't closed the books on the prior year, that the city council would be able to, with a two thirds vote, use the stabilization fund to fund whatever emergency we might have. So that's why most cities and towns actually have a stabilization fund. Um, it makes the money available. Again, it's not money that we are spending on anything. It simply allows us to put some money aside so that if an emergency shows up when we don't have free cash certified that the city council can then vote to use that money to deal with the emergency.
[Morell]: Thank you. Madam President, Vice President Bears and then Councilor Carbonell.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for the explanation, Director Dickinson. I appreciate the additional context. Personally, I think a stabilization fund is a great idea. I'm just a little wary of the process. I think for me, you know, we had our issues in the last budget where we were in a structural deficit we had many millions of dollars where we were covering it with our revenue replacement. We've had a discussion about the revenue side of the budget but we have not had a presentation regarding at anything as far as I've seen as us to the expense side of the budget. So I you know we don't know yet what the potential either structural deficit being covered by ARPA might be this year or if there, you know, is any need to use free cash to cover any, any holes in the budget. Hopefully neither of those things are true considering the very strong seeming presentation by director Dickinson about revenue but you know, only seen one side of the budget at best we haven't seen the expense side yet. It sounded to me, Bob and please correct me if I'm wrong, that. We have we can use since free cash is certified, we can use that through June 30. And given that, and again, if I'm wrong, please let me know, I would rather kind of have this discussion as part of the holistic discussion we're going to be having around the fiscal 24 budget. And we can kind of decide, or have a little bit more understanding of we have this amount of free cash, these are our revenue and expense expectations. We do or do not expect to have to use free cash. I just don't want to see us put $5 million into this account today when maybe it should better be sitting as free cash for a little while. Again, I don't know. But I'd like to have that conversation as part of the budget. Just something else I know is that there is a specific part of state law in Chapter 59, Section 21C, Subsection G, that allows cities to create specific dedicated revenue to fund stabilization funds with the approval of the voters. and I'd just like to have that be part of the discussion as well. So I personally would like to move this to a committee of the whole, where we can either discuss this on its own or discuss it as part of the fiscal 24 budget and just get that paper done by, you know, it sounds like we don't have to get it done by June 28th or June 30th. So that would be my motion.
[Morell]: Thank you. All right, so that addressed here. Okay, thank you. Councilor Collins and Councilor Tseng. Sorry, there's a very strange sounding car outside.
[Collins]: Thank you President Morell and I appreciate the context around this from my fellow Councilors and from Director Dickinson and I came into the meeting. Ultimately, I think that a stabilization fund is a good thing for a city to have. I think that's one of those things that we probably should have had already and it's good for it to be enacted now or at least this year. I'm fine with the idea of moving it into a committee of the whole. I do think that there's a broader scope to this discussion that I would perhaps prefer to have. And I think a big part of that for me is this Sorry, it is getting late. It's not slowing down. You know, this announcement of the stabilization fund request arrived at the same time as the announcement of the certification of $25 million in free cash put forth as in the posture of something to celebrate. I don't really think that's something to celebrate. You've been in a pandemic recovery for three years preparing for future emergency spending needs is good, but when you look at the amount of under-investment in pressing urgent needs in this community that have gone under-invested in and frankly under-acknowledged over the past few years, I'm glad if this means that we are turning a leaf towards more investing in urgent material needs for our community that we need right now when we need them. But I think this very vast overflow is evidence that we have not been good at that. And I think frankly, that's a source of shame. And I think what would make me feel better about kind of hastily throwing together a stabilization fund now is if we can get a commitment that this will also involve material investments in areas of greatest need in our community soon. maybe that could be an appropriation for an affordable housing trust as soon as that comes online. But I think that kind of thinking does make more sense in a broader discussion what we're talking about. What is this going to be for? How is this going to be funded in the future? And what can we expect this to be used for based on our track record of not always taking available opportunities to meet urgent needs for stabilization in our community, like the three years that we all just witnessed and lived through. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Sai.