[Morell]: 28th regular meeting.
[SPEAKER_05]: Oh, there's no audio, that's probably, okay, it's back now, okay. Okay.
[Hurtubise]: Records, the records of the meeting of July 19, 2022 were passed to Councilor Scarpelli, who is not here, so motion to table.
[Morell]: On the motion of Councilor Knights to table, seconded by Councilor Caraviello, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Morell]: Yes, 16 affirmative, one absent. The records are tabled. Reports of committees, 22-363. July 19, 2022, committee of the whole report to follow. This was our committee of the whole meeting to address a number of concerns from residents as well as the council on the MBTA's bus redesign project. On the motion of Councilor Knight to approve, seconded by Vice-President Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Morell]: Yes, 16 for one absent the motion passes. Announcements accolades and remembrances to do dash 444 offered by Councilor Caraviello be it so resolved the Medford City Council Senate's deepest and sincere condolences to the family of Jerry Perlito on her recent passing. Jerry was a 35 year employee in the treasurer's office for presence in our community will be missed. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to offer these condolences. I think many of us knew Jerry. We all know. a long time member of the treasurer's department, very colorful figure in the community. And she passed away recently and just want to send condolences on to her and her family on her passing. I said, yeah.
[Tseng]: I believe the audio might not be working again. Yeah, I believe that we, those of us on zoom might not be able to hear you guys.
[Morell]: Can you hear now?
[Tseng]: Can you hear us now? I can hear you guys now. I don't know what was said though. Yeah, I think there's some audio issues tonight from your end.
[Hurtubise]: And you're up on the roll call for the condolence for Jared. Oh, okay. Yes. President Morales.
[Morell]: Yes. 16 affirmative one absent zero in the negative emotion passes 22-445 offered by Council night be it so resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate Donald and Mary Bonner on the momentous occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. Just last month, Donald and Mary Bonner celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary in Aruba, surrounded by their five. digits were the grandchildren down there. Mary Bonner was a traffic supervisor here in the city of Metro for a long time her husband Donald, a local auto body repairman, but they grew up on, they live on Hastings road lifelong Metro presidents, great people, great figures in the community. That was one of the houses in the neighborhood we could always. walk into the backyard, take a dip in the pool, get a drink off the hose, and use the bathroom if there's ever an emergency. A very welcoming family. They touch the lives of many in this community, and it's great to see them celebrate 50 years of wedded bliss. I hope we can all be so lucky. So with that being said, Madam President, I ask my council colleagues in joining me in congratulating them on this momentous occasion and also requesting the city clerk provide them with a citation doing the same.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. Again, I want to send My congratulations to Donnie and Mary, my former neighbors on Hastings Lane for many years, and a long time with the family, and like Councilor Knight said, always welcome at their door, with the kids or anything, and I was like, I hope I get the 50 years of marriage. I'm close.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Knight, as seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight. Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes. 16 in front of one absence here in the negative. The motion passes. 22-446 offered by Vice President Bears be resolved by the Medford City Council that we congratulate city solicitor Kimberly Scanlon on her over 20 years of service to the city of Medford and wish her a successful future in any new endeavors. Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Um, I am, uh, obviously, this is a congratulatory resolution for someone who has served the city in an exemplary way for many years. Um, Solicitor Scanlon has been solicitor basically as long as I've been on the council and was assistant assistant city solicitor for many years before that. We were notified that she's moving to a new opportunity and leaving the city after decades of service. And I think that's a huge loss for our city. We need a strong city solicitor and we were just able to finally to get the budget back for the assistant city solicitor position that had been gone for three years. So I congratulate Kim on her on her moving to a new position that she seems to be excited about. And I hope that we can find someone of similar caliber to fill her shoes, and the big hole that she's leaving in our city. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Kimberly Scanlon for her years of service to this community. I've known Kimberly since she was in high school. Our families have traveled together to cheerleading things when our daughters cheered together. And it's gonna be sad to see her go. She has a picture of this building. She worked here during high school as a summer intern too. So again, I had the opportunity to talk to her in the fall and I wish her well on her new adventure. Thank you.
[Morell]: further discussion tonight.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. My two had the good opportunity of attending high school with Kimberly. I've known her for a very long time. She's a great person, very hard worker and someone that was very dedicated to this community. Her presence in that law office is going to be sadly missed. I've always found her to be someone that had the utmost of integrity. and someone that came to work prepared every day. So with that being said, Madam President, I hate to see her go. She's a very close friend and someone I respect very much. So congratulations, Kim. Wish you all the best in your future endeavors and hopefully you'll be able to help as many people as you have in a new job as you have in the past.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: I wanted to echo similar sentiments to my colleagues. solicitors handling someone, you know, who, in my short time here on the city council, who has really helped me and understand the role. how city government works and understand what we should do, what we shouldn't be doing. And she's really an engine for helping us move forward our agenda and really helping our city deal with the problems it needs to deal with. So truly a presence that will be missed in City Hall and I wish the best for her going forward.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? I could also add, just really echo my colleagues and thank Solicitor Scanlon. She's done an incredible amount of work, really with a very small staff to no staff in the time I've been a city councilor. And she's always made herself as available really to talk through any issue and help us sort things out. So she will be sorely missed around these parts and I echo and wishing her all the best in her future endeavors. So on the motion of vice-president Bears, I was seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. That's a Caribbean. Yes. That's a Collins. Yes. That's a night. Yes. That's a Scarpelli is absent. That's the same. Yes. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes, six in the affirmative one absent. Negative emotion passes.
[Caraviello]: Madam President, motion suspend the rule so members of the chamber can have a moment to speak.
[Morell]: So this would be to take public participation?
[Caraviello]: Yes.
[Morell]: So on the motion of Councilor Caraviello to suspend the rules, take public participation so we can hear from members of the chamber. Second by... Second. Councilor Knight, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Morell]: Yes, six in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent. The motion passes to take public participation to hear from members of the chambers. Do you want to lead in at all, Councilor Caraviello?
[Caraviello]: The chamber had a paper on there, I think a couple of meetings ago during the budget in regards to a parking garage. And they've asked if we give them a minute to speak. And I think Mr. Carroll, the president of the chamber is here to speak on that. Along with Dominic Camaro of the chamber.
[Morell]: Thank you for waiting several hours at previous meetings. So give me a chance to speak now. Yeah. Name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_27]: Thank you for giving us an opportunity. He had to try to discuss the possibility of bringing back a parking garage in the city of Medford in the downtown area. We, you know, previously years ago, we had one behind Salvatore's and Colleen's area that collapsed, never been rebuilt. The need for additional parking in this square is just enormous. I'm hoping we have an opportunity to take a look at two. I think you need one on the east side of the square, as well as on the west side. And a way of making these garages self-sufficient. I don't know if anyone goes down to Assembly Square and see how their garages are operated. They're all self-service. there's an opportunity to put other businesses into the garages, maybe top floor, bottom floor, a little retail and so forth. So, I mean, we're just hoping as a chamber that the need for parking, especially when Chevalier is there, as great as Chevalier is for the downtown area, which it is, the need for additional parking because it just creates gridlock and the whole square gets shut down. So, I mean, I think, I think now's the time to try to look at it and see where we can go from there. So I appreciate any discussion and I'm trying to move this thing forward. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Knight]: Any Councilors, Madam President, just money papers come from the administration. Historically, there was conversation relative to the construction or reconstruction of the At that point in time, I don't think the mayor was too supportive of that paper or that initiative or endeavor. Presently, we're looking at a financial situation here in the community. We're looking at, what, $29 million in deficit spending over the past three years. So from a financial standpoint, I think we're not in a great position right now. The certain funds that were out there were available to us, whether or not they're still available to us is a whole different ball of wax and a whole different question. I know that there was several million dollars that was dedicated to this community through the federal government's transportation bond bill, and I know that there was several million dollars dedicated to this community from the state's transportation bond bill in order to get those funds released. It'd have to be an act of Congress, literally, and also an act of the governor at the state level. It's certainly a worthwhile endeavor. I know that we have some concerns about the traffic management in this community and the parking management in this community. Councilor Caraviello has a resolution on, coming up a little later, whether or not we have the capacity to handle this type of stuff, whether or not it's a good idea for the city to be in the business of parking, whether or not we should outsource it. We looked at having outsourced parking in the previous administrations and seem to generate revenue. Now we seem to be spending quite a bit of money and not getting anything back and not getting a return on our investment. That coupled with a lot of the confusion that we're seeing in the neighborhoods related to tickets, appeals processes, being pushed to outside court for a day in court, filing fees and the like is creating a situation over here. I certainly support anything that will bring business to our communities and revitalization of Medford Square. We've only been talking about that since the 80s. So, you know, if anything will help, I think it would be if I could graduate in conjunction with the work that we're doing at Chevalier. But I think we need a bit of a private partnership and a commitment in order to do that, as well as a commitment from the administration.
[Caraviello]: I was a member of this council when this came up, I think maybe about 10 years ago. And I was supportive of it back then. And I think back then we had a, as Councilor Leib mentioned, we had a $6 million from the transportation bond bill. That's since long gone. And then I think, then Congressman Maki got us another $2 million. And I think that's since gone. So there's $8 million that we kind of squandered for a garage that should have been put up right after it fell down, or got torn down. And like Councilor Layton says, this is a money paper that would have to come from the mayor. And you'll see right now, I think our budget is stretched to the max and the cost of putting up one garage, nevermind two, I think it's just, I don't see where the funding is coming now, but like I said, I do support the garage, and if they're able to come up with a public-private partnership or some type of thing, I will be in support of it.
[SPEAKER_27]: if I can, Councilor, I agree fully with both Councilor Ntuk and Chair Aviello, but I think a public private partnership is really the way to go. The city has never really done much of that, if any at all. And now it's time, I mean, you can, my guess is we could find opportunities with developers that would be interested in doing that. that we have to start somewhere is what I'm saying. And I'm not sure if you think it has to be a paper from the mayor or does it come from here to the mayor? You have to tell me where it goes. Okay, so you're saying for us to solicit the mayor to put a paper in front of the council and then go from there.
[Knight]: On that note, Madam President, if you look at the recodified zoning ordinance, what the council did was allow for the opportunity, for instance, is where we can have public-private partnerships and entities like this. We have shared parking changes in our zoning ordinance, which allows an entity to have parking during the day for business and parking at night for residential or other uses, you know what I mean? So I think that that's something that we've really set the stage for. It's just a matter of putting a plan together and executing it. Exactly. The availability is there and the opportunity as well. Thank you.
[Morell]: And I think to that extent, I raised this during that conversation, has there ever been discussion with the Harvard Vanguard, because there's that garage there, you know, that's a nine to five business, and there would presumably be some- The city had a contract with them for 20 years, and they never renewed it.
[SPEAKER_27]: When they built that part of the original agreement with the city was that it was going to be a parking available. I don't know if anybody remembers that. Well, you're older than I am.
[Caraviello]: I've reached out to them. They don't want to rent it out because they're a liability. So that's the question, is somebody getting written there and them getting sued.
[SPEAKER_27]: I suggest the Chevalier people to go speak to them because of the previous arrangements. But like you said, cop, there's a liability problem.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpellilli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you. First, I apologize for my parents and my tightness. I came from emergency work and either late for another 45 minutes to get here as fast as I can. I apologize for that. So on the note of our parking garage, I know I missed the beginning of it, but being creative, I think, is what's so important that we reach out. And you would think that looking at the different entities, bigger developments that are going on in the city, partnering with them, but even thinking outside the box, I brought this up years ago, that one thing Medford lacks is, facilities for youth for outside activities. And neighboring communities have used parking garages, the top floors, as indoor facilities and recreation facilities, where you would not only get the the partnership to help build such a structure, but at the same time, also have the opportunity to create funding through fees through parking from the participants from those programs during the evenings. If you look at Boston, right next to the Boston Garden, you have a good example that there's an indoor athletic facility, excuse me, basketball city that's right above. So they have five five stories of parking. Top layer is a recreational facility that's utilized by its city, its recreation department throughout the day, and still leaves enough parking for businesses, merchants, for for multiple uses, but at the same time, creating revenue with a partner and trickling down those funds to make that happen. So there's different ways to be creative here. And it's something that's drastically needed. I know that we've talked to many people and these are, what is it? 22 years of master planning for city I would love to find a way that you now encompass both sides of our square as we start looking toward development, putting in, bringing in parking. I think it's needed. I think that it's one of the reasons why we can't further development in Medford Square. So I think it's, you know, where do you put the cart in front of the horse? We have to make a move. I think that this is probably a very important step to move Medford Square forward. And I thank you, my fellow Mustangs, that they keep fighting the fight. So thank you for that.
[SPEAKER_27]: All right, thank you so much. Our next move will be, we'll approach the mayor and see where that goes, and hopefully we have a paper in front of you shortly. All right, thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Bears]: Madam President.
[Morell]: Vice Mayor Bears.
[Bears]: While we're under suspension, motion to take petitions, presentations, and similar papers, and communications from the mayor.
[Morell]: Did you have a vote on that? Since we're already on air. What? You don't have to vote, sorry. All right, so we're gonna do it. So petitions, presentations on similar papers and communications from the mayor, unless there's any objection from the council, we'll move forward with that order. 22-447, petition for a common dealer's license from Nicholas Belytheau and Max Heineck for Medford Brewing Company, 30 Harvard Ave, Medford, Mass, 02155. On file, business certificate, building department, fire department, police traffic impact, treasurer's department, health department, letter of compliance, workers' compensation, state tax ID petition. Name and address for the record, please.
[Heinegg]: Max Hynek, 5 Arden Road, Medford, Mass.
[Morell]: I guess for those who are unfamiliar with the project, which is probably very few at this point, do you want to give us a brief overview?
[Heinegg]: Sure. So basically, I and Nick Belythe are looking to complete work renovating and building out 30 Harvard Ave to open up a tap room there where we will make beer and sell it. And I'm here tonight also to talk a little bit about the food aspect. For me, this has been the culmination of 15 years of brewing. I'm about to start my 25th year of teaching in the Medford Public Schools. It's my profound and sincere desire to create a community-oriented meeting space where a neighbor and friend and family can congregate. It's been a significant personal investment for both of us financially as well as time. It's where I've been all today and where I'll be all tomorrow. We're gonna be looking to as much as possible to hire local people. And I would say that over the last seven years in our business, you can see that we've done a fair amount of whether it's donations or creating a reading series in conjunction with the Medford Historical Society. This is where I live. This is where my kids go to school. My daughter just graduated and is about to go to college. Weep, weep. Sincere weep, weep, actually. So there's been a lot of support from the local neighborhood. Everybody's coming by every day asking, when are we open? And I'm not here tonight with a crystal clear date, because we're still building and sweeping. But in short, this is a community meeting space. And it's not very big. It's 2,600 square feet. you know, start small and dream big, I guess.
[Morell]: Thank you. I'll go to the chair of the second and licensing Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Madam President. Um, documentation. Everything is in order. Um, this is something that we've all been waiting for. I know that Mr. Heineck is a cornerstone of our community, and, um, This is something we've been preaching about for years, bringing in small businesses that keep business out of Winchester and out of Somerville and right here in our own backyard. And why not support one of our own? So, as I said, everything's in order. After my colleagues' comments, I move approval. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Congressman Scarpelli. Advices and Affairs.
[Bears]: Madam President, thank you, Max. And I don't know if Nick's on Zoom or listening in, or I know that he's probably excited for this to be voted on and approved. I had two questions. One of them was when do you open, so now I only have one, which is, is the lemon saison going to be on tap when you open?
[Heinegg]: Can I answer yes to both? So we're still building, but we're hoping, you know, as soon as possible, we still need to put in the floors and bathroom partitions and stuff like that. But we're trying to make the most of my ever dwindling summer vacation. Okay, but I can can say that I'm pretty confident that we'll be open in the fall. Hopefully before the leaves change and it gets too chilly. We'll be in an everlasting Elta Cuba situation. All I'll say is that I hope we can expedite things that we're working on. I spend a lot of time at Home Depot. They know my name. They're now. All right, awesome. I'm trying to be light here. I'm trying to have a little fun with it.
[Knight]: Thank you, Madam President.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Knight]: Madam President, ultimately, a convictual license is a license to sell food. By ordinance, we require the breweries to sell food. So this is a no-brainer. Move approval.