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I'm also, you know, I think, reflecting the sentiment of my colleagues here. Um, I think the idea of a stabilization fund is a great idea. Um, and certainly we talk about, um, needing to plan ahead fiscally, but, um, to commit to $5 million tonight, you know, that's big money. It's a significant sum that we really can't divorce from our conversation about the budget as a whole. Um, and Because it's such a big sum, we need to pay particular attention to open and public community discussion on the issue. This was on the agenda, but I think a committee of the whole, for example, especially one that's tied closer to the budget, I think would be a more appropriate form for us to talk about the issue first before we approve it. And I think underscores the need for us to serve as a democratic forum for that. When we think about the 25 million certified and free cash that was confirmed today. Councilor Collins's sentiment that I think we need to be a little bit more critical when we think of whether it's a good or a bad thing. I mean, it's nuanced. It's certainly good to have a lot of free cash, but we have to keep in mind that there is a cost to this as well. And we need to talk about the long term investments that we want to make as a city. We need to talk about the, I mean, tonight was, I think a prime example of the need to invest in things now before they become cost ineffective in the future. And that requires some big picture thinking. And I'm not saying that we don't fund the stabilization fund and we don't invest this money into it. I'm just saying we need a committee of the whole meeting and a comprehensive budget process to talk about this. I don't want us to be under the illusion that more money in free cash is always a good thing. When we look at what's recommended by DLS, we are above that, actually. We are above the upper limit. recommended by DLS and I find the finance director may have his own opinion which I think we should value and I would like to hear in that committee the whole meeting if that's the case. But I think we also need to look at the needs of the city and what residents are asking us for. and taking a more holistic approach to looking at how we do budget, how we do finances and how we approach the stabilization fund. Again, I'm not opposed to it. I think there's just questions about looking at the big picture of it all, how we fund it, and I, in doing research for this, I did see some towns said that they preferred not to put free cash in and they preferred to take the other funding mechanisms that Vice President Bears referred to. And so I think we need to also have a discussion about why we're choosing this approach rather than those other approaches. I'm sure there's a justification for it, but I think we need to have a longer meeting about it and a meeting that's more focused on this.
[Knight]: Thank you, Councilor Knight, Madam President, thank you very much and I think the administration putting this paper on this paper reflects a resolution that I had filed back in 2018 when I requested that the Burke administration create a stabilization fund, and I'm the basis behind that request at the time was that it was the best practice of municipal government is published by the Massachusetts, Massachusetts Municipal Association. as well as GAAP. All right. But what they also said was that as part of this best practice is that you should put between five and 8% of your total operating expenses into the stabilization account. So right now we have a $200 million operating budget. So 5% to 8% of that would be anywhere between 10 to $16 million for us to make this a sustainable account for stabilization purposes. So I think this misses the mark a little bit here, Madam President, and I too also feel as though we need to have a meeting to talk about a little bit further in depth, because if we're going to go through the process of creating a stabilization account, we want to make sure that it's viable and that it meets the standards of best practices. Ultimately, this is a bank account, it's a savings account is all it is. And if you want to take money out of it, you're going to have to get a two thirds vote from the council to do it. So I think this is a good thing, quite frankly, because I think, you know, it only takes four votes to spend the money. to get it out of this account. So that's something that I think is beneficial to the taxpayer in this community. So with that being said, I thank the council for bringing up the motion to send this to a committee of the whole and I look forward to discussing the paper. I'm excited about seeing it finally come to the floor.
[Morell]: Thank you. So we have a motion from Vice President Bears. Do you have something? Just information.
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you, President Morell. Happy to join the city council in discussions at committee of the whole on this matter. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it further. A couple points of information, because I just want to make sure that the council has it. DLS, the Division of Local Services, published a, they do a regular newsletter. It's called City in Town. City in Town, back in November, that specifically stated, and I am only including a section of this, so I will disclose that. But over the last two years, communities have followed conservative budgeting practices, delayed capital investment, and seen an influx of federal assistance which has resulted in historically high reserve funds. Just information for everyone to know that we're not unique, we're not necessarily alone. This is something that has occurred in other communities. And as far as Councilor Knight's comment about 10 to 16K and missing the mark, some communities actually begin stabilization funds and believe it or not, they deposit $1 into it. The concept being to simply that this is a goal we want to achieve, and you work towards it. So again, happy to join conversations in the future on this matter, and I appreciate the council's discussion and interest in this. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. So we have a motion from Vice President Bears.
[Knight]: That wasn't a motion to amend the paper to $1, was it? For the administration?
[Morell]: She can't make motions.
[Knight]: That's the mayor's paper, so I don't know if the mayor was amending the paper to $1. I misunderstood, I'm sorry.
[Nina Nazarian]: I misunderstood. Just to clarify, no, I was not speaking on behalf of the mayor. The mayor would simply have to make that herself. Thank you.
[Morell]: We have a motion from Vice President Bears, seconded by Councilor Carr-Gallo to move this to Committee of the Whole. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. 23-072. to honorable President and members of Medford City Council regarding contract ordinance. Dear President Morell and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body, pursuant to provisions of MGL Chapter 30B, Section 12, approve and authorize the city of Medford to enter into a 10-year agreement for a citywide collection, disposal, and processing of solid waste, reusables, and recyclables. The following department heads will be available to answer any questions. DPW Commissioner Tim McGivern and Planning, Development, and Sustainable Director Alicia Hunt, respectfully submitted. Breanna Lungo-Koehn mayor. I see we have Director Hunt on Zoom and Commissioner McGuire remains with us this evening. Do you want to tell us kind of what this is, why this is before us?
[McGivern]: Sure. So we presented on the RFP for the new trash contract. And we had talked about how the intention was to have a contract longer than three years, and that we would need to come back. We did decide between then and now that it made much more sense from a strategic standpoint releasing the RFP that if the responders know that that was approved ahead of time, it will put the city in a better position when they're preparing their responses, and we believe it's better to do it that way. Otherwise, if it's a question mark for them, then we may not get the best responses. So the idea is to try to get ahead of that. Otherwise, we would have brought it to you before, but it was kind of a decision between now and then. So hopefully that makes sense. I'm more than happy to answer more questions, but the idea is a longer term contract is going to help with the expenses on the contract for various things, for example, truck amortization, when they're taking new trucks that they purchase and putting them over the life of the contract. So to give the responders more confidence in items like that, and to get better information for the city to negotiate the contract, I think is the right thing. So thank you for entertaining this.
[Knight]: Madam President, I believe we're coming off, maybe a second or third 10 year contracts with our rubbish hauler right now. And I just like to request a copy of the legal opinion from the city solicitor that says that we're required to take this vote, because I believe we've taken this vote previous previous Council's taken this vote that votes dance. So the city solicitor could provide us with a legal opinion and as we stated the city solicitor is required to approve all these contracts to form the city is also required to approve all legal instruments in this matter before us here is a legal instrument so I'm hoping the city solicitor can give us an opinion as to whether or not they feel as well this council has to take this vote or whether or not the previous vote the previous councils have taken still stands, because this is going to come up on other matters. We have a trash contract we have a cable contract for example, which is another one that comes up in the council in the past has given the authority to the mayor to enter into these 10 year contracts it was one vote that was both stood in perpetuity until the council rescinded that authority. So I just asked if we could get that legal opinion as to whether or not the council spinning his wheels there and doing something that's already done, whether or not our city solicitor is provided can provide us with a legal opinion
[Morell]: and understanding we have no city solicitor, would you accept a legal opinion?
[Knight]: Oh, I think that there is a standing legal opinion from a prior city solicitor. And we have a public records retention law, so I'm pretty sure that that opinion would stand because that was the solicitor and we don't have one now.
[Morell]: Thank you. So that's a form of motion. Second by Councilor Cabrera. Any further discussion? I do see Director Hunt, your hand up, Director Hunt.
[Hunt]: Thank you, Madam President. We are working with the legal counsel from KP Law that signs all of our contracts on this. It is my understanding that when a counsel gives permission to sign a contract, they're giving, if we received permission from a previous counsel more than 15 years ago to sign a 10-year contract, that would not count for a new 10-year contract being signed what's approximately 14 years later. which is why our legal counsel has advised us that we need new permission. This is a different contract, a different counsel, it's different staff, it's a different RFP.