[Morell]: Second. Any further discussion? OIDC, sir. Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: I just wanted to state how excited I am for this project. I've known Mr. Heining since I was in high school, and all of us knew that he had a passion for this. But it's not just a passion for brewing, it's a passion for Medford. Throughout the development of this project, I think we've really seen his commitment to Medford as a community and his desire to really make sure that this is a Medford business run for Medford. in cooperation with different, you know, groups here. And I think that's something, you know, I think this is a project that we can all be part of as a community here. And I just know that so, so many people are so excited for this project. I think a lot of your former students are going to be there on week one waiting to, you know, give you a high five as you, as this project goes into place.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Jessica. Thank you, Madam President, Max, thank you for coming down again for this. Um, you know, a couple of months ago I put I sent out a resolution to the mayor to start a West Medford redevelopment committee, and we're still waiting for that to happen. And I think, This is one of the businesses that will help in the redevelopment of West Method Square. You've got three, four restaurants on there, this makes another one. Hopefully your neighbor besides you will do something with that property. I mean, I know people have been calling him to purchase the property for some kind of nice, that'd be a nice, make a nice development there, and that'll be great. But I think, like Councilor Scott probably says, We're taking a small business and bringing it into a small community, into a small pilot community, which is gonna help that pilot community grow. And I thank you for your dedication. Thank you.
[Morell]: And I do just have one question that came from someone on Zoom, it's just asking if the building will be accessible and have accessible restrooms.
[Heinegg]: Yes. Okay. We've already done that.
[Morell]: Yes, knowing the building and knowing requirements. Yeah. Okay, any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears? Yes. Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell?
[Morell]: Yes. Submitting the affirmative is there in the name of the motion passes.
[Hurtubise]: Thank you so much.
[Morell]: Moving on to communications from the mayor. 22-461 to Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council regarding the Community Preservation Committee appropriation request. Dear President Morell and members of the Medford City Council, on behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respectfully request and recommend that your Honorable body approve the following recommendations of the Community Preservation Committee requesting the appropriation of $5,000 from the CPA General Reserve to Medford School Department for a small grant to replace playground elements at the Roberts Elementary School, requesting the appropriation of $5,000 from the CPA General Reserve to Medford School Department for a small grant to replace playground elements at the Brooks Elementary School. The project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund by category, General Reserve. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Mayor Brianna Landau-Kern. I do see we have- Move approval, Madam President. Move approval. Before I do see we have Daniel Evans or Roberta Cameron from the CDA if you'd like to speak if not.
[Cameron]: Thank you I'll just take a moment to say that the Community Preservation Committee created this small grant program so that we could provide an expedited way for small projects like this to be able to move through quickly and I'm really proud of actually how quickly Medford is able to turn money around when little things like this crop up and it's going, it's really helpful in this situation because we'll be able to improve these playground elements before the school year starts. So I thank you for your consideration of this. Thank you. President Bears.
[Bears]: Just thank you for your hard work as a committee and Danielle for your hard work as coordinator. Thank you.
[Morell]: So on the motion of Councilor Knight, as seconded by Councilor Caraviello, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears? Yes. Councilor Karygiannis? Yes. Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell?
[Morell]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. Thank you. 22-462 to the Honorable President and members of the Metro City Council. Water meter replacement project funding recommendation. As you may be aware, the current meter system the city uses to measure and record water use is nearing its end of life. We plan to replace the existing water meters in the city with new meters that meet the current needs. This is a three-year project with a cost of an estimate of $8,500,000. The Department of Public Works, DPW, prepared the following information in support of funding the water meter replacement project. This information summarizes and documents the plan to fund this project. The DPW recommends that this be funded from two sources. The first is the MWRA Tier 2 Local Water Assistance Program, LWSAP, and the second is ARPA. The project is eligible for both sources and has been pre-coordinated with the MWRA program. The MWRA program is typically used for water and sewer capital improvement projects and regulatory compliance programs. However, these types of projects are eligible for other funding sources, including but not limited to ARPA and retained earnings. The following is a recommendation funding breakdown. The MWRA loan portion will require an approved loan order from the City Council. The purpose of this memo is to inform you further about the project and begin the process to obtain support from City Council. $7,800,000 borrowed from the MWRA Tier 2 LWSAP program. This is a 0% loan paid back over 10 years and $700,000 paid from ARPA. MWRA local water system assistance program assistance program information. This program is a 0% interest loan program that has paid off over 10 years. The city currently has phase two and phase three funding available. Phase two will only be available through the end of 2023. The tier two portion of this project is a restricted amount of funding within each phase that can be spent on certain types of projects such as meter replacements. The breakdowns of each phase and available restricted tier two funds are below. Phase two total available is $3,662,000. Phase two tier two available is $2,518,006 of the total. Phase three total available is $5,400,000. Phase three tier three available is $5,370,526 of the total. Total available for a tier two restricted amount is $7,888,532. This recommendation includes using most of the phase two tier two available funds leaving $1,143,994 available for other eligible projects and using $5,281,994 from the phase three tier two available funds leaving $88,532 for other eligible projects. There are other projects we would typically target MWRA, LWSAP for funding. However, they are also eligible for other available sources. Due to the smaller size of these projects, they're more appropriate for either ARPA retained earnings or remaining funds from MWRA, potentially other sources. Water and Soil Superintendent Dan Stoneking and Head Meteor Technician Ron Baker will be available to answer questions on this important project. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Mayor Brianna Leno-Kirk. President Paris.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for being here. Sounds like a big, exciting project. A lot of work ahead of you. I just want to confirm a couple things, just so I know exactly what we're talking about tonight. The letter says that there's the MWR loan portion will require an approved loan order from the city council, so that would be coming later that's not this paper tonight. And then my only other question is related to that. Do we know how much this would increase the annual water sewer bond borrowing amount by like how much more we'd be paying a year after we took out that loan order? Is that a question that we'd want to answer at a later date?
[Ron Baker]: We'd want to answer that at a later date.
[Bears]: Okay. Yeah, that's fine. Just as we're starting the process, that's going to be a question I'll have down the road. This seems like it's has to be done. It has to happen. So, you know, I have no objections, but those would be my questions just considering the financial transition of the city. And I know this would be on the enterprise side, so it would be a little bit different, but just want to make sure we have everything in a needed place to actually fund everything over the 10 year period. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you very much. If I could also just get name and address for the record for both of you.
[Ron Baker]: Yes, my name is Dan something the water superintendent and my address.
[Morell]: I'm just your like your Medford City Hall. Okay, great.
[Dan Stoneking]: The water rates didn't come out yet. I'm the water meter and billing specialist for the city. I'm at 21 James Street. Thank you both
[Castagnetti]: Governor Kamara, the chair of the Water and Sewer Commission, I strongly support everything these two gentlemen are going to be proposing tonight.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for coming up here for this thing. So the $8.5 million that does the whole city? Yes, yes. Even the commercial also? Yes, yes. And how long do we anticipate this? When will it start? How long do you think before we get done?
[Dan Stoneking]: We would like to start sooner than later, just due to the age of the meters and the need. we will start as soon as funding is available, which the funding will be available with the council's approval. We need the MWRA loan, which is requesting your approval. It's 0%, correct? 0%, 10 years, so it'd be about $780,000 per year annually that we would pay.
[Caraviello]: So is that the maximum that we could borrow, was it 78 in a row, 78, I'm sorry, 78 in a row?
[Dan Stoneking]: Of the MWRA tier two?
[Caraviello]: That was the maximum? Funding?
[Dan Stoneking]: That's the max that can be used for meters in the system.
[Caraviello]: And is there any discussion about increasing the, maybe getting meters for the outside watering, for the outside meters for people to do outside watering? I know some other cities and towns have different systems that they use. I think someone in Revere told me that they have something that goes on their faucet outside and then you turn it into the air and they bill you for what you used all year.
[Dan Stoneking]: We don't use that format. We actually install the irrigation meters where the original meter is, so that anything going through that irrigation meter can go outside. Anybody can apply if they have an in-ground irrigation system, and we separate it.
[Knight]: And again, let's say, you're right-handed to have an irrigation system, right? You can't just water your lawn. Correct. So you'd have to put a $5,000 or $6,000 investment into your front lawn in order to get the benefit of the- That's the current rule, yes.
[Caraviello]: Again, I know there's something that's overdue and needed. I support it 100%. Thank you. Thank you.
[Morell]: Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, thank you so much for being here. Councilor Caraviello already got to one of my questions. I was gonna ask, you know, with a 0% loan, why stop at $7.8 million? But if that's the cap, as I understand it to be from your response, then that makes sense. And then for my benefit, and perhaps for other less water meter savvy listeners at home, reading this, it sounds like phase refers to the phase of the project, tier refers to project specific Buckets of funding, is that correct? Is that the difference between phase two and tier two?
[Dan Stoneking]: It's the way that the MWRA gives out loans. So they have different phases, which is time, year one, year two, year three. The tier two, phase two funding, which is a good portion of the $7.8 million, will be sunsetting at the end of fiscal 2023. So it'll go away if the city does not use it.
[Collins]: So the tier represents when that particular bucket of money expires?
[Dan Stoneking]: Tier two is what it can be used for. The phase is the time.
[Collins]: I see. Thank you. Appreciate that clarification.
[Ron Baker]: Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: A couple of questions. I don't think either one of you gentlemen, we had the last time that we went through a meter replacement.
[Dan Stoneking]: I came and was part of the cleanup. I cleaned it up. It was a mess, right? I was brought in in 2007. I actually finished the project, what was left over.
[Knight]: There was quite a bit of, I guess, problems surrounding that. Now, listen, I understand we need to get the work done. I understand that we're getting 7.8 million bucks for free pretty much, right? I mean, we just have to pay it back, but we're getting it at 0%. What's the plan to make sure that what happened last time doesn't happen again when we go through this process?
[Dan Stoneking]: Yeah, I would say. So one of the big problems with the first go around.
[Knight]: Why don't we just explain that, what some of the big problems with the first go around.
[Dan Stoneking]: The first go around was estimation. Estimation of accounts. And the faster we can get started on this, the less estimations that we will have to send out.
[Knight]: And the reason for estimations was because of outdated equipment that was given less than accurate readings?
[Dan Stoneking]: Correct. Um, and we're running into that now and the maintenance is becoming a problem where we, we have a small staff. We weren't meant to install the whole system. So what we're trying to do is we're getting to a crossroads where we either do a big overhaul and we're not fit to do that. So we want to do the whole system at once, get everybody on it, you know, a hundred percent accurate playing field. Um, which will stabilize the enterprise accounts and the rates going forward. And we're at a point now where there's so many to be changed. We've been maintaining the whole time, but we were at a point where we wanted to decide. I approached the mayor and said, Mayor, you know, there's better systems out there that do more. So what we're looking into is what else can the meter systems give us? Not only just read the meters.
[Knight]: Leak detection.
[Dan Stoneking]: So the new meters that we're looking at right now have built in leak detection inside the meter. So everybody's house will be helping monitor the community. And if your house lights up and his house lights up and you guys are right side by side, Dan will know to send his crew in between those two houses. There may be a water main break or a service leak. So we're just trying to improve what we have as we come to a crossroads because we have so much to change. It's, do we stay with the system or do we go with what's out there now?
[Knight]: So last time, I think part of the problem that we ran into was that there was a lot of inaction, right? We didn't make up our minds as to what we wanted to do.
[Dan Stoneking]: Correct.
[Knight]: And then we fell into a spot where the meters were at the spot where they needed to be done and they needed to be done immediately.
[Heinegg]: Right.
[Knight]: And we're not at that spot right now. with some assurances that if we get this project done and we do it in a timely fashion, that we won't run into the same problems that we've had. With the lifespan of the new meters, we're taking out a $7.8 million loan that's going to be paid back over 10 years.
[Dan Stoneking]: The system that was put in place in 2005 was a mechanical meter. The average lifespan before it should be replaced is like 11 years, because they start to lose function, lose calibration in favor of the customer. then the rates have to go up a little bit, right? To compensate. The new meters that we're putting in are ultrasonic. They have no moving parts. They don't break down. They're said to last 20 plus years. So we're going to be getting leak detection, no breakdown of accuracy for 20 years.
[Knight]: And then we're going to pay the loan off in 10. So we're going to get 10 years for free. Yeah.
[Dan Stoneking]: So one of the goals was unaccounted for water. And Dan came onto the committee when we were looking and researching the meters, and he found this meter really crucial to his operations, trying to keep the water in the pipes and finding leaks when they happen.
[Knight]: The paper that's before us this evening is nothing more than an informational paper, if I'm not understanding it. Maybe that's what it looks like, right?
[Dan Stoneking]: We wanted to come forward to you guys today and ask the council what questions you have from us before we approach you for signing off on the funding.
[Knight]: Has the city applied for the loan and have they been deemed eligible for the loan?
[Dan Stoneking]: We are eligible. I've been in queue for a while now with the MWRA. I've been going back and forth with the representative from the MWRA. We're ready to go. it has to go through bond council and through city council with approval.
[Knight]: That's my next question. So we need to approve you to put the application in?
[Dan Stoneking]: Correct. That's what the MWRA wants from us.
[Knight]: I can see why, because they're not going to give you the money and then have you come back here and then us not approve it. That would make sense.
[Morell]: President Bears and then back to Councilor Collins.
[Bears]: Thank you. You answered my question about the lifespan. So that's helpful to understand. Just to clarify what Councilor Knight said. So you want us to approve this paper tonight and that'll initiate the process and then you'll come back with the loan order or we have to approve the loan order before you get- The next meeting.
[Dan Stoneking]: We would like to be on the next meeting for the first hearing of the first three or four that it needs to go through for votes. And after that, it's just bond council and you guys signing off.
[Bears]: Yeah, so that was kind of where I was going. Our next meeting is September 13th. So just make sure I work with the clerk and the mayor in advance to make sure papers on the agenda.
[Knight]: And if you guys have any further questions for us, you know, we'll come and answer.
[SPEAKER_05]: Great.
[Knight]: Can we just offer that in the form of a motion that the mayor initiate the process?
[Morell]: Sure. Do I have a second on that motion?
[Hurtubise]: Second.
[Morell]: Second by Vice Mayor Bears. And then just to the point about our next meeting, if for whatever reason, the process, you do need it sooner, we can call it, we can call a special meeting if we need to, if you need to move that sooner. So just work with the clerk on anything related to that. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, on the point of this being advanced notice ahead of the loan approval, I just wanted to say that from one councilor's perspective, you know, having the opportunity to ask questions before we vote on it is very helpful. So I really appreciate the coming before us tonight, the foresight, it's very helpful.
[Morell]: Thank you. Any further discussion? So we have a motion from Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Caraviello, and the language on that is that the mayor initiate the process on a loan. Is that, represent your motion Councilor Knight?
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Morell]: Great, so on the motion Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Caraviello, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears? Yes. Councilor Caraviello?
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Knight? Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes. Senator Inferno is here on the negative, the motion passes. Thank you all.
[Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Morell]: Do I, oh, sorry, we have one more. So 22-463, request for expenditure from law department claims over $1,000. Account number is 010-151-5762. to president of Maryland honorable members of the Medford City Council from Gallagher and Mayor payment Claire Rooney versus the city of Medford date of incident is November 3 2020 data trial result not applicable amount requested $5,000 claimants attorney not applicable description of alleged claim the claimant Claire Rooney seeks compensation for injuries suffered as a result of a street defect at 26 Harvard Avenue in Medford, Massachusetts. As a result, the claimant suffered permanent injuries to her right shoulder, rendering her partially disabled, and injuries to her forehead, eyes, and nose. The case was settled prior to trial. The necessary lease has been obtained from the claimant. Breakdown of amount requested. Medical costs, $5,000. Lost wages, zero. Property damage, zero. Others, zero. Total settlement, $5,000. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, it's my understanding that $5,000 is the maximum award an individual can receive on a slip and fall in a public way. It also appears that the necessary releases were signed and that the city is now, I guess, making this individual whole pursuant to the claim that's before it. I've moved for approval to pay, but so let me close the matter out and get Ms. Rooney the compensation that she deserves.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Knight. Seconded. Seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Collins.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Do I have a motion to revert to regular order of business? On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, to revert to regular order of business, seconded by Councilor Knight, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears? Yes. Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Absent. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell? Yes.
[Morell]: Yes, 16 in front of one absent, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 22-416 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it so resolved that the Medford City Council request that the Liquor Commission discuss the formula for bar seating at restaurants in Medford from a maximum of 25 to a higher number to be determined by the commission. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. This is something that I was asked to do maybe about 20 plus years ago by then, Mayor McGlynn, when the seating requirements for the city of Medford and no bars was 250. And over the years, it's gotten all the way down to a reasonable number that everyone is so comfortable. But over the years, times have changed again. And I think some of the audiences need to change also. And we have a maximum seating at a bar, which if I'm not mistaken, it's 15% of your seating that doesn't count the bar in. As times change, people like to sit at the bar and eat. Yes, they drink too, but if you're a single person, you sit at the bar and eat. A lot of people don't like chairs, don't like sitting at tables. They enjoy sitting at the bar watching TV. And I'd like the Liquor Commission to maybe come up with a new formula to increase bar seating for the restaurants in the city of Medford from 25 up to whatever number that they deem necessary. It's just the changing of the times, changing of people's dining habits and just an update of their ordinances. So I would hope that something that they will look into.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, I just want to thank Councilor Caraviello for putting this on the agenda. I think that it's really normal. It's really healthy for us to reevaluate the ordinances that guide what our hospitality industries can do. And, you know, I've put things on the agenda in recent months to try and see how we can work with the Liquor Commission, work with our economic development director to see what needs to change so that our bars and our restaurants specifically can thrive in our square. So I hope that we can collaborate with the Liquor Commission and other relevant departments to see what needs to be changed and then go about changing it so that our business owners can cater to what people are looking for and do even better. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, yes, thank you to Councilor Caraviello for bringing this up. You know, this request is really in line with what we're seeing around the community and in neighboring communities. If you look at some of the newly opened establishments, my question as to whether or not the ratio is exactly what's been put out through way of ordinance. You know what I mean? If you look at some of the newer establishments, there's a lot of bar seating. That doesn't include outdoor seating. It only includes indoor seats. So I think this is something that's really in line with the practice. It's also in line with what we're seeing in neighboring communities. Councilor Caraviello makes a good point. People like to sit at bars, Restaurants also like to have that model because it allows them to cut down the amount of staff that they have. So they can have one person serves multiple day of multiple people from one location. So it's also an operational issue and an operational efficiency. So with that being said, I support the resolution or item we have a second motion.
[Tseng]: I also wanted to thank councilor Caraviello for putting this on the agenda. This is straightforward, it's logical, it's a modernization update that if we want to revive our businesses, if we want to help our restaurant industry, this is one of the steps that we can take. And I think it will also make Medford a more attractive place for people to come if there's more seating, if there's more availability, if there's more of a feeling of liveliness in our restaurants. and bars. Um, you know, this is exactly the type of steps steps that I think we need to take in the city. So I want wanted to thank my colleague.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor say any further discussion on the motion of Councilor Caraviello seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes, Councilor Caraviello. Yes, Councilor Collins. Yes, Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell?
[Morell]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent, zero in the negative. The motion passes. 22-421, offered by Councilor Caraviello, be it resolved that the Medford City Council have the parking director appear before the council to explain why parking kiosks are not accepting cash or credit cards. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. I'm a little disappointed we don't have anybody from the parking commission here to discuss this, knowing this is on the agenda. Many of our machines don't take coins. They don't take credit cards with signs on them saying, you know, find another kiosk. But I think most of them, they want you to go on the app. Not everybody has the app to go onto. I think that this is something that wasn't very well thought out. These kiosks that we have, they're old. and they need to be changed. And I know that's going down, that's in the plans to buy new meters. I think we just were taking about half a million dollars MAPA funds, which was questionable to me, to buy parking meters. These kiosks that we have, either shut them off or fix them so they work. Because right now we have a parking commission that's out of control in the city. Tagging all over the place, tagging neighborhoods, tagging for 12 inches from the curb, tagging. I mean, you're supposed to have plate readers on these cars to read the cars, so no one cars are registered, not registered. People are just getting tickets. Like I said, there's not a day that goes by that I don't get a phone call regarding a parking matter. And I think my other councilors probably gave them too. So I mean, I think this is something, I don't know what subcommittee this would go to for further discussion going forward to talk about the parking departments and see what changes I think need to be made. I think it's been up and running and I feel that some things are working and some things aren't. So I'd like to refer this to
[Morell]: If you want to refer to economic development, if you want to refer to me the whole I did speak with the director and she said she would be available in September.
[Caraviello]: If you want to refer to a community hold on the line, that'd be great. If we have a particular subcommittee you want to refer to but I think that um, I think we need to have a discussion with the department right now to discuss a lot of the issues that are happening. Actually, I think I brought up one of the biggest problems is the appeal process. People are getting denied for a lot of times, not a good reason, and they're telling them, oh, don't appeal it to the state. Well, it's $200 and change to appeal a $25 ticket, whether you win or lose. So again, some of these things just don't make sense. And I think you're right. Whenever you're ready to call it to me, I think there's something that should be discussed and a suggestion made, maybe some change should be made.
[Morell]: Thank you. President Bears and Councilor Knight.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Considering that I'd be happy to make the motion to send this to Committee of the Whole. And if we're gonna have a committee discussion on this further, then I don't have any further comment at this time. Thank you.
[Morell]: Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. I think the easiest answer to this question is, you know, why have the kiosk accepting change credit cards is because we don't have the capacity as a community time to take this endeavor at this point in time. I think it was fully rolled out and it was not necessarily the best business decision the city could have made. But one of my biggest concerns that I had said when we looked at the revenue forecast previous years was that I'd hate to see the revenue deficit being made up from the backs of the residents of this community through pocket tickets. And if we're gonna have hypervigilant parking enforcement offices, we have to give the people in this community a chance to be able to pay when they want to. And I'd say walk 500 feet or 600 feet or 700 feet out of the business district that you're in to find another kiosk. I don't think that makes a lot of sense. And I really do think that this does focus around economic development and revenue. So this is something that definitely warrants a good hot book. And I thank the council for bringing it up in the second motion.
[Morell]: Thank you for the discussion. So on the motion of Councilor Caraviello to send us to agree the whole and seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice-President Bears.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes, so in the furnace during the night of the motion passes. 22-439 offered by Vice-President Bears and Councilor Collins. So this was an item that was tabled to the next meeting from our July meeting. Vice-President Bears.
[Bears]: Motion to refer to a future committee of the whole revenue with the committee of the whole meeting with the mayor and her staff regarding the revenue situation and budget deficit.
[Knight]: on the motion of vice-president berries to refer to the appointment of president it was my understanding that the paper had to be passed before august 8th for it to make the ballot um the revenue is going to be the revenue uh so these figures wouldn't necessarily reflect any accurate data or data points for us to have a informed discussion on it um you know if we get better revenue figures maybe then we could take a look at something but at this point you know i think that it's a little bit premature to keep a paper open on an override proposition based on override figures that are going to be out of date, and it would be my recommendation to have a paper received in place.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Morell and Councilor Knight. I think that point is well taken. I was going to second the motion to send it to Committee of the Whole for a hypothetical future meeting on revenue with the expectation that, you know, when this meeting might occur, we can amend the paper. if we were to put the paper forward, speaking in very hypothetical terms here. In my mind, it's more of a placeholder move for now with the hope that we can have substantial future discussions on revenue with the mayor's office. And that's all, thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Vice Mayor Bears.
[Bears]: I mean, considering that this is the only substantive official proposal proposed by anybody to address the ongoing budget deficit issue. And it received an official response from the mayor, essentially validating its concerns, but not its scope. I think it's a starting point for the discussion that needs to be had. So that's why I would send it to Committee of the Whole. If the numbers change, the numbers change. We've been completely open We'd love to know the actual figures that we're in. I think we've been really consistent about that for the last eight, nine months that we would really love to know where we are and not be, you know, piecing together the information that we received piecemeal and trying to figure it out ourselves. But that's where we've been left by the actions of the administration. So, you know, if the numbers change, the numbers change. I have no problem with that. This is the only official proposal that's been made by anyone. The mayor did issue a press release that had some sort of response and well, can no longer move forward because the deadlines that passed for the November ballot, it is still a starting point for discussion and the closest thing we have to an official starting point. I do hope that changes in the future.
[Knight]: Thank you. The reason I say this is because the paper doesn't make sense. If you look at what it says at the end, it says, from this assessment, the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2023. The deadline to make that was August 8th, according to Council of Business presentation. So the paper's dead on arrival already. If the issue is that you want to have a conversation about revenues, we already have a paper that's on the agenda. We've been asking the mayor to come and present to us quarterly as to what the revenue picture is. We set the tax rate in December. You know, that's when we should really be stopped. That's when we should really start talking about this. When we set the tax rate in December to fund the budget that we just passed.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Naye. Any further discussion? So on the motion of Vice Chair Sam Paris to refer this paper. And I just want to be clear, this is a motion to send this for further discussion. None of this just cannot be put on the November ballot. I just want to make that clear. Name and address for the record, please.
[Deyeso]: There you go. Okay, thanks. Can you hear me now? I feel like I'm in a Verizon commercial. Thank you for taking time tonight to go through some of these important issues, especially with the meters, et cetera, because I was going to ask Mr. Kamara before he left and I forgot, does anyone know the last time, and I'm going to get onto the subject now, the meters were done, were they not too long ago, Adam?
[Knight]: I believe Mr. Baker said that the project started in 2005 and ended in 2007 and that the machines had a 15 year shelf life. I missed the beginning of that sentence, thank you. The machines had a 15 year shelf life, we're coming up on year 15 at the end of the next fiscal year and some of the machines are starting to fail already.
[Deyeso]: Okay, I'm coming tonight because we've reiterated some of the pros and cons of the important issue that was brought up about 12 million dollars to be gained from future taxes in about a year. Even if it goes to community of the whole, which I don't really wouldn't even move for that. I'm thinking, how many people has anyone done the research and how many homeowners lost their jobs in the city, due to covert or other extenuating circumstances. How many people have not even been paid their rent, there have been some realtors who have come in support of landlords, some of them have not even didn't receive rent for over a year. And then going back a little bit because some of you who were not on the council at the time. We're not participating in the three year discussion for many of us would actually not see the need for a new library but it passed. You're supposed to be having eyes for the future, but also could happen. So I really don't think this is a really time to be imposing a $12 million. Another, you know, induction into the city, going on the taxpayers again. So, with those ideas in mind, I think that you really maybe have to do a little bit more homework. before pushing this forward again. I don't just don't think that the timing is very good. Thank you for your time. We also have to remember those people who own two and three family homes, who would just now my myself, getting into some chores and playing catch up because of the inflation so it just main, I don't think it's the only way to improve the city and to gain revenue. So maybe if this is postponed for a while. The seven of you with your keen heads might be able to come up with some really good ideas to get a mean use of income. Thanks.
[Morell]: Thank you. And again, I just want to make sure this is clear that this isn't something that can appear or would appear on the November ballot. This is just, one moment. This is just being sent to a committee of the whole for discussion. There's no action items at this time. It does not meet deadlines to be on the November ballot. So I just want to make that clear. Please just name and address for the record, please.
[Paul Garrity]: Good evening. My name is Paul Garrity. I live at Cedar Road. I want to thank you councilors for your hard work. And I was sitting out here saying, is it, what I wanted to ask tonight, is there any way that we can get a sense of whether or not the council might support, if the mayor came forward with a proposal to fund an independent audit, is there any support around this council to start there to really find out where we are, so that as we proceed towards next year's budget, we're not fighting with each other, but really start to put a plan in place, to know what our true deliverables are based upon state mandates, city ordinances, contractual obligations, to see what do we have to deliver? How is it being delivered? Is there a better way to deliver it? And have this done by a professional independent, like Price Waterhouse, KPMG, I mean, somebody who could really give you people the information you need, and then allow it to become the basis of a body of knowledge that we can use going forward. So I'm just curious whether or not we might be able to have some kind of sense of feeling of, with the council support,
[Caraviello]: A lot of information. That was something that was proposed by me, I think, two months ago for an independent outside audit to be done in the city. As of today, we've not received any response to that request. You are correct, that's something that should be done every so often.
[Paul Garrity]: a recommendation that a council asking say $300,000 to bring in a real heavyweight to do it. I'm trying to get a feel for whether it's worth my time to write a letter to the mayor and say, look, you need to send a letter to the council saying, you need to ask for this kind of money so we can really start the process and get off the dime. Thank you.
[Scarpelli]: I believe we're all supported Councilor Caraviello with that motion, so.
[Morell]: Thank you. Any further discussion?
[Knight]: on the motion of us, Madam President, just reiterate that the paper is in order to place on the ballot for the 11 23 election, an override question that had to be placed on the ballot by August 8 in order for the paper to be operational. The paper is moved. So we're having a meeting on something that's dead. It's in fact, it does pass.
[Morell]: President Ferris, would you like to amend the paper?
[Bears]: I mean, all you have to do is change I think four words to make it unmoot once again, or sorry, eight words. So it's not really that the concept and ideas moot, it's that it's now been delayed to a future discussion. I'm happy to amend it to strike out the first paragraph and replace it with, you know, be it resolved that the Medford City Council request a meeting with the mayor and finance staff regarding planning for the ongoing revenue shortfall and
[Hurtubise]: structural budget deficit.
[Morell]: Thank you, President Paris. On that motion, name and address for the record, please.
[Ducey]: Mary Anna Ducey, 2 Nod Street. I thought that this was an opportune time to bring up this newspaper article I saw on the July 24th Boston Sunday Globe finances. It said, Medford's surveying public on how to spend rescue funds. Medford has launched a survey to seek community input on how it should spend $20 million in federal funds. The city is receiving $48 million from the American Rescue Plan Act signed into law by President Biden last year. with funds to come in installments through 2025. NEPA previously allocated $19 million of the $48 million to replace city revenues it lost during the pandemic and for other fiscal funds, which leaves approximately $20 million remaining for investments in the community projects and programs. The survey provides an opportunity for city residents to offer their preferences on what should be targeted with the spending. It seems like if we have a potential 13 million deficit, it should be not any survey to find out where we should spend the money.
[Morell]: I think the city should put it where to reduce the deficit, so that's regarding our spending that's regarding our funding which is used for very specific sources and we've already the city has maxed out the amount it can use to replace revenue.
[Ducey]: I understand that it's staggered. You can't just spend it all at one time.
[Morell]: Correct.
[Ducey]: And you have to spend it on particular projects. Correct. However, the city budget, I'm sure they could reshuffle money to apply this money to portions of the city that would be eligible for this money, rather than considering even a 2.5% override. I mean, the general public doesn't understand the mechanics of all this, but this is kind of shocking When you consider having to probably maybe pass a proposition to an iPhone right and raise property taxes, when you have money sitting there. They looking for suggestions on how to spend for this purpose.
[Morell]: If I could just embarrass.
[Bears]: We received a total of 48 million in the heart of money. about 20 million of that already to cover the deficit. And there's a formula in ARPA that says of the total amount you get, this is how much you can use to cover your budget deficit. We've already maxed that out. So this 20 million, I wish it was flexible enough that we could use it to address the existing budget shortfalls, although it's still one-time revenue and not actually a long-term solution to the problem. The issue, the remaining 20 million that they're talking about in that article, is essentially the money from the federal law that we can't use to cover the deficit.
[SPEAKER_05]: We can only use it for so what can you use this for?
[Bears]: We can use it for a few specific purposes. Water and sewer is one of them. And that's we just discussed that and streets associated with it. policies to mitigate the COVID-19 crisis. One of the things that we approved and that the city did do In January, it was hire a federal funds manager who was supposed to look at all of the specific, very detailed U.S. Treasury rules and documents that outline exactly how you can spend the $20 million. We had a great person who was doing that work who was terminated, as I understand it, by the administration in July. So now we don't have the expert that we need to understand all of that.
[Ducey]: Well, you just talked tonight about the water meters and so forth. So if this can be applied to water meters, that's so much the better.
[Bears]: Right. And in what we were discussing, they are planning to use 700,000 of that towards the water meter project. So, you know, I think the survey is asking, what can we do with the balance of the money that... The city shouldn't be asking the public.
[Ducey]: The city should know where they need to spend the money.
[Bears]: Well, and you know what, that's... I know, it's not your call. We don't initiate that process. I understand that.
[Ducey]: But I'm just bringing it up because it seemed ridiculous when we heard the midnight discussion about the budget deficit, and here, a couple of weeks later, we see that there's money sitting there, and they're looking for suggestions how to use it.
[Bears]: Yeah, I think... Certainly the optics are not great. Obviously you made the point when you came up that the specifics are incredibly complicated and I think we've been trying our best over the last two months to take a complicated and opaque process and make it as transparent as possible and boil it down to the understanding of it.