[Morell]: Thank you, Director Hunt. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Merlin. I just wanted to thank Commissioner McKibben and Director Hunt for speaking on this issue. Obviously, I've heard about this issue more than my fellow councilors as a member of the Solid Waste Task Force, and we discussed in the context of that body, you know, how it's one of the things that makes this very, very expensive budget line item, the waste hauling contract, feasible both for perspective haulers and for the city are these long contracts for some of the reasons that Commissioner given just spoke to, I think if, based on the question from Councilor Knight and what Director Hunt has heard from the legal counsel that we do have available to us. You know, I know that we're in previous meetings, we've discussed the RFP timeline for getting this out to haulers to getting those responses back. If, you know, I wanna make sure that we get a satisfying opinion on that question. I also wanna make sure that this timeline is proceeding the way that the experts say that it needs to, so that we can be proceeding along and getting these competitive bids and keeping things on schedule again, all towards the goal of getting the best bids that we can on this really, really outsized piece of our DPW budget. So I'd be happy to motion for approval tonight based on that context from Director Hunt. Thank you.
[Morell]: Okay, we have a motion on the floor from Councilor Knight. So we can see how that goes. So we have the motion from Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Would that be to a date certain, waiting for that legal opinion?
[Hurtubise]: I don't think we can put a date certain.
[Knight]: a date on it, one of the people in the text club puts a date on it, it'll, it'll happen. But you know what I mean? I know if I do it, I'm not going to get a date, sir. I'm not going to get any information from this administration.
[Morell]: Okay, so we have a motion from Councilor Knight. Second by Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Just on this question, I mean, so if it's stable, if we did this next week, instead of this week, is it going to delay you getting the RFP out?
[McGivern]: The timeline is set. So, as we discussed last time that that ball is rolling so I don't date. We'd like to, you know, we'd like to get it out this week. I think if you know. We thought it would, from a strategy standpoint, it made sense. If we don't have it, I just think we're in just slightly less of a better position. Like I was saying, if we have that vote, then the responders know that we have that vote, as opposed to it's coming later when we sign the contract. So we're just trying to make sure we're not. Back to any previous folks, I don't think.
[Knight]: Set a precedent. Anyway. So every other paper that ever came would set a precedent now. So every other authority that we ever gave for contracts longer than three years, they'll have to come back to us. So it'll set a precedent. Interesting. Okay. So that's the cable contract. That was the parking contract. That was, you know what I mean? That's the trash contract. So it has an effect.
[Scarpelli]: I don't want to interrupt you Tim but this is where the frustration comes in. It's like something this big right 10 year contract one of the biggest contracts we have in the community. Now again, we're told that. ideally getting the vote done right now and not truly understanding it. That's a part that I feel very uncomfortable with. And that's why we talked originally tonight about the lack of communication and understanding of respect with this council, because that's how we feel. I mean, that's probably not intended, but it's how we feel.
[McGivern]: Do the chair respond to that? This actually wouldn't necessarily hold up the process because the original plan would still hold that, you know, like we described in prior presentations, that when a winner is selected, we still have to come to you for this vote. The idea here was that within the last couple weeks, talking with our consultants, we say, you know what, the city would be in a better position from a response to RFP if we had this ahead of time. That's really what it came down to, which is why we decided to try to get ahead of that tonight. But regardless, we have to have this approval from this body, from our understanding. So that's really where it stands. So.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President, being the only member of this council right now that was here when we voted on the last 10 year contract that got, I don't think counseling that you're on the, on the parking, whether it was the same, it was the same thing. We got to do it tonight you got to get it done. I made a bad decision back then, and our current mayor was on that same council, and I think she'll agree that we made a bad decision back then. I don't see what the harm in getting a legal opinion to make sure that we're doing it right. A 10-year contract is a big commitment, and like I said, I've done it before on a Russian And it was the same thing that no, nothing, no distributor, Tim, I think they should get a 10 year contract. Just think we should get make sure that we're doing it the right way. Because I said I did it before. And I got burnt on it.
[Hunt]: Madam President, Madam President, may I address Councilor Scarpelli points please? Sure. I'm the chair. So I just want to be clear that this is not the first time we brought this up. Kim and I were in front of the city council in September. We presented about this process and we stated quite clearly that we would be coming back to the council asking for a vote to approve a 10 year contract. We were in front of the council again in February where we presented about the RFP before we, as we were getting ready to release it. And we stated again, that would be in front of the council for a 10 year vote. And tonight actually is the first time I've ever heard anybody suggest that we might not need the council to vote to approve a 10 year contract. This is the very first that we've heard of this idea.
[Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli. Just to respond to that, then you weren't clear enough for this council to understand the process. So because I think there are councils here that are very confused. If this was presented to us, Ms. Hunt, then we wouldn't be talking about these other legalities. So maybe there was a flaw in your presentation. So that's where I find it being disingenuine when you've been in front of this council multiple times, obviously. But when we have questions like this, obviously it wasn't clear enough. Thank you. Absolutely.
[Hunt]: And I see that Councilor Knight has left, but he's the only one who has ever suggested. Our legal counsel hasn't, our consultants haven't, and he didn't bring it up at any of the previous presentations that we made over the past six months.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I appreciate the discussion around this. I appreciate the context from some of our department heads that have been working on this. I know that there's disagreement on this point. I am swayed by Commissioner McGibbon's point that I don't see why. And again, this isn't a vote on a contract. It's just a vote to enable these departments to pursue a contract longer than three years. So we're not marrying ourselves to any contractor company, I would motion for approval with a roll call vote to try and move this forward, and maybe we can concurrently get a legal opinion. Thank you.
[Morell]: There is an existing motion on the floor, though, a second motion on the floor.
[Collins]: That's right, thank you.
[Morell]: Councilor Tseng.
[Bears]: I just have one question that I'm confused about here, and Tim maybe could answer it. Sorry, Tim, to call you away from that. And my vote's basically gonna hinge on the answer to this question. If we vote for this now, Yes, then you don't have to come back to us when you've selected a contract to approve that contract. That that would be correct. We would be able. That's okay. So like, I'm fine authorizing that this that we are cool with a 10 year contract. Yeah, I'm not fine authorizing that before the bidding process. I understand it might put the city in a better position. But that was just a clarification piece that I wanted. This basically would just mean we don't get you don't come back to us again after this, right?
[McGivern]: I don't think it means that definitively. No, I think it means, you know, like I said, there's a legal requirement for you to come back to us again. Well, I believe if I understand the process correctly, it would be a vote to authorize the mayor to execute an agreement longer than three years. Okay. So once we receive a response to the RFP, then we go through the whole process of reviewing it. And once we select the winner, then we enter into contract negotiations. And when we are, when we, yes, we would have to negotiate that contract. And then this vote would allow the mayor to authorize that contract, or execute that contract, from what I understand. So, you know, The root of this, though, is really the question that came up in our review with our consultants, how to best position the city for the response to the RFP. So that's why we think, because right now, you know, in the RFP, it's basically the draft RFP, is that this vote is coming as opposed to has been made. So in a hypothetical example where this body voted that down, then obviously the confidence level wouldn't be there for the contract. Sure. You see what I'm saying? So regardless of what happens tonight, the schedule stays the same, if that makes sense. So we're not changing our schedule because we really can't at this point. Yeah. So we're not planning on changing that. But if the council decided not to approve this tonight, then we would, yes, we would have to come back at some point down the line to receive that authorization.
[Bears]: And this is where, and again, I really don't wanna belabor this and I'm hoping we can wrap this up soon, but for me, like when we were just, when the process was described to us, I think this is where there's maybe a little bit of a switch up. I hear you, you're saying you've come back at this point, you've had a further conversation, you think the quality of bids will be higher if the bidders know that they're gonna get a 10-year contract. Yes. Now, I for one will 100% vote for a 10-year contract. That makes a lot of sense, I'm totally in favor of that. just think where there's a switch is, is a little bit here and I'm hearing you come come with it is an adjustment to the process that we had discussed before, right? Sure, yes. And I want to entertain that openly. This to me, and I'm happy to hear a rebuttal. This to me says if we vote yes on this, then we are authorizing whatever 10 year contract the mayor decides is best. versus if we went with the process that we had talked about previously, it would be, we would be voting to authorize a 10-year contract where we have the specifics after the bidding process. And that just to me is a real difference substantively. I mean, if you think, if I heard from you and Alicia that the quality of the bids will be so much lower if we don't approve it now versus approve it later, like I'm willing to entertain that discussion, but it just really is a change from we will approve this 10-year contract to we will approve whatever 10-year contract gets come up with through the process. And that just seems, it's a different question to me. And so that's just, you know, and I think part of it is like, you know, Again, we've had a lot of discussions about trust and communication tonight, right? It's like, I trust you and Alicia are doing a really good job on this RFP process, but you and Alicia don't make the final decision on the contract. So, you know, and then there's a different level of trust there right now. Although, you know, in any case, I won't get back into that discussion, but that's just a difference to me. And I didn't really fully understand, like, I would be happy to vote tonight to say, I 100% support the city entering into a 10 year contract. But I don't want to vote to say you don't have to come back to us once you've negotiated a contract and then get us to approve it and it sounds like this is both of those things. And it doesn't can't really be split up. So that's just where I'm coming from.