[Ducey]: All I can say is I wish we could use that $20 million to address that issue, but it's legally- I'll leave this here and you can put it in your agenda there and you can figure out if there's any way, instead of looking for suggestions here, you can shuffle around some things and use it to reduce the deficit basically.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: I believe my comment was back to the main discussion. I just wanted to say that I believe that it seems possible that we, on the points that the date might be moved, that we can amend it. I believe Councilor Bears has done that. And we talked about the dollar amounts perhaps not being the right amounts, I believe that the best way to do that is to invite everyone, have a long, you know, a committee of them all about it, to have a discussion in the open, transparent forum where we can kind of talk about what makes sense, what doesn't make sense in front of everyone. And instead of, you know, just having people decide, you know, having, you know, some Councilors have to do the work and then place it on theirs. And I think putting it on, Now having that discussion in open forum, I think makes the most sense in terms of transparency, in terms of letting people know what we're doing and how we've come to dollar amounts. So I plan to vote in favor of the motion to move this to a committee vote.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: I'd just like to point out that there's really no need to amend anything. If you look at the agenda and we see paper 22026, which was filed the first meeting in January, In paper 22027, also filed the first meeting in January, requesting quarterly updates from the city, chief financial officer in the city's financial health, and a monthly copy of the Warren articles to see where we're spending our money, right, which is exactly what Councilman Bass is asking for in his amended paper, pretty much. meeting with the finance team to discuss revenue shortfalls, revenue growth, and the like, which is what we've been asking for since January of this year, since the first meeting that this council met. And quite frankly, going back to the term before, and we haven't got it. We haven't got, again, the paper before us is moved. It's dead on arrival. It was supposed to be passed to go to get on the ballot by August 8th. The paper is asking to be placed on the ballot. We have papers that are already readily available for us to act upon that haven't been acted upon, that have been on the table for eight months, with the administration failing to respond to them in any capacity. Why don't we take care of the first things first?
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilman Knight. New address for the record, please.
[Castagnetti]: Good evening, Andrew Castagnetti, East Medford Mass. I'll be very brief. I'm actually glad that you're a day late and a dollar short and not going to be able to get this Prop 2.5 override on this November's ballot, because a lot of the taxpayers are struggling to pay their bills. As you said, with inflation, especially the homeowners, Matter of fact, we already got hit last December when we set the tax rate. My hit was probably $450, an extra charge that just started this year. And if this $12 million override went through, I'm hearing it's gonna cost 800, it's gonna cost me $1,000 extra. At the worst scenario, and I'm not for overrides of two and a half, God rest Barbara Anderson's soul, Although the law is flawed on a state level, and I'll get into it some other time. Because everyone, every single owner occupied should get the same dollar amount. And that would make it fair. But I got to fight City Hall and Medford before I can fight the state. But I know my idea is perfect if I can get the right mathematician to do the math. So I don't need a thousand dollar jump on top of it all. And we're not Winchester with these overrides of two and a half or debt exclusions. Never been done in this town. However, if it did something like this for $12 million, that would cost me a thousand dollars one shot this year. I want you to do that debt override business. It'll probably cost $40 per annum. instead of $1,000 per year for 20 years until the debt is paid, then it stops.
[Knight]: Madam President, debt exclusion really shouldn't be used to address an operational deficit. The debt exclusion is normally used to address the capital need. You take the debt exclusion out to pay off a bond over a certain period of time to build a building or to take care of a project. To do a debt exclusion with an expiring use to hire 25 new DPW workers. Well, after 25 years, what happens? That debt exclusion falls off the books and then- You can't pay it. You can't even legally do it.
[Castagnetti]: Okay, so like Winchester, I went to legal for $100 million debt exclusion to build the Winchester High School a few years back. And that was 800 bucks. per quarter for 20 years. So at least if you can't help relieve the taxpayer, as Dr. Sorella would say, come down even one lousy dollar. But if you can't really help the taxpayer, give them tax relief, or hear her, at least do no harm. Thank you for not getting it in a timely manner.
[Morell]: And I do want to know if there is a committee of the whole tomorrow at 6pm, zoom exclusively to discuss potential, just the impact of owner occupied and a number of other exemptions of prices and bears had placed on the agenda a few weeks back.
[Knight]: Just know that no matter present that do believe you spoke on that, I'm not gonna be able to make tomorrow's meeting I do have a work obligation. Yes.
[Castagnetti]: Is the part time city assessor Ellen Bordeaux going to be there?
[Morell]: Yes. This time she's going to be there. Yes. Interim interim chief assessor.
[Castagnetti]: This is going to be a public meeting so people can come in in person.
[Morell]: It's zoom only. On the motion. So we have a motion of vice president bears as amended by motion of vice president bears as amended by vice president bears seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes, that's trivial. That's a college. Yes. That's a night. That's a scarpelli. That's the same. Yes. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes, for the affirmative three in the negative. The motion passes. 22-448 offered by Councilor Caraviello, be it so resolved that Medford City Council call a meeting of the subcommittee on rules and ordinances to discuss Chapter 74, Article 11, Section 3 to amend the rules for private ways in the city. Councilor Caraviello, I do wanna know, I believe it's actually Chapter 74, Article 2, Section 3.
[Caraviello]: Yeah, I may have had the wrong one there. But yeah, again, it's this is something to that's been a topic of attention many years in the city. Actually, what is the private way in the services that private ways are entitled to people live on private ways. don't pay any less taxes than the people on the public way, and they deserve the same services that everyone else gets. And I think when you look at the article, all it addresses is talking about the fixing of the street. It doesn't talk about cutting a tree down, trimming a tree, or any other things that anybody who lives on the public way would get. So I'd like to refer this to a subcommittee on the rules. Let's define what gets done on a private way. And actually, most people don't even know what a private way is. You have a lot of new people moving into the community. I think they don't even understand what it is. Let's get a better definition of what a private way is and what the city is gonna do. Let's say the city should be doing everything that it does on everyone else's street. They shouldn't get less. And if we're gonna give them less, and give them a separate tax classification so they pay a lesser amount of taxes if they're not going to get the same on services. So, if we can refer this to a subcommittee on rules and ordinances, we appreciate it.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, I was seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Paris. That's trivial.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Morell]: Yes, seven in favor, zero in the negative. The motion passes. 22-449 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it so resolved that the Medford City Council have a representative from DCR appear before the council to explain why concrete sidewalks on the Felsway were torn up and replaced with asphalt. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. Again, if people would look up in the Felsway, I got many calls wanting to know why very good concrete sidewalks were torn up and now they're being replaced with asphalt. Why? What's the matter? We're not Winchester? We don't get the concrete sidewalks like they get? The DCI? We don't get lights like they get in other cities? In curbs or whatever? These should be torn up immediately and replaced with concrete like they were. The residents of the Fells Way don't deserve second tier sidewalks that were torn up. Again, let's say all those sidewalks were in good condition, they didn't need to be torn up. So again, I would ask that we have the representatives of the DPR come here to explain why they did it, and that we also ask our state delegation to find out why we're getting asphalt and other cities like Winchester get concrete. We're not a second class community.
[Morell]: Thank you. Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. As a resident of the Felsway, I'm obviously frustrated and disturbed by what's going on. When I won't relitigate the fact that basically the city got no notice from DCR about this project and had no input over the planning. But when residents have gone up to foremen and folks on site, they have said, and I believe also folks at DCR, DCR has said, this is now standard procedure everywhere. We're putting asphalt everywhere. I mean, I think it's wrong. I'm just relaying that that's the answer that they're sending out there or that they're having their workers sent out there. If you look at the workmanship, it's a disaster. I mean, up and down the entire street, there are, you know, four, five, six inch drop-offs into dirt piles, asphalt adjacent to other asphalt that doesn't line up with it. You know, the only thing about the project that seems at all even compliant is that there's some better curbing in some places. But, you know, I think we're gonna end up with a project that's of a worse condition than when we started. And this is a multi-million dollar improvement project, or it's supposed to be. So I have no problem with this agenda. I'm sure, I hope someone shows up. We haven't been getting anyone from the state to show up for anything, even though they've been having a huge negative impact on the community. I also am hoping to get an update from the mayor on whether she has reached out to get the DCR commissioner down here for that site visit that we voted on almost three months ago. that Senator Jalen offered to set up, as long as she did it in concert with the mayor, and we've got no update on that either. But that could be another avenue to try to get them to do something better here. It's bad.
[Morell]: Thanks.
[Scarpelli]: I just reiterate what my fellow councils have been saying. It seems like lately, the city of Medford has been getting a tail kick by the state. You see some of these concerns we've had with DCR, the public transportation, what's happening with removal of buses. And then something we'll have to discuss because something very dangerous is going on. And I'll be making a recommendation soon to close off the on-ramp for 93 at the rotary. They put barriers that now jet into the highway and leaving people in the most dangerous, dangerous situations without any notice to anyone. So if you're taking that exit and you're a Method resident for the last 30 years, and you hop up on the highway and all of a sudden you look up, there is a fixed Jersey barrier right in front of you, pushing you right into traffic. So we're having a serious problem. And I think that what we need to do, to be honest with you, is have a meeting with all of our state delegates and sit with them and ask them for some guidance on where we're going with what we're seeing here in Method. Because to me, it's nothing but a lack of respect. And I think we need some movement. So my recommendation is that not only with what Councilor Caraviello said, Our neighbors on the Felsway are just appalled. I mean, just appalled, but if you, like Councilor says, you move up and down two miles to a different community, and their streets are paved with granite and cement, it's beautiful. So I think there's a major discrepancy going on here, and I don't know why, but it seems like when you start adding it up, Method's getting the short end of the stick in many different state entities, whether it be DCR, DOT, or public transit. So my recommendation, if Councilor Caraviello allows me, that part of this discussion, that we invite our state delegates to come down and really ask them what's going on at the Statehouse. What did we do wrong? Did someone break up with someone's significant other or something that comes from Medford? I don't know, but we need to figure this out because this is terrible. It's frustrating that we're hearing more issues coming from the straight state side. We have enough to worry about here in Medford right now to be piled on with what's going on on our state roads and highways. and public transit, and now our sidewalks the DCR, and our path issues or lack of grass issues or cleanliness issues or more on issues, we go on and on. But I think we need to sit down with people and look them in the eye so I'll make that as a form of emotion. Thank you.
[Knight]: And listening to what my colleagues are saying and looking at paper 22451, I think that merging the two papers together and developing an agenda for discussion with our state delegation would make sense. You know, we have a paper that was passed on May 17th, June, July, August, now three months have passed, 90 days. We haven't had the meeting with Senator Jalen. Senator Jalen hasn't been able to set up the meeting. Maybe the mayor's not available, I don't know. But, you know, maybe it's time to reach out to the other members of our delegation to see if they can move this along a little bit. You know, a state senator has a much larger district to represent 160,000 people across three to four communities, whereas state representatives represent 40,000 people each, you know, across one or two communities. So maybe reaching out to our state delegation on the House side might be helpful in moving this endeavor forward. But I think it would make sense for us to merge this along with 22451. and develop an agenda for items of concern. Now, I know we've passed a number of items relative to DCI roadways and other parcels and properties. So we can probably put together with the assistance of the city clerk, an agenda for discussion with a very short order and move on this.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Vice Mayor Bears.
[Bears]: I also have a form of motion. Thank you, Madam President. I don't have a problem with Councilor Knight's suggestion. Other than that, I do think that the Felsway situation warrants, you know, we can have a meeting on the litany of problems that we have. And that was the intent of the paper in May was, you know, we've got problems up and down on what Councilor Scarpelli was just saying on every issue. You know, I do think that this sidewalk project does deserve hopefully a little bit more specific and urgent response because it's not done yet. It's happening now, and I'm hoping maybe we could change course on it, but I don't have a problem merging the two and then having a more immediate meeting on this specific project and then a full meeting on the full range of issues that we have with our DCR properties in the city.
[Knight]: attack the problem, right? And we're going to say, listen, let's talk about the Felsway now. Let's talk about the Fulton Heights. These are the seven issues we have in the Fulton Heights now. Let's talk about the Fulton Heights. Oh, you did a good job. Now come back. Let's talk about this again. Let's talk about this next. You know what I mean? Just for an efficiency purpose, really more than anything else. You know what I mean? The state's going to think we're crazy. We already sent them enough lunatic stuff as it is. You know what I mean? This is something that actually makes a difference. This is something that matters in our community. This is something we can move on. You know what I mean? That's why I get a little concerned when we send a lot of letters up to the statehouse that don't really have anything to do with real life issues that are going on. You know what I mean? You know, in terms of nuts and bolts and service delivery. So, you know, my concern is that, you know, if we're going and we're asking for help from the state, that we do it the right way, that we have a game plan. We have an order of operations. We have an organizational effectiveness so that we don't just go in screaming and yelling because we got a call from a neighbor about how they don't like the sidewalk. And, you know, the goal is we tried, but we never get the result. And a lot of that has to do with planning more than anything else.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Scarpellilli.
[Scarpelli]: Just a point of information. I know that Representative Donato just informed me that he is working extremely hard. He's talked with the state this morning for any questions about the on-ramp. They're coming out with new signs and information for the community as soon as possible. So we thank for his commitment. And that's that's a benefit of having someone like Mr. Donato in place that he's sitting home watching these meetings, and he's already ahead of the game so I really appreciate that so thank you.
[Morell]: Let's see, see response, I do just want to know on the point of the sidewalks I think a lot of very, thank you Councilor Caraviello for bringing this forward. I think a lot of important points have been made. And also the fact, you know, we talk about heat islands in this city and we're actively taking concrete out, which is cooler and replacing it with black asphalt, which only makes our streets hotter where we're lacking those trees and just contributes to a problem we're already facing, which, you know, walk around the street these past several weeks at this point, and you feel the difference. So it's absolutely unacceptable. We do a number of motions on the floor, but Ms. Cameron, do you want to speak on the current paper?
[Cameron]: I'm a little bit confused about whether it's in order or out of order, but I wanted to raise a comment about DCR property in general, not specifically the Felsway. Should I hold that? So my one specific concern that I wanted to bring up was the bridge behind the armory going on Route 16. It is crumbling and I'm really concerned because it's like it's an area now that's highly trafficked by boaters and there are pieces of concrete that are falling into the water or ready to fall into the water and it's a historic bridge. It defines the character of the community. I think it's even on the National Register of Historic Sites. So the repairs, I don't know if it's DCR or MassDOT, but the repairs that have already been made on that bridge have been not historically appropriate. And now the bridge is getting graffiti on top of its disrepair, and it's just looking terrible. And so I would ask, first of all, I wanted to say that I think that in Medford, we are incredibly, incredibly fortunate to have the resources that we have of the state parks and properties and historic resources. And I just want to encourage not only that they be well maintained, but that they be historically appropriately maintained and that they be safe. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Cameron]: Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. Councilor Baer's motion on 22451. Again, these are things that we've been asking for for a long time. I mean, I don't know how many times I've asked them to clean up Route 16, over by that bridge. I mean, the whole area, there's logs in the water, which are all controlled by the DCR. Again, and Councilor Scapoli's right. It seems that we seem to be getting the short end of the stick. on a lot of these DCRs and some of these projects. I've got one more I didn't even add on here, but I was a little disappointed in Senator Jalen taking pictures of Winchester with them getting their second train station renovated and we can't get 10 cents to fix the train station in West Medford. Just keep slapping us in the face, that's okay. But again, I think I think I was right, get the full state delegation down here, along with the DCR, let them start answering some questions why we're not getting what we pay for services.
[Morell]: Before we continue to be I just want to take the motion to merge the two papers just so we're aware of what we're discussing. Councilor Knight motion to merge the paper we're discussing 22-449 with 22-451 offered by vices and affairs, which states be it resolved by the Medford City Council to the city administration, provide an update to paper 22353, which outlined an invitation to the new DCR commissioner to come to Medford for a site visit to better understand the impact of DCR roads, parks and properties on our community. The paper passed on May 17th, 2022 and Senator Jalen's office graciously offered to assist the city in scheduling a visit. So on the motion of Councilor Knight to merge those two papers, seconded by Mr. Clark, please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, I'm in the firm is you're in the negative motion passes by Susan bears.
[Bears]: Thanks. And just to be clear again, my intent with the original paper to do this three by three was exactly the council. I was just saying, which is come down here and we'll talk about everything. Now that the papers are merged, that's fine. I hope we get an update from the administration on if they've reached and reached out to DCR and Senator Jalen's office to schedule that. I think also what we should do in the short term relative to councilor Kirby yellows point is have someone from DCR come to a council meeting to discuss the sidewalks on the Felsway. That doesn't need to be all the rigmarole and scheduling and planning of getting the DCR commissioner down here and talking about 25 different issues we have with DCR. So if we could maybe get that to happen, you know, I mean, as soon as possible, the summer's kind of difficult, but even if we could get a written update in the next 10 days, you know.
[Caraviello]: Before the project's all done.
[Bears]: Right. So I don't know, but that would be, now that the papers are merged, if we could get some sort of update from DCR where the clerk's office could send out tomorrow to DCR and to the state delegation a request for an immediate update within 10 days regarding whether or not we can get the sidewalks address the issue and get the concrete sidewalks replaced with concrete, not with asphalt. And then we can go down the road and look at the longer issue we have with DCR properties. I just don't want this Felsway issue to get dumped in the pile and with 50 other problems that we have, when we still might have a chance to influence that process in some way.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Knight]: Councilor Knight. I'm thinking it might make more sense that we as a council, direct the DPW commissioner to address the issue and then report back to us in a defined period of time. You know, it's an infrastructure improvement. The DPW director's involved in all this type of work, right? When it comes down to traffic management, plans, permits, or ground opening and the like. So it might make sense for us to reach out to the DPW commissioner and say, DPW commissioner, what's going on? These are projects that you're aware of, right? Why is the product not coming back in the metric way? Why is the product coming back in the DCR way? please explain to us why and what steps you take to remedy it because, you know, ultimately, the DC has, you know, when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of public works, our public works director is the person, our infrastructure person is the public works director. The city clerk can send a letter and wait for a response. It seems like a lot of it might be technical in nature, and I don't know why. It might be a very easy answer to what Tim already asked. So it might make sense for us to direct the director of public works to do these inquiries and report back to us in a certain period of time. That's just my suggestion. I won't offer them a full motion or anything, but it just seems like it would make sense. Yeah.
[Morell]: Okay. So I have multiple motions on the floor. So the motion of councilor Scarpelli to set up a meeting with the delegation to talk about numerous TCR issues and motion from councilor Knight to work through the DPW commissioner to get a response regarding the sidewalks. Okay, we can take it as amendments. Lost half of this paper, so we have a main motion. I don't have a main motion.
[Bears]: I think the amended motion, it's merged, and now the amended motion would be one, to reach out to the DPW commissioner.
[Morell]: I mean, do we have a- So I think on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to hold the to meet with the state delegation to discuss DCR issues as amended by Councilor Knight so that the DPW commissioner reaches out immediately.
[Hurtubise]: So just so I know what we're talking about, we're going to
[Bears]: ask for a meeting with delegation on state entities. We're going to ask the DPW Commission to report back to us within 10 days why the DCR is replacing it with asphalt. And then we're also going to ask the administration for the update on paper 22-353.
[Morell]: So do I have a motion to approve the main paper and I'll take all those amendments?
[Hurtubise]: We have to vote on the, I mean, it's.
[Morell]: We really have to vote on the amendments if there's disagreement.
[Bears]: Right, I don't disagree with any amendments now that the paper's merged. It's mine and Councilor Caraviello's, so I don't know.
[Morell]: So on the motion on the main merged paper, so I have a motion for all.
[Bears]: I would just like to, response from the DPW commissioner is fine. I'd like to get a response from the DPW commissioner as soon as possible as to any information that the DPW commissioner has regarding the sidewalks on the Felsway. And then I'd also like to say once we get that response that the DPW commissioner with the support of the council contact DCR and the state delegation to encourage them to, um, replace the concrete sidewalks on the Fellsway and Fellsway West with concrete sidewalks and not asphalt sidewalks, because I feel like what we're just going to get back from the DPW commissioner is he's going to come back and say, DCR said this is their policy, and then we're going to be in September, the project's going to be done, and we're not going to have at least asked them and said that we would prefer the sidewalks. So yeah, I mean, I'm happy to motion to approve the merged papers as amended to say, the meeting with the state delegation and have the clerk reback.
[Knight]: He has Madam President, we're talking about a sidewalk. He would turn this thing into a national project for a rocket ship to go to space to move.
[Morell]: I'm just trying to get all that. Everyone's making motions should have only taken one at a time because now we're Mr. Clerk, would you please read the amendments?
[Hurtubise]: All right. Councilor Scarpelli had an amendment asking the state delegation. This is joint papers now. Councilor Scarpelli has an amendment asking the state delegation to attend the meeting. Councilor Knight has an amendment asking the DPW to contact DCR, get an update
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Hurtubise]: And then Councilor Bears has an amendment requesting a response on replacing the sidewalks, the planned asphalt sidewalks with concrete sidewalks as soon as possible.
[Morell]: Does that reflect everyone's amendments?
[Morell]: Do you want to submit?
[Bears]: I mean, I think I don't want to deliver it. I mean, I think it's just getting everything in order.
[Knight]: I would like to do it. I'm just trying to get it right.
[Morell]: Frustration on this process. Make sure everyone knows they're voting on to.
[Bears]: Yeah, I mean, Yeah, I would like to ask the DPW commissioner for response as soon as possible as to why the DCR, you know, to Councilor Caraviello's initial motion will explain why concrete sidewalks on the fellows way were torn up and replaced with asphalt and then send a communication, ask the DPW commissioner to send a communication to DCR and the state delegation saying that it's the preference of the city and the city council that the concrete sidewalks be replaced with equivalent concrete sidewalks. That's all I'm trying to do.
[Morell]: So on the motion of Vice President Bears to approve the main emerged paper as amended by Councilor Scarpelli and Vice President Bears, seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng.
[Morell]: We're missing your audio, Councilor Tseng.
[Hurtubise]: We don't have your audio, Councilor. Thumbs up. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes, I'm in the furnace here and I get the motion passes to do that for five zero offered by vice president bears be resolved by the member city council that the city administration provide an update on the expansion of the standard road maintenance practice known as crack ceiling, and whether or not the city has been conducting regular cracks going to keep streets in good condition be a further result of the city administration provide an update on whether any additional funding recommended. recommended payment management plan which showed that the city's maintenance backlog for roads would increase from 48 million in FY 2021 to over 120 million in FY 2026 without adding additional funding is being invested in road maintenance. Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Press release came out a couple weeks ago that the city is going to start crack sealing some roads. My understanding is that's a standard maintenance practice that we probably should have always been doing. Probably shouldn't be press release worthy that we're doing it now. So I'd like to know is to whether we had been doing any cracks ceiling before the current project. And the reason I asked that is that I was looking over the paper management plan that came out last year. And as far as I can tell, or the plan says that if the city does not increase its investment in road maintenance from $1 million per year to about $9.5 million per year, that the backlog of maintenance is going to grow drastically over the next five fiscal years. It was at $48 million in fiscal year 21. If we continue on the same path of investing $1 million per year in road maintenance, which is essentially our Chapter 90 allocation from the state, then that backlog will balloon to 120 million just for the roads. That's not even including sidewalks. That's just the roads by fiscal year 2026. We just passed the fiscal year 2023 budget. We're going into the fiscal year 2024. And I just think it once again indicates the massive, not only that we are facing a massive, a significant structural budget deficit in the short term on operating costs, but we have essentially a massive budget needs deficit in the long term, where if we don't multiply our investment in roads by 10 times, then we're going to see our backlog triple in just five years. So basically what these folks who are experts in pavement said is you need to have 10 times as much money spent on road maintenance as you have now if you actually want to make a dent in your road maintenance backlog. When anyone looks at their roads and sidewalks and says, why are they in such horrible shape? It's basically because the city is spending one tenth of what it needs to be spending to address the problem. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. I thank Council for bringing this forward. Something I brought up a few years ago when I was up in Maine three weeks ago, what they're doing is what I suggested and then Councilor Favreau was here, was the grinding and milling all at the same time. to on the non-busy roads, the side streets, where they come in, they grind the road and they mix it and they put it right back down immediately. We can, you know, again, this is a thinking out of the box, but I say I saw them doing it up in Maine when I was up there. I don't know why we asked for a pilot program to bring a company in and maybe try a half a dozen side streets. I'm not saying that you do high street and make sure the big streets, but I think it's an option that we should look into for the side streets that don't get the wear and tear, and maybe we can get two streets done for the price of one or three streets for the price of one down. So again, I would hope that the engineer is looking into something of that of that status so that maybe we can get more bang for our buck. It won't cost us under $20 million.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Carmelo. Any further discussion? Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you President Morell. I just wanted to thank Vice President Bears for putting this on the agenda. I know when I first took office earlier in the year and started getting those emails about the roads, I took a deep dive into the pavement management plan. I think it really is an encapsulation of a lot of the revenue spending issues that we're facing as a city. You know, it goes without saying, when we don't have the money to spend on a problem, the problem gets more expensive to solve in this case. by multiples. We all think the roads are bad enough now. Certain roads I bike down, I feel like I'm gonna fall in and never hear from again. I think that this really just drives home the point that we need to see a plan for how we're going to get on top of this, because it's hard for me to fathom the roads being what they are, and we all hear about it all the time, how that's gonna be in three years if we don't find a way to multiply our investment. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Any further discussion? On the motion of Vice President Bears, seconded by, did you want to speak on this paper?
[Angela Murphy]: I just wanted to say something. A few years back, Carding Street was paid because they reached the pipes and it was beautiful and they put the trees back and the grass back just the way we wanted. This was what Mayor McGlinney came down and listened to the residents on my block on Carding Street. and we were grateful. A few years back, they took the house down across from me, and in doing so, they had to dig up the street again. And when they put it back, the contractor, my son, who was into construction, noticed how they patched the street, called the city, and the city says, oh, don't worry about it, it'll be fine. We says, no, it's going to crack. So the city had an opportunity to have the contractor fix Carting Street, and the shoe cracks go right down the middle of my driveway when I go out. And they didn't take that opportunity to have the contractor. So on the other side of the city, they cost people money, because now they're going to have to repave Carting Street. I would hope that they would take attention next time when a resident brings something to their attention and not cost the taxpayers and the people in Method a cost that shouldn't accrue to them and everything. but Connie Street should be on that list to be fixed again. And it shouldn't have been done by the city. It should have been done by the contractor within the year's time, because that's when it started cracking right after they fixed it. So thank you for listening to me. Thank you.
[Morell]: On the motion of Vice President Bears, I seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes. I'm going to affirm as negative the motion passes. 22-452 offered by Councilor Collins and Vice Mayor Behr is being resolved by the Medford City Council that a representative of the Bradley Road Tenants Association be invited to provide an update on the status of their tenancy. Councilor Hollands.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and we have a couple of representatives of the Bradley Road Tenant Association here tonight. I'm sure my fellow Councilors will remember hearing from some of these folks starting back in April. Really, I wanna let these tenants speak for themselves and give us an update on what they've been going through. Thank you for being here.
[Liza Maloney]: Yes, hi, I'm Liza Maloney, 26 Bradley Road, and thank you for allowing me to speak tonight on this topic. So as you remember, this past March 2022, over half the building of 34 units received termination notices of our tenancy at will agreements, given 30 to 60 days to move. Since that night in April, when there were actually 14 tenants here to speak with you and just to appear before you, only four tenants at will remain in the building, and I'm one of them. The rest of the tenants that were on leases which expired this summer. There's only two of those original tenants who are on leases left in the building. So the building is mostly empty now except for four to five apartments that management has re-rented soon after the original tenants were forced out. Original tenants were not given the option to stay even though they offered to pay $500 more. and the new tenants are paying $500 more. So it doesn't make a lot of sense. No meaningful work has been done in the building despite management's claims to the media in May that asbestos remediation, the kitchen, the bathroom updates were the reason for the mass eviction. Asbestos was actually done, removal was done last year. So that should not have impacted this mass eviction at all. The new tenants wonder why the building is empty, and people's personal effects are left in piles in the basement as they moved. The four remaining tenants at will were given until July 31st to leave, and on Monday, August 1st, we received the court summons from a sheriff. The summons were filed this past Monday, the 8th, and we expect to receive a court date to start the eviction process, could be this week. We have repeatedly asked the owner to negotiate with the tenant association collectively to stay in the building, and the owner has refused. Instead, the owner contacted us individually to negotiate one-on-one, and some residents did kind of cut deals with the owner and have left. These one-on-one negotiations all included moving out of the building, so none of them included staying in the building. It could be 30 days, three months, In their haste to clear the building to increase rents and their profits, management has been personally showing long-term tenants properties they cannot afford and pressuring them to sign new leases at these properties. Management seems to have also retaliated this week against one of the tenants who just left a few moments ago. He's a self-employed painter. and he used to be allowed to park behind the building and he just received a letter that he can no longer do so because he's now part of the Tenants Association. There was a story in the Boston Globe today about how renters are over-asking just like home buyers. This is the state of housing in the greater Boston area and I can tell you with complete certainty that every one of the panicked tenants who fled in those first 30 days regrets it. These tenants fled with no time to find a similar affordable apartment. Massachusetts is one of the most progressive states in the country, yet it's legal to evict tenants through no fault of their own and give them only 30 days to vote. To buy time, tenants must work closely with elected officials, as I'm here tonight, and apply public pressure through social media or rallies to bring attention to the unjust nature of the no-fault eviction. and use the courts to try to stay in their homes. This is the system in Massachusetts. I'm not sure how you recover from this financially or emotionally. If you're the family who lived next to me, who is now paying $700 more per month plus heat because they took the first available apartment in that 30 day window. Their dreams of a home for their eight year old boy in the Medford school system are now on hold. or the teacher or senior who are now paying so much more for less because they didn't feel the luxury to find something they could actually afford within the 30 days. There should be a better and more just process for no fault evictions, which also stay on your record for future landlords to discover. Victims of no fault evictions are victimized twice. So there are many points of view with this and many proposed solutions. Perhaps a six month timeframe should become the law to allow tenants to land on their feet. Perhaps tenants should have the first right of refusal to choose to stay at a higher rent or purchase their unit if it's being converted to condos. Perhaps rent control 2.2 is the answer to address skyrocketing rents. Something needs to be done because tenants like myself will continue to use one of the only tools available to us, the courts. to fight to stay in their homes and or buy more time to find something else. No one wins in this outdated system. It only feeds into the larger housing crisis and ties up the courts. When I first came before you in April, I reluctantly mentioned to Kit that I understood that the owner had the right to evict us and flip the building for higher profits. And Kit very wisely told me, but at what cost? There's an enormous human and societal cost to Savage's property grab, which has inhumanely displaced long-term tenants, seniors, people on Section 8, families, and working professionals. The city and state aren't equipped for the flood of services needed to handle this crisis. We need a new playbook. There's a legal term, qui bono, and it means who benefits. When Savage Purchases of property, tenants most certainly do not benefit, and neither does the community, only savage benefits. And just a couple more points. With remote work, residents have choices. It may be forced to live elsewhere or in another state altogether if this housing crisis isn't addressed on many levels. We lose diversity in the rich fabric of our community when residents are displaced in favor of profits with no safety net to catch them or break the fall. And this was a note I scribbled as I came, was coming here tonight. If we can't make this happen in here in Massachusetts, then where? Massachusetts has been on the forefront of so many transformative laws and movements throughout history. Let's make history again with comprehensive and compassionate changes to the tenant, landlord, owner laws. That's it, thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Marillyn. Thank you so much, Liza, for being here and for speaking for your association. My fellow Councilors will indulge me. I just want to, again, thank you, Liza, and just draw out a couple things from what you said. As we had this discussion back in March, back in April, you know, I didn't want Liza to be here tonight on behalf of the Tenants Association because there's some action that we can take to materially change their position right now, this week, this month. They're well aware of the process. They've been working with professional housing justice organizers. They know the score and they know what they have to do next. But as I think we're all very acutely aware, this is a phenomenon befalling our community. It's been falling our community. It's happening right now on Bradley Road. It's happening on Fells Way. It's happening at multiple properties in Medford. We need to keep our focus on this. we need to keep shining a light on everywhere this happens in Medford. Specific to the story on Bradley Road, I just want to draw out a couple of points to make sure that they're heard. Firstly, that the line was these vacancies are being created so that we can renovate. Renovations didn't happen. Secondly, I think we talk often about the value of collective bargaining. unionization and various circumstances. And when this group of tenants sought to do that, they were punished for it. Materially, legally, they were punished for seeking to band together, to be in community with one another. And it strikes me as a real double standard for who's allowed to exert pressure over a situation. Given the state of the housing market regionally, not just in Medford, but regionally, tenants and all sorts of residents are impacted by economic pressures. When they seek to do what they can to stay in their homes, to stay in a community that they've invested in, that they have students in the public school system, that they've lived their whole lives here, that type of pressure is allowed to be penalized. So again, I reiterate, I know there's no motion that we can pass tonight, to make this expense, to make this anxiety, to make these months of work and trauma go away for these residents. But I felt it was very important to put Liza's story and the Bradley Road Tenant Association story on public record. Again, so thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Vice Mayor Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Liza. Thank you to the whole Tenants Association you know, I'm sorry that we're at this point. And I can say that I'm not living it. I can only imagine how it feels and how it's felt for months. And I know how people were feeling right when it happened and they jumped ship just to have something. Cause that's, that's really how it feels. It's like you're suddenly you're maybe in a lifeboat for 30 or 60 days and you have to find another boat to get out. That's not going to sink. So you can keep going to work and have a roof over your head. and have some sense of stability in your life. That's the cost. At the forefront, we can talk about the city and the property taxes and an override. The forefront of the cost of living issue in this community, the forefront of displacement, And the people who are really getting hit the hardest when we talk about cost of living are renters who are living in buildings that are being treated purely as speculative investments by big developers, large companies, wealthy people. The only thing they care about is they bought this thing, it's an investment, it's got to make money, end of story. The rest of the equation doesn't matter to them. I want to take what you said about qui bono and take it to a paradigm that I try to use and that I learned a long time ago is incredibly useful when you're talking about the intersection of political decisions and economics. It's not just who benefits. It's who pays, who benefits, and who decides. In this situation, The only person that's benefiting is this property owner who's making a massive gain on a speculative investment in a housing market that doesn't care about people. Who's paying? We're paying, the city of Medford's paying. We're paying, and I don't mean just the city itself, the city and its residents, that's who's paying. These people are paying in anxiety, displacement, lack of stability, loss of community, exclusion. We're paying as a city because we are no longer able to house people who wanna live here in a stable and affordable way that we've been able to do it a long time, for a long time. And the only people, you know, this is the really twisted part, and we can slow down the decision and try to make an impact here and there, but who decides? The person who's making the benefit is the only person who's deciding. They're deciding to get rid of people for their own benefit and dump the costs onto their tenants, their residents, and onto us as a city. That's a fundamentally unfair system. And it's a fundamentally unfair thing for this community to have to face and for its residents to deal with. Now, I think this speaks to why it's so important. that this local council does the advocacy that we've been doing to our state delegation around the needed changes in state law to give communities like Medford tools to change the playbook and balance the equation so that it's not one party completely benefiting, you know, one other party completely paying the costs and no one being able to adjust that equation. So I think, again, There's things that we can try to do at the local level. I think we should try to do them, have the conversations, move it along, paying a few bucks more so that we can have actually the level of staff support that we need to help people who are in housing crisis would be a start. To have people who can support people through housing stability. We have neighboring communities that have dozens of people where if you're a resident who's facing this problem, you can go to your city and someone will help you with your case. They will help you through the process. We have someone you can call who can kind of direct you somewhere else, but it's not the same level of support. So when we're talking about helping the people most in need, the people most facing inequity, the people who are having the cost of living fight, that's the hardest in the community, they need support from their city government. They need resources in their city government actually devoted to this problem. We need to provide those. They need a change in state law to balance the equation so that people are put first and that our communities are put first and not just the needs of whoever decides to buy whatever building whatever day to make however much money they want to make. you know, we can keep going on and say, you know, I guess it's just about money. That's what land and buildings and housing is all about. It's just about who can make the most money. And the more that we do that, the more that you're gonna be in the situation where people can't live here, where the kids of people who grew up here can't live here, where people, you know, you don't have the diversity, racial, economic, social diversity that makes a community great. All of the problems that we're talking about As a community, this issue of housing is at the core of it. And I know that I as one Councilor will continue to push as hard as I can for the city to invest more resources in this crisis, for the city council and hopefully the city administration to advocate for the long overdue legal changes that we need at the state level to give us more tools, and hopefully throw out that old playbook and get a new one. because the old playbook's not working for anybody except for the speculators who are making millions and millions and millions of dollars off of people's housing, from people's homes. Now, I just said some nice things. We'll see where it goes, but that's how I feel about it. Thank you.