[Caraviello]: Council business one of us right, I know I will support a 10 year contract when when it comes back but like I said, I got burnt on this before, and I got to be as right, you know, I want you to come back to us. But you, but let's say, I will, I will support 10 year contract, but I want to know what I'm supporting.
[Knight]: I mean, the issue that's really before us here and the only thing that we as a body can do is authorize the mayor to enter into a contract that's in excess of 36 months or not. All right, if we authorize her that power we authorize that power if we don't, we don't. Ultimately, if we give her the 10 years. or whatever term that we deem appropriate, the mayor is still the chief negotiator in this community. So it's not like we can say, oh, we don't like this, and we don't like that, and we don't like this, take that out of the contract, and we're gonna give you the 10 years, right? It's either, she's the one that negotiates the contract, she's the chief negotiator, right? So when this happened with the parking contract, it turned into a nightmare. And the reason it turned into a nightmare was because we're not gonna give you the approval to enter into the contract, unless you take this out, unless you put this in, unless you do this, unless you do that. We took over the role of the chief negotiator, and it turned into a disaster, all right? It was an absolute disaster. So ultimately, the only issue that's before us is whether or not we want to allow the mayor to enter with a contract that exceeds the term of 36 months, right? At this point in time, I'm not comfortable with that. And I think that's really the issue, that's the only issue that's before us right now. I'm not comfortable taking that vote because I don't know legally what the ramifications are, but I'm very concerned about what could happen when we give her that authority. What happens if we give the authority to enter into a 10-year contract and now next thing you know, we're paying a trash fee? Right now we have free trash pickup. Other communities have a trash fee. And we just gave her the authority to do that for 10 years. Maybe the term's not going to be so favorable. So those are the things we got to think about. And right now in this stage in the game, I'm not too keen on thinking about them. I think that the administration should put out the RFPs and let's see what comes back. Because most likely what's going to come back is an RFP that's going to say, we want 10 years. Can you get the vote?
[McGivern]: President Moreau.
[Morell]: Commissioner Gabor.
[McGivern]: An option may be to also require a return with the contract to this body in the vote. So you could condition it to say that you have to come back at a later date.
[Knight]: There is nobody in this building that can give us, hello, any legal opinion in this building. Nobody in this building can give us a legal opinion as to whether or not we can even do that.
[McGivern]: Well, I'm just trying to put on the table, just trying to think of creative ways, because I want to try to give confidence to the bidders. Another way, you know, that some sort of motion of confidence or something to get to the bidders to say that you know, city council is confident that a 10 year agreement could be approved or an alternate, like I brought up approving it with the condition that we return prior to contract negotiations or something like that to review the, you know, to review what was returned for proposals and what our strategy might be for negotiation or something like that. So there might be some other options here that the council may wanna consider.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thanks, I was, I just wanted to put on the record that when I see my time I was actually going to ask the same question. I'm also, it's fun. It happens all the time. something along the lines of what you said, we're open to the option of 10 years, you know, we, I would be happy to vote for that. It's just that I don't want to give up our oversight power automatically.
[Scarpelli]: Point of information with that, you know, daily municipal RFPs myself. I think it's a slippery slope when we start putting in language that is really specific when you talk about procurement and RFPs. So again, I think this is again where it comes in not having legal opinion because this could be, ultimately we can go through this whole process and then come back and say the process was skewed and then we have lawsuits from competing vendors. So I don't, Again, it's just not having that communication and understanding, so.
[Morell]: I know folks are suggesting other motions. We do have a motion on the floor. Just a second to get a legal opinion on the vote.
[Bears]: Would you be open to amending that to make it as a motion to table for one week to request the opinion from the law department and also to give the administration and the DPW director and the PDS director a chance to propose potentially an alternative as long as there's... Why don't we just table it and they can do whatever the hell they want.