[Hurtubise]: Supervisor Leopold.
[Morell]: We have a few members of the public who'd like to speak.
[Anita Nagem]: Anita Nagum, 9 Norton Ave, Medford. I would just like to address one thing. I don't know if you saw, but in the past week or two, Somerville's new zoning ordinance was upheld by a court. It prohibits evictions for condo conversions for one year. It gives tenants the right of first refusal. So I would look into that and see if any of those things can be applied to Medford. It was just upheld within, I'm going to say the past 10 days. Thank you.
[Castagnetti]: Would you like to speak? No, he's good. I'm going to say something that's probably a bit insensitive, but I'm going to fix it with a solution. My godfather from Northern Italian dialect used to say to me, On the first of the month, he who laughs and he or she who cries. In other words, landlord tenant situations. And I think what he meant by that was, that if you can afford to buy the house, for some, even if they can, they don't want the headaches. And I understand, believe me. But eventually after 25, 30, 35 year payments, you own it free and clear, hopefully. And then you are in control of your own destiny, hopefully. So, there is a solution and you don't need the state for this. You can do it right here, especially on that mile of Mystic Avenue, the old highway to Boston 38 could do it like New York City does to control your rents. They have the cooperative housing I believe that's the term. Have you heard of a council. Thank you. So, whether it's. private or quasi government and quasi private, a mixture. And you could, the rents would be locked in with minimal increases. It can't be that hard to do if someone wants to get going. But also in Vienna, Austria, I cut out an article from the Boston Globe, but my wife has me throwing out papers, so I discarded it. It's a huge building, and it's quasi government and private, and everybody seems to be happy. It's not like a development or a project type that we have here. I mean, it has a swimming pools, it has everything. So it can be done if somebody wants to do it. Thank you for listening.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. Casagrande. Bill Giglio on Zoom, name and address for the record, please.
[Giglio]: So, everything that the points that the tenants and Zachary as a saying as totally percent is a totally totally correct I mean the trauma, imagine the trauma and all that. going with the tenant when they're asked to pay more rent. Now imagine on top of that, having an override and they have to pay even more on top of that. So just, I need to think, people need to think about that. My second point is, why was I shut off on, why was I disabled on the chat on this? I can't figure out why. Every week I'm getting to say, when as soon as I write something, other people aren't being disabled. Is there a reason why I'm being disabled?
[Morell]: The chat is disabled for everyone.
[Giglio]: Then how is the things on the chat? There's chats going on.
[Morell]: No, it's not. It's disabled for everyone.
[Giglio]: Okay, I'll send you the screenshot tomorrow. It's most definitely.
[Morell]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Knight to receive and place on file as seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Council Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor scrub Kelly. Councilor Tseng, Yes. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes. Six in the front of one absent during the night of the motion passes.
[Bears]: Paper 22-453, offered by President Morell, Vice President Bears, and Councilor Collins. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the Public Health and Community Safety Subcommittee meet to consider potential ordinances, policies, and regulations to strengthen the protection of reproductive rights for Medford residents and for people seeking medical care in Medford. President Morell.
[Morell]: We can see around the country that the reproductive rights of everyone are under attack, have been rolled back have been removed for countless people. I know many may say that this is not a city issue but it's been made clear that these rights are being attacked at every single level, and there is no stopping point. These are rights that when removed will or do endanger the health, endanger the lives, endanger the future of individuals who seek reproductive care at so many different levels, whether it's abortion, whether it's miscarriage management, whether it's IVF, expanding families, making decisions that are right for families. These are decisions that, these rights being removed, and every level also tend to impact the most marginalized in our society who need these services. And I just wanna make sure that we open the discussion, that we talk about what we can do on a city level to make sure that these rights that are enshrined, remain enshrined, that they remain protected. We as elected officials are stewards of the residents. And I've heard from countless residents who say, what can we do on the city level? What can the city council do? People are scared, they should be scared. They have every right to be scared because rights are being rolled back across the country and nowhere safe, honestly. And we need to do what we can to protect the reproductive health of residents. Thank you.
[Hurtubise]: Thank you, Madam President. Councilor Collins. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you. And thank my fellow councilors for putting this forward and allowing me to co-sponsor. I think that President Morell put it perfectly. And I think, you know, In my mind, there's no need to defend why these local policies are necessary. But, you know, where there is a need for explanation, I'd say, and this goes for anything, your rights exist until they don't. And I think it's easy to feel in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, one of the, you know, overall bluest states in the nation, that this doesn't apply here. That's true until it isn't. And it's true in Massachusetts until it isn't, it's true in Medford until it isn't, that's true everywhere. And I think that the only responsible thing to do, I think I said this the last time we talked about reproductive justice and protecting medical care for women, for gender non-conforming people, for all types of people was on the agenda. The way things are going, the failure to be progressive is regressive. We need to be proactive. All types of people's lives are at stake, so thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. I just wanted to say that I thank you three for putting this on the agenda. I full-heartedly support this. I also thank Councilor Collins for bringing up the item that we worked on a few weeks ago, a few months ago. And I'm glad to see that we have a resolution here that will advance the scope even further and to make sure that we really are truly addressing this issue at the local level. Because President Morales is right that these fights are happening at every single level. And oftentimes we even see in the news that the, it can be a difference. The difference can be seen in local ordinances and oftentimes that's what really determines, you know, the outcome of these fights. And so I think it's absolutely necessary that we take the steps that we can as a city to protect the rights of our residents. I would also like to take this as an opportunity to to say, you know, we, we want to make sure that we're, you know, we welcome people who might not be able to get that treatment in other states, but can come have have the means to come to Medford, or just stay in Medford overnight. And, you know, it's important to affirm that support, I believe. And with, unfortunately, what will be an influx of people seeking care in Massachusetts, I also think it's time to call on our state and our state leaders to address a need for demand when it comes to reproductive services, reproductive health care. Because we're going to see increasing demand in our own state, and we want to make sure that everyone can get treatment. We that means we have to work on our own capacity as well. So, you know, we can we can imagine Massachusetts as a as a haven for reproductive health care, but we really do need to do more at the state level to to make sure that we can remain a haven for reproductive health care.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Caraviello]: I want to thank President Morales for bringing this forward. Women's reproductive rights are a very important issue, not just in Medford, but throughout the whole country. Some decisions were made recently that vastly affect them. I would think that Strengthening them only helps our community, helps people in our community. I had some conversation with the people from Tufts and Hallmark. And I think one of the discussions they're looking to do is take the third floor of the hospital and make it for women's health issues. So maybe we may want to invite them to that meeting. And I think they understand the importance of this for women, not just in Metro, but throughout the country. And I say, you know, if their daughters I understand the issues that go along with this, and I support this, but I did want you to know that I did have some conversation with them, and if you could invite them to the meeting, because I know that is in there. Someone said that they're in discussion to put on a whole floor of women's things, and that was something that I asked him to do when back when they were when the hospital was closing and uh was asking from i said we we don't have anything for women in this community and i i thought that say five years ago i thought that was an important issue and i still think it's an important issue now and i support this whole heartedly thank you that's for real i'd be happy to accept that as an amendment
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. On the motion of President Morell to send this resolution to the Public Health and Community Safety Subcommittee, seconded by Councilor Collins as amended by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, you may call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: and I'm not seeing any public participation.
[Caraviello]: I guess I'm the Montessori liaison, so I will reach out to Montessori for you. I will do that this week before you go on vacation.
[Hurtubise]: All right. Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: President Morell. Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes, five in the affirmative, none in the negative, two absent. The motion passes.
[Morell]: 22-454 offered by Vice President Bears, Councilor Collins, and Councilor Tseng. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the City Administration provide a detailed update on the current blocked off connection between Medford and Somerville on East Albion Street, and whether that could be opened to allow pedestrian and bike access in that neighborhood. Vice President Bears?
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I sent an email to the City Administration about this. 10, 9, 10 months ago, kind of hit a dead end at the time. We've since cycled through to a new fire chief. And I have sent a request but I'm awaiting a response and I would just, essentially what this is about is East Albion Street crosses Medford and Somerville. Currently it's completely blocked off. So no pedestrian access, no bike access. There are some park facilities at Medford, some park facilities in Somerville right next door that would make sense to connect and provide added benefits to residents of both communities. And I would just like to ask my fellow Councilors to ask the city administration for an update on whether that barrier is city controlled, private controlled, controlled by the city of Somerville, and what are ways that we can make improvements there to allow for pedestrian and bike access.
[Morell]: Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Yes, just echoing that, you know, this would be good to know where to start with this sense and figure out our next steps from there so that we can have a usable through way for pedestrians. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng, would you like to speak on this?
[Tseng]: I believe that my colleagues have covered it pretty well, but you know, this is about accessibility. This is about improving our community. I think these are basic goals that all of us share.
[Morell]: Thank you. Any further discussion? So on the motion of Vice President Bears, seconded by Councilor Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears? Yes. Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Knight? Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, two absent, zero in the negative, the motion passes. 22-455 offered by vices and bears and Councilor Tseng, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the city administration provide an update regarding the city's application for federal funds from the bipartisan infrastructure law and whether or not the city will be applying for the Safe Streets for All SS4A grant to create a Vision Zero Action Plan and or the Reconnecting Communities pilot to explore mitigation to the historic and ongoing impact of highway construction on our community. Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Councilor Senk, for co-sponsoring with me. I think as folks know, last year, the U.S. Congress and the President signed, passed and the President signed a bipartisan infrastructure law allocating hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure. to states and municipalities. I'm interested both in generally what of those funds the city has applied for or is looking to access and also specifically to grant programs, Safe Streets for All, which would allow us to create a Vision Zero action plan. Vision Zero means that we would have zero fatalities on our streets. This is personally important to me as someone who has lost someone close to me in a traffic collision. And also the reconnecting communities pilot that's a program it's in a pilot this year and I think they're looking to expand it to a full program and future fiscal years, which is all about the impact of the construction of highways and those divided communities, as we know, Medford. lost entire neighborhoods when they built a highway right through the middle of the city. And also we have the overpass on Route 16 as well, which takes up a surprising amount of space if you actually start to look at the square footage of that whole intersection. So I do think it would be great if the city could apply for that program as well to look at if there's ways that the federal government is now willing to fund mitigation and reparative action to the funding that they put into the highway system in the 1950s and 60s that had such negative impacts on communities. So that's the intent of this resolution. And I move to approve and send this to the city administration.
[Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. I think this is also fairly straightforward. You know, I mean, given our discussions after in the last two months, we know that we need to be applying for funds wherever we can. We need to be taking advantage of every single opportunity that we can. And so, you know, this is us being proactive. When it comes to vision zero when it comes to when it comes to vision zero you know that's something that our council has already supported on one of Councilor bears is vice president bears his motions back a few months ago. And I think the benefits of it are. extremely clear. And when it comes to mitigating the historic and ongoing impact of highway construction, you know, this is something that sociologists and a lot of researchers have said is one of the massive barriers to equity and has been one of the massive barriers to equity and equality in local communities, especially in suburban communities like ours. And so I think from an extra dimension, from an equity lens, this is another important part of this resolution.
[Bears]: Thank you. not to belabor something I'm sure we'll all support and get a request on, but another piece of that reconnecting communities is, you know, mitigation of sound, right? We've been working on sound barriers on the Fountain Street for a long time. Representative Donato has been working on that as long as, as well as many councilors. I think we've all sent resolutions in support of that. There was a report out recently that put us as one of the top communities for lowered health and life expectancy due to the pollutants of highways. I happen to live You know, I look at the highway every day outside of the windows of my house. I happen to live very close to one. And I, you know, hope that the position of our house and whatever else means that we're a little safer than other people, but we have a very high level of health impacts from pollution, from motor traffic as well. So those are just some of the additional things that I think apply on this mitigation. And hopefully we can bring in some federal money to address those impacts. Thank you.