[Knight]: We don't need to make it this big, long-drawn-out thing. We'll table it. Someone takes a motion, take it off the table. It comes off the table. We don't need to turn it into this big thing. I mean, if they get us a legal opinion, they get us a legal opinion. Not sure we're gonna get it, but... You know what I mean? Yeah, I would...
[Morell]: I already have the second.
[Bears]: Yeah, okay, fine.
[Morell]: So we have a motion from Councilor Knight to get a legal opinion on the request before us based on previous legal opinion, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Any further discussion?
[Bears]: I'm sorry, is that a motion to table?
[Morell]: A motion to table an order as we wait for that legal opinion. Or do you want to take it? It's just, I mean, what is the other option? Oh, no.
[Bears]: No, I know, yeah. I just wanna make sure I know what we're doing.
[Morell]: So on the motion of Councilor Knights, seconded by Councilor Caraviello.
[Hurtubise]: We're not getting a legal opinion right now, so. It's a table until we get a legal opinion. That's it. Okay. It's your motion. That's not nice. It's not cute when you trash it.
[Nina Nazarian]: May I request just a legal opinion? Just restate it so I understand exactly what the request is.
[Morell]: Yeah, the request, do you want to say? Do you want to read it back, Mr. Clerk? Do you want me to?
[Hurtubise]: What I have is a request. I request a legal opinion from the city solicitor on whether the vote is necessary. We already took it. Council already took it previously. Understanding according.
[Nina Nazarian]: Yeah, we'll look at.
[Morell]: Yeah. And yeah, exactly. per Councilor Knights memory that this is something that's already been a question that's come through.
[Nina Nazarian]: So maybe it legally should exist somewhere stating the obvious, it wouldn't be the city solicitor. It's a vacant position. But KP law, right? That's what Yeah, he's the only one that can give us a legal opinion. That's what I'm getting at what just for your edification.
[Morell]: He's talking.
[Nina Nazarian]: Yeah, for prior legal.
[Morell]: Yes. Thank you. Thank you.
[Knight]: The city one is a clearly specify that the city needs a city solicitor. And they say that the city solicitor is the only person in the city. who can approve an illegal instrument, that can approve a legal instrument. All right, that's every contract, every collective bargaining agreement. All right, anything that goes, any local option that we take and send up to the state house. All of that needs to be approved by a solicitor, a city solicitor that we don't have, because she just said the position's vacant. Well, our ordinance says it has to be filled. And our ordinance says that that's the person who's responsible for these major duties and responsibilities in this community. This position has been vacant for so long. If they just filled this job, We wouldn't have these fights, we wouldn't have these arguments, we wouldn't have these issues. If the mayor just did what you said she was going to do in June, and hired an assistant city solicitor to the council, we wouldn't have these issues. We wouldn't have them.
[Morell]: So on the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor. No. Do you want a roll call?
[Bears]: It's a table until we get the legal opinion. sure. No, I voted no. Everyone else voted yes. It passes.
[Morell]: It's fine. I vote nay. And I called in favor. You said no. And in favor. Do you want a roll call? Or do you know?
[Bears]: I'm fine. I'm just saying no. You can record it however you want.
[Nina Nazarian]: Uh, thank you. I'm sure this goes without say, but we are attempting to fill a position for in a field where there's a narrow number of candidates, as far as the city solicitor and assistant city solicitor is concerned. I won't say anymore.
[Morell]: Thank you. Thank you. Going to public participation, I do not believe the person is here. Rick, okay. Vice President Paris.
[Bears]: I'd just like to motion. We have a bunch of stuff that's like 15 months old that's never going anywhere. If we could receive and place on file papers 221-631, 21-631, there's two of them. 22-023, 22-400, 22-610, and 22-611. Motion to receive and place on file.
[Morell]: On the motion of Vice Mayor Bears to receive and place on file those papers seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes.
[Bears]: Second.
[Morell]: On the motion of Councilor Knighton to adjourn, seconded by Councilor McLaren. All those in favour? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passed.
|
total time: 26.37 minutes total words: 4551  |
total time: 12.53 minutes total words: 2187  |
total time: 22.74 minutes total words: 3441  |
total time: 21.88 minutes total words: 5147  |
|
total time: 38.57 minutes total words: 7999  |
total time: 11.39 minutes total words: 1968  |
total time: 10.15 minutes total words: 1926  |
total time: 1.53 minutes total words: 231  |