[Morell]: Any further discussion? On the motion of Vice President Bears is seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes, seven in front of zero the negative motion passes to two dash 456 offer by various affairs and Councilor Collins be resolved by the Medford City Council to the national grid that national grid provide information on the persistent power outages affecting multiple met for neighborhoods and why they're occurring, be it further resolved that national group provide updated plans regarding infrastructure improvements to the local electric power infrastructure to the city of Medford.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilor Collins for co sponsoring this with me. I think this was actually even something that I submitted before the latest round of outages that we saw. Obviously, we had some storm induced outages over the past few days. That's something you can't necessarily mitigate for. Although if our utilities were underground, then that wouldn't be a problem that we would have. But you know, National Grid's only making a couple billion in profits off of the people of Massachusetts every year, so they can't be asked to do too much. Essentially, here we have had outages at really unexpected times in South Medford, multiple times impacting residents, obviously, in the many ways that power outages impact them. It's even worse now with remote work, though. You have people at home that can't work for a few hours. So, you know, we've had some up in the heights. We had a pretty long power outage recently, which is longer than I can remember. And then, you know, so I want to know if there's a current issue that's made our grid in worse condition than it's been in the past. Now, whether that's demand or infrastructure, I don't know, but I'd like to have the answer. And then there's this larger question of You know, we had some folks here recently, I think from National Grid, and I asked them, are we planning to bury any of the utilities on, I mean, it may have been Winthrop Street, I can't remember where it was, but, and they basically said no. Now we're about to, we just saw, it hasn't been quite passed yet, but it got through the Senate, right? Massive investment in electric vehicles and electric vehicle charging. We have climate change and the heat waves that we've been going through that are putting much more demand in our electrical grid. And I could go on and on and on and on, Um, but and then you have storm impact, right? Because we have so much above ground utility. So in addition to is there a short term problem in the short term plan? I'd like to know how much of the billions of dollars in profits National Grid is planning to plow back into our infrastructure so it's ready for the additional electric needs that we're gonna have over the next 5-10 years. Thank you, Madam President.
[Morell]: Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you. Um, yes. Thank you. Vice president bears first. You're hurting this resolution. have been hearing a lot about these power outages. For me, I mostly hear about it from folks in hillsides. I'm shocked it hasn't affected my apartment building yet, which probably means in the next couple of days, since I'm saying that out loud. But, you know, we were just talking earlier tonight about poor communication, you know, a feeling of lack of respect from some of the entities that affect life here in Medford. To me, National Grid is top of that list, especially lately. I think we deserve to know why these problems are happening more frequently. And as Vice President Bears just said, in the past time to be thinking long term, I wanna know, even if it's in the beginning stages of strategy for how we're going to protect our utilities, protect our increased load for electricity, protect against increased vulnerability because of increasingly intense storms that we know are coming, that are only gonna get more intense in future years, what is the plan? I think that municipalities should be included in those discussions. and I'm eager to hear it. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. This isn't just a metric problem. It's a national problem. It starts in Washington. I mean, we're being told that this, that the grid isn't gonna be able to hold up at some point. And there's been, I know there's some investment in it, but it starts in Washington where this grid should be rebuilt. It's ancient and no money has been spent on it in many, many years. People don't know. National Grid is not an American company. It's owned by a British company. I don't think the Brits really care about what goes on over here in Massachusetts. But again, this is a national problem, and it should be dealt with in Washington and work its way across the whole country so that the grid is replaced to handle the needs going forward in this country. And as of now, it's not being met.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. As we've discussed in the past, the city of metric right now is undergoing, it's probably the largest electrical infrastructure project that it's seen in 40 years with the other source pipeline project. And if. We talked back to 2013-2014 when this project first was discussed. One of the reasons that this project needed to come to play was because of the grid on the East Coast region and rolling brownouts that were occurring and the like, because the grid did not have the capacity to deal with the volume that's on it. So, when we talk about, you know, why are these power outages happening? I think that's something that we're well aware of and we've known about for the better part of a decade. And, you know, we're in the process of a construction project that's attempting to address it in a regional fashion. So that's something I point to keep in mind. And also, because this construction project's going on, the load's being distributed to other parts of our grid, which is putting additional pressure on our grid, right? So that coupled with, you know, the heat wave, And the amount of people that are cranking up the ACs, I think, has put some strain on the remaining infrastructure that's in place here in our community. At least that's what I've been able to read up on and what I've been able to find out and speak with Mr. Gilligan. So with that being said, I move approval of the paper.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Knight, it's seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Collins?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell?
[Morell]: Yes. 7-0 negative the motion passes. We took participation earlier, but things could have been misconstrued. Okay, we have just a few more items. I do apologize. How many more items do you have? We have four or five more items. Thank you. After this, could you step up? Thank you. Q2-457 offered by Bison Bears being resolved by the Medford City Council that the city administration provide an update on the tools and devices used to paint lines on city-owned playing fields, including how they were acquired, how much they cost, and expected lifespan. Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. This is truly a question of curiosity. Looks like we have small machines used to pick lines on city-owned fields that I hadn't seen before. And I'm just interested to know what the acquisition process was for those and how long we can expect it to last.
[Hurtubise]: Move approved.
[Morell]: Further discussion on the motion of Vice President Bears as seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Bears]: 22-458 offered by Councilor Tseng be it so resolved that the Metro City Council asked the MBTA to reinstate the 325 326 and 710 bus routes, given the planned closure one month closure of the orange line. beginning on August 19th, ensure that there are sufficient shuttle buses for Orange Line communities, especially for the state primary election on September 6th. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council supports federal officials' calls for the elimination of subway and bus fares while the Orange Line service changes are in place, Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council ask the city administration to inform residents of changes to Orange Line service and of alternatives such as free commuter rail services to zone 1A, 1B and zone 2 stations. And be it further resolved that the city council ask the city administration to work with MBTA and solicit feedback from the community to see how Medford can mitigate increases to traffic. Councilor say.
[Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. Um, we all have, I'm sure at this by this point we've all heard about the planned one month closure of the orange line, starting for August 19, I believe it goes until September 20. You know this this is a massive inconvenience for anyone who uses orange line. I used to growing up, I still use it to visit my parents. Many, many, many people use it for work, you know, Wellington is one of the most popular stations. And we have a lot of North Medford residents who use Malden Center Station as well. This is going to be a massive headache for many of our residents. I believe it's, you know, we all know how the MBTA is great at listening, but I believe that it is our job to push for as much as we can. The first part is a nod to the work that our Councilors have already done. the councillors who've come before me, and who are still with us today, have already done regarding the 325 326 and 710 the circumstances now are new. And so we should just push again, in my opinion. You know, there's also been a lot of concern about the number of shuttle buses, how many passengers they can take. The numbers that the MBTA has kind of suggested just don't line up with the MBTA's own data with regards to how many people ride the Orange Line on a daily basis. And this is going to be especially a huge problem for the primary election on September 6th, because it's going to force a lot of our voters to have to reconsider their plans and you know, they might not even be able to make it from work to vote. And so I think that's particularly an important point that should be made. Our federal officials, many federal officials, including our representatives and senators, have called for the elimination of subway and bus fares. especially noted that the Congress has given money for the MBT to use to for this purpose. And it's up to the MBT leadership to decide whether in the state leadership to decide whether they choose to take that route. I believe that this is something that would really benefit, at least mitigate some of the negative effects of, of the Orange Line closures. We also, the MBTA has announced that if you do hold a Charlie card, that you can show your Charlie card on a Purple Line train, a commuter rail train, and you can ride it for free as long as you're coming from them to a zone 1A, zone 1B, and zone 2 station. So for a lot of Medford residents, West Medford and North Station, West Medford and Malden Center are stations that they can get on trains with. And the MBTA has also said that the Haverhill line will stop at Malden Center during the closures. Um, and the last part of this is just to ask the city administration to, um, work with them be to try our best to work with the MBTA and to really. At the very least on our own end, um, expect that they're going to be increases in in car traffic and road traffic, given the closures and to see what we can do, um, to mitigate, uh, the negative effects and to make sure that, you know, traffic people can get to work as fast as possible.
[Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further comments from members of the Council? I will just say, for one, thank you, Councilor Tseng, for putting this on the agenda. You know, as it seems to be always at the MBTA, there's nice headlines, or maybe not so nice headlines, or the devils of the details. So far, I've seen some communications back and forth with municipalities that are less than encouraging, but I support this resolution. Is there any public participation regarding this or any MBTA issues? Name and address for the record, please.
[Ducey]: Mary Anna Ducey, 2 North Street. If you recall, I was before the council in June and again last month in July about the proposal to eliminate Medford buses. When I was here before, I told you I had about 8,000 petition signatures, I mean 800, excuse me, petition signatures opposing the changes that the MBTA was going to make. Since then, we've collected more and July 28th was the day that we submitted the proposals to the petitions to the MBTA. We had 1696 Medford petitions and signatures, and we had 330, some of them petition signatures, or total of over 2,026 petitions that we submitted. Now, this kind of came about because I met Pat Jelen, and she kind of helped us get involved here with the media part of it. But when I was here before, you asked for a copy of the petition that we had, and I produced one here for the Medford City Council. There's two parts. There's the Medford portion, and then there's one for the, one of the buses, 96 only. I've also prepared a cover letter with about a dozen, eight or 10 points here for the councilors that, that goes over the different points here. Some of which is the communications, which was non-existent, you might as well say for the MBTA. I talked to, personally talked to 1500 people for this petition. None of them knew anything about this change in the buses. It can't be that 1,500 people in the city of Medford wouldn't know about this issue. There's something wrong here about the communications. They gave the MBTA an F and they gave the city of Medford very poor grades too. So I just thought you'd wanna know that. What else can I tell you here? Pat Jones was very helpful as well as Sean Gabali from Arlington. I did speak to Paul Donato's aide, I left him my name and phone number, but he never called me back. Perhaps Joan's office kept him informed there, I don't know. As far as Christine Barber, she never got back to us. We emailed her, she never got back to us. So we're a little disappointed in that. So anyway, what I did tonight, is for you Councilors, because I don't know how long it takes for the clerk's office to get you copies of whatever you want here. I just made you copies of the cover letter that you can take with you tonight, so that you can kind of look them over. And if you have any questions about what we've put in here, feel free to contact me.
[Bears]: So- Thanks, Mary Ann.
[SPEAKER_05]: Okay, and here is the- Larry, just if you could.
[Bears]: Thank you. Thank you for your efforts as well as to all the people who helped you with the petition. And I know your advocacy has been incredible.
[Ducey]: All right. And just want to acknowledge a couple of my co-residents here who participated in the meeting here and Angela Murphy. And without Anita, I would have been, you know, I would have been able to connect and collect signatures, but she did a lot of email and and communications with the state house and so forth.
[Hurtubise]: So there it is.
[Anita Nagem]: Anita Nagum, 9 Norton Ave, Medford. I just want to speak briefly to a couple of points. The MBTA's outreach on this was absolutely abysmal. It was completely unacceptable. The city of Medford was not far behind. There was one reverse 9-1-1 that was sent out, which mentioned submit feedback for the better bus project. No other details. And it was one of two or three items in the message. I contacted the mayor's office twice and asked that a reverse 9-1-1 be sent out with specifics of the changes. I got messages back saying the mayor had already sent out a reverse 9-1-1. Marianne and I were getting signatures. I made flyers. I made posters and flyers with little tabs on the bottom. I spent quite a bit of my own time and resources doing this. My husband put them up in Davis Square every day. A few other people put them up around the neighborhood. The only people who knew about this were people who had seen our flyers. And I would say that was, maybe I encountered five people who had seen them. The rest of them were people that we went up to and contact it. I wrote buses several days. Nobody on the bus is new, completely unacceptable. And I would be willing to wager that there are still Medford residents who don't know anything about this. I asked that that reverse 9-1-1 go out before the comment period was over on the 31st. It's now too late. The original plan was not to have a final draft. Now there is going to be a final draft, but it's not clear that there will be an open comment period. The second thing was there were zoom meetings there was one that was specific to Medford and I believe it coincided with the city council meeting. But the last zoom meeting for this project was on a Thursday, and it was very disappointing that there weren't any elected representatives Medford on that call. There were representatives from Cambridge at the first one representatives from Somerville and Arlington at the second one. That being said, I would highly recommend that the city council contact your counterparts in Somerville, Arlington, and Cambridge. As a united group, you would definitely have more clout than you would as individual or individual cities contacting the MBTA on this issue. And several of the bus routes that I'm most familiar with, like the 96 goes through Medford, Somerville, Cambridge. The 80 goes through Arlington, Medford, or Arlington Somerville, but is close enough to Medford that actually Arlington Medford Somerville so there are three towns involved in each of these I would highly recommend that you contact your counterparts. Some real and Cambridge City Councils and the at the Arlington select board. There's definitely support, and you will have much more influence. When the general public finds out that their bus routes are going to be changed, when this starts being implemented, if this is finalized, there is going to be chaos across Eastern Massachusetts, the entire MBTA system. As it is, there were over 15,000 comments, including our 2,000. However, there are still communities who don't know about it. And again, I don't think most Medford residents, even ones who ride the bus, know about it. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Angela Murphy]: Angela Murphy, 16 Conning Street Method, and I just wanted to add to what Anita said. You can also perhaps reach out to the community of Woburn. There are three particular buses that would affect me personally if changed or eliminated, and this would affect my work. because I just took a full-time job in Woburn, won't be able to get there. And the people going to Woburn, especially Woburn Senior Center, they also didn't know about this and they're in an uproar too. So reach out to those communities too. I understand Winchester asked for one of the bus routes to be changed because they wanted it to serve as their community, but it's not a necessity to change that bus route because they already have the bus going to 134 to Winchester Center to North Woburn and that's the one they want to eliminate and change the other one. It just doesn't make sense. So maybe City of Medford could reach out to Woburn also and Mayor Galvin over there and talk to them. I've already spoken to my son-in-law who was the captain of the force there and he says the community is not aware of a lot of things changing there too. and the ones that I speak to are very upset. So thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you.
[Navarre]: Name and address for the record, please. William Navarre, 108 Medford Street, apartment 1B. I'm gonna be very quick. My request is simply that we avert another communications problem that I've already seen the T itself do and a bunch of the media. And that is that if we do a reverse 911 call or something, We got to remind people that at the same time, the green line is going to be screwed up between Union Square and government center. If you take an express bus to Haymarket, you take a computer rail to North station, that's not going to work. If you don't usually ride the green line, but you say, I'm gonna take a bus to Leach Pier, that's not gonna work. And we need to warn everybody about all of these, because a lot of times the most obvious solution isn't going to work because the green line is screwed up also. So I still put, they do a reverse like what we call, the orange line is getting all the attention in news. but people need to know about the green line too because that might be their backup and they need a second backup. Thanks.
[Bears]: Thank you Mr. Navarre. I will just, for folks who may or may not know, we as a city council have requested a lot of communications improvements from the city of Medford on a lot of different issues, specifically around this issue. We passed a resolution regarding making sure that the full amount of information was sent out in reverse 911 calls, especially people who don't have access to computers or may not otherwise be able to access information. We as a city council held our own committee of the whole meeting. We invited the MBTA here. They didn't show up. We still held the meeting and took public comment, took comments from the councillors and submitted those as part of the official public comment record for the MBTA. We requested, I believe, a couple of reverse 911 calls specifically about this issue to pull out prior to the July 31st public comment period. And I'm probably missing two or three other things. Oh, there's Yeah, we did request that if whatever draft is produced after this public comment period that that draft be presented and then another public comment period occur. And then we're also looking at where the city's authority and potentially the city council's authority is as to the creation of new bus stops, and if that possibly is a way that the city could say, we're not going to approve any new bus stops, adjustments to routes without potentially the loss of others. We don't know exactly where that is yet, but that's another tool we're exploring using as a city council. When it comes to communication, all we can do is ask, we can put out our agendas and hold our meetings, which we do, and we can use our personal, you know, candidate means to reach out to people, but we do not control the apparatus of reverse 9-1-1 or the city's communications. Otherwise, as much as we may want to, and as much as we may ask for things to happen, sometimes that's the same as you asking for them to do something in the city administration. So I just wanted to put that out there. Are there any other comments from city councilors, any amendments to the paper? Seeing none, Roberta, you wanna speak? Keep public comment going.
[Cameron]: Thank you, Roberta Cameron, North Street. And I just wanted to point out that my neighbor's use of flyers seem to be very effective at reaching people who, you know, because reverse 911 is a very difficult way to convey primarily visual information. So I'd really like to see the city use more written communication as well, whether it be posters or mailer or signs in any commonly seen locations. That would, I can probably do more than reverse 911 to raise people's awareness of this. Thank you.
[Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Anita Nagem]: One more thing, the city of Cambridge, I discovered towards the end of the comment period, put up their own flyers on bus stops, actually on the poles. I did that with the paper flyers, but they had flyers encased in plastic, and they were from the city of Cambridge telling people that this bus stop may be changed, where they could submit feedback, and there was also a link to a Cambridge survey. I put comments into the MBTA saying the MBTA should be doing that, themselves on every effective route, not to mention flyers and posters on every effective bus route in every T station. I've spoken with Pat Jelen and Sean Garbali about that, but the city of Medford could put up, it would be a little time consuming, I mean, not hugely expensive for the actual materials, but it could be done. Again, we, Marianne and I really organized this, but we had a network of people who helped us and we didn't even get to every neighborhood. I didn't even get to the high street in Medford. We were so busy with Medford Hillside. I did a little in Medford Square, but the only people really who knew about this were the ones who had seen our flyers. I think there were five people who had found out about it independently. And again, there are still people who don't know about it.
[Bears]: Thank you, yeah, and I completely agree that You know, that work should be the responsibility of city government. One of the conversations we've been having tonight is about resources and the city of Cambridge has, you know, a very large budget due to their Kendall Square and commercial development and all of that, very low tax rate for residential and a lot of resources to be able to put into projects like this that the city doesn't have right now, but absolutely should have. Any further comment from the public or members of the council? On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Motion approved. Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Collins?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Naik? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Bears]: Vice President Bears yes 70 affirmative zero the negative motion passes to dash 459 offered by Councilor Tseng it's a result of the metric City Council asked the Board of Health to lay out its approach to addressing the monkey fox public health emergency and any guidelines associated with it, Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Um, thank you, Vice President Bears. Um, as, as we know, the federal government recently declared monkey pox a health emergency, a public health emergency. I just, you know, people have been asking me what, um, what our government should do about it. I believe I have confidence that in our board of health, but you know, in the spirit of reducing panic in the spirit of, you know, making, making sure our lives go, go on as normal. I think it would be helpful for for us as a city council and for residents to know what our city strategy is regarding both both addressing the public health emergency but also. how we're going to communicate that strategy.
[Knight]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further comment? Yes, I appreciate that, Mr. President. The gentleman bringing this up, and, you know, we all have to be very hypervigilant over here. That's why I think, you know, when we talk with our friends and our neighbors and individuals that travel out of country, that we be sure that they take the appropriate steps when they come back to the country, back from vacations and back from stuff like that, that they take the appropriate steps to be sure that they're not infecting anybody else with some diseases like this. But I appreciate the gentleman bringing it forward. I too certainly have questions for the Board of Health in terms of the transmission of the disease and what steps we're taking. in order to prevent it. It's my understanding that was that immunization for this or vaccination for this at some point in time that was discontinued or eradicated due to the smallpox disease being eradicated. Well, I understand it's the same vaccine. So with that being said, I thank the gentleman and I second this motion.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. The motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Knight, President Morocco.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I do understand my fellow Councilors making a joke about whenever our Councilors travel, but I do just caution about just sometimes jokes can be misconstrued as misinformation. So I would just caution against jokes of this nature when it's an evolving disease that we're learning more about. Thank you.
[Hurtubise]: Thank you, President Morell.
[Bears]: Any further comment?
[Knight]: I think my interpretation was misguided, Mr. President, but it is what it is.
[Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Knight, Any further questions? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell? Yes. Vice President Pierce.
[Bears]: Yes. The affirmative, none the negative. Motion passes. 22-460 offered by President Morell. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council meet in committee of the whole to review and suggest updates to the Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94 section 6.2 signs.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I know we've been working to kind of any zoning amendments that perhaps are, you know, immediate in nature, but working to save them for when we can work with again with the zoning consultant. But I think signs has come up a number of times over the past few years, sometimes in some controversial ways regarding illumination. And I think also now, last month, we saw the presentation for the DB charging signs that are a new type of science. that are petitioned for in the city. So I think it would be worth meeting in the committee of the whole just to see, just hear some, I know we've all heard from some local business owners, some building owners, as far as things they might like to see changed. So I think it's time that we could meet committee of the whole and just discuss and see what amendments may be worth making or not at this time to present back to the council as a whole. So I would move approval.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Any further comments by fellow councilors? Any comment by members of the public? I see Mr. Pompeo on Zoom. I will unmute you and ask you for your name and address for the record, please.
[Steven Pompeo]: Thank you very much, Steven Pompeo, 18 Newton Road, Medford. And thank you, President Morell, for putting this on the agenda. This is something that the Chamber of Commerce has addressed before. So I look forward to bringing back to the full board tonight, just to report that we're going to be addressing this at a future committee of the whole meeting. I know we do look forward again to helping the city update and improve the current sign ordinance. So we thank you for taking this up and hopefully you vote to move it forward. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Pompeo. Any further comments? On the motion of President Morell, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello?
[Bears]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell? Yes. Vice President Pearce?
[Bears]: Yes. Assembly affirmative to the negative motion passes.
[Morell]: 22-464 offered by Councilor Knight, be it so resolved that the City Ordinance 48-773 be amended striking 75 years or older and replace it with construct before 1900 and be it further resolved that the City Ordinance 48-78H be amended by striking 18 months and replacing it with six months. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, this is to address some of the inequities that have come up through our Medford Historical Commission and the handling of demolition delays and demolition permits. When we discussed the budget, we talked about what was going on over there and the circumstances, and I was in a position at that point in time to cut their budget entirely based upon the treatment that they provided to homeowners and business owners in this community that are trying to invest their money and message. At just last night's meeting, it was determined that one of the members, one of the voting members is actually not even residing in the city of Medford. It was brought up at last night's meeting that there's an individual that's looking to file a cease and desist order against a historical commission and is threatening litigation against that historical commission right now. So there's a lot going on. But one thing that's not going on is houses getting saved and houses getting restored back to their political, cultural, historical significance. Now, when we sit here and we look at this community and we see the number of houses that have been fixed in the last 22 years or restored in the last 22 years, I think one comes to mind, and that was by agreement, and that was 22 Toro Avenue. And after that, I don't think we've seen any successes, Madam President, based upon our current ordinance. Right now, we add 16 parts to court, for example, to an 18 month demolition delay project that would have been a multimillion dollar project that would have increased growth in our neighborhoods, it would have increased the tax base in our neighborhood, and it would have addressed housing in our neighborhood. Projects fell through, why? Because they ran out of funding. Why did they run out of funding? Because of the demolition delay. So what I'm doing is asking that this council revert back to the way that the demolition delay was prior to the changes that were made in 2015. We can go back to the drawing board and figure out something that works in this community. But currently, right now, what we do doesn't work. We talk about restoring and preserving historic houses with political or cultural significance. Then you look at 20 Cushing Street. Can anybody tell me who grew up there? Michael McGlynn. His father, Jack McGlynn, before him, owned the home, a business owner in this community, a former school committee member, a former city councilor, a former mayor, a former state representative. His two sons, Richard and Jack, Olympic medalists. His other son, Michael, the longest serving mayor in the history of Massachusetts. That house isn't politically significant to this community. That house hasn't been given a historical designation, but Pacelli's, a pizza shop is. Something's significantly wrong with this process. All right, but ultimately the bottom line is our ordinance doesn't work. Our ordinance doesn't work and they're not reaching the goals that they've established. So with that being said, Madam President, I ask that this matter be forwarded to a committee of the whole for us to take a look at this, get redacted language and bring this back to a sense of normalcy and reality so that we can move forward as a community and we can continue to grow and not hold up people for inordinate amounts of time. for the process that is futile.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank Councilor Knight for bringing this up. I mean, this is a vote we took some years ago, and I'll be the first one to admit I made a mistake in voting for that. We thought it was going to be helpful, and what turned into what we thought was a good thing has turned into a deterrent for this community. as far as building, as far as any type of growth. And all we're doing is holding people up from bettering our community. I think, if you remember during our zoning thing, one of the comments Mr. Brzezinski made was, why start things that are gonna make your community better? And he says, I live in probably one of the most historic towns in the country, and we don't even have a law like this, nor does it say this in our books. So again, I support Councilor Knight on this. Like I said, I think it's something that we brought up some years ago. Like I said, I'll be the first one to admit, I made a bad vote on that. And I think it's time that we write it and start getting some of these properties that are sitting there, decrepit, and getting them up and going. I mean, look at the Sicardi Funeral Home. middle of west method sitting there leaves weeds growing all over the place i mean and you drive around other other other ones too let's see we're just tying we're just tying up people's money and time and by the time uh they get through the delay cost of building has gone up labor's gone up uh everything has gone up so uh i think it's time that we that we that we right or wrong councillor collins
[Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and thank you for the discussion on this resolution so far. I think that, you know, I'm glad that this motion will be discussed in the committee as a whole. I think there's a really robust discussion to be had here. I think that, you know, these revisions are made in good faith. I think that a lot of folks on the historical commission are also acting in good faith. And I think there's certainly a path forward to make sure that the Values of this ordinance are enshrined and it really works well for the community.
[Knight]: So last night at last night's meeting, I believe it was applicant that was introduced. And they said, this applicant's here before us just because they just want to share with us what's going on with their project. And the applicant, is there anybody who had anything to say? The applicant says, yeah, I'm here. That's not what I'm here for at all. I don't know who told you that. I gave you a cease and desist letter. I'm trying to sue you. I want my demolition permit. So it's not necessarily all done in good faith. They give good stories. But the fact of the matter is, there's been comments that say, If we hold you up, we're happy. We've completed our goal. Set in live session. That's not what they're there for. That's not their objective. That's not the intent of the audience. They're not living up to the legislative intent. All right? They've gone way outside the scope of their legislative intent. When we look back to the beginning of our term, I'm sorry, we look back to 2021, when Governor Baker put out a release, I believe he said, in the Boston Globe, there was an article talking about boards and commissions running rampant in communities. And this is a perfect example.
[Morell]: Thank you for that point of information. Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I will be voting to send this to Committee of the Whole because I always believe that there are improvements that we can make to our city's ordinances and rules to better achieve the goals that we're trying to achieve. I hope that part of the discussion will be getting the facts on the table about exactly what's happening, how many permits that are being requested are going through the Historical Commission, how many are being approved, are being held up, what's the timeline on that? I really think that the place where we can focus some really good work on this is around just making the process better for everyone involved. And I think that there are ways to accelerate some of what's going on now so that people can get the answers that they deserve and need to have, and that we can also balance that with the protection of the city's goals as stated in the ordinance. So I look forward to that discussion.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. I've been to many housing workshops, and one of the biggest things that they talk about is streamlining the process. In this community, we're making the process harder for the people to do things. So again, Council Member is right. I think we need to sit down and have discussion, figure out how to get this commission to do things, to make things simpler, not harder for development. I mean, we're up to the point now, you can't do siding in your house anymore. You can't do anything. Again, This is a commission that's really gone out of control. From historical, now we're into everybody's house now. This is a historical community. Almost every house is old here.
[Knight]: Thank you. It's no longer historical commission it's a design review board. All right. Now what it is is it's a group of people that have gotten together and said we're going to tell you what your house can and can't look like and we're going to tell you what you can and can't do to the largest purchase, right, regardless, regardless of whether or not the person intends on knocking the house down and building another one and improving our community and selling it or living in it. All right, they're not the building code enforcement officer. All right, and they're not the zoning board. All right, so, and they're certainly not a design review board because the ordinance doesn't call for that, okay? So they're having individuals come before them and submit plans. Oh, these are what the plans will look like. This is what it'll look like. This is what it'll look like. The ZBA might shut that down in a heartbeat. It might not comply with building code. It's outside their scope. It's outside their authority. It's clear they've been abusing this power. And the reason it's clear is because if you're in the good old boys club, if you're in their network, you seem to get an expedited permit. If you're not, then you don't.
[Morell]: Sorry for the discussion, knowing that we are voting on this now to send it for further discussion.
[Unidentified]: I just wanted to suggest that
[Cameron]: There may be more precise tools that could be available to protect the historic resources in neighborhoods. I'd be really nervous about reducing what limited protection we have for the character of the neighborhood, for the historic elements that make Medford be the community that it is. I highly, highly endorse the ability to invest in new development in Medford and there are many places and many types of new development that we should be promoting, we need to be using our housing production plan we need to adopt the housing production plan and we need to use the housing production plan and the master plan process and additional planning processes to go out and find out what kind of development we do want in the neighborhoods, collectively, so that the neighbors are not paying the price for development rampant development that's just turning a profit that's not respecting the community that we already are today, we need to be information.
[Knight]: On that profit that gets turned is an investment that comes back into this community. So when that parcel gets sold, it gets taxed at a higher rate. So if we look at the parcel on West Street, for example, that sold for $600,000.
[Cameron]: And we're talking right now about the historic, the historic preservation.
[Knight]: Right, but you're also talking about not not the board of this person just bought this to make a profit, the city doesn't have any benefit. The city has a great benefit when people invest in this community. And if we look at West Street we had a parcel that sold for 618,000 that got redeveloped and then the redeveloped process sold for 2.8. All right, that increases our tax base that gives us more money to do things we want to do.
[Cameron]: through the chair, I just wanted to suggest that we should be looking for what kind of development we do want in the community and using zoning and our planning processes to promote the kind of development that we do want in the community so that we're not just inviting developers to eliminate our historic building stock. Thank you very much. Thank you.
[Morell]: Mr. Casting a name and address for the record, please.
[Castagnetti]: Castagnetti. When I grew up as a kid on Mystic Ave in a house that was built in the 1750s, I believe. It used to be where Governor's Ave is. They moved it to Mystic Ave to make Governor's Ave. A reasonable facsimile of Commonwealth Avenue in Boston. Hence, you have the islands in the middle, but you don't have those beautiful brownstones. My father used to say to me, with a sixth grade education method is anti-business. So he said, look, the only two businesses that are making it that's Cal's diner and Hosmer. And constant light is getting ahead of me. Carol's is still is there as part two location. They had a beautiful location, Grosvenor Police Station and the fire station. And Hosmer is now Grava. Hosmer Chiefs, baseball? Okay. So I'm agreeing with these two gentlemen to my left and right. I understand historical, I like to keep character. However, Even though we have over 10,000 houses at over 100 years old, to me they're not historical per se. The real house, house my father owned, I'm not mentioning where, because he might have problems down the road when they start destroying Mr. Gav to rebuild. So I'm not going to flip the card over. We're anti-business. If my house is built in 1910, it should not be questioned, it might be historical. If a developer wants to come in and rip it down, I understand you want to keep up the character, but you've got to develop the Councilor mindset and then add extra real estate tax base. It's sad, they have to wait a year and a half to knock it down, is that right? And they have to put up some serious money. and they have to carry that, and they still have to need the approval, mind you. And some of them went bankrupt, me and me on Riverside Avenue. I'd like to buy that parcel and do it myself, if it's not too late. You can't be anti-business to a point that you're crippling our city. I think I'm gonna stop talking. I'm kind of upset. It's just overkill. It really is.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. Kessinger. Any further discussion? Name and address for the record, please.
[Navarre]: William Navarre, 108 Medford Street, Apartment 1B. This discussion can get a little bit... You know, we gotta have the facts, as Councilor Bears said. One thing that Councilor Knight said that really concerns me is this idea that the Historical Commission might be acting like a design review board. That's a problem I've seen in articles from more media-rich communities. I don't know what ours is doing, because we don't have a newspaper. But basically, I think that is a real concern. And I think as the discussion goes forward, Where I personally come down on this issue is going to depend on whether or not that's happening. Because I know in Cambridge, for example, there was a marijuana shop going up above where the Tasty Burger is. And the historical commission had these ridiculous things they wanted, it made no sense. It was like that had nothing to do with historical. And so definitely if that's going on, that's a question that I think we need to answer. But a stop to it if it is, and if not, let's find out if our particular commission is not succumbing to the temptation to do that. Thanks.
[Morell]: Thank you. Any further discussion? I also want to know as my fellow councilors did, I am all for having discussion to make sure that our ordinances are meeting their intent. So I will be voting in favor of this to continue that discussion. On the motion of cancer night a second by Mr. please call the role.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Morell]: Yes, I'm in front of the negative. The motion passes. Going back to the records that were tabled earlier in the meeting as we waited for Councilor Scarpelli. The records of meeting of July 19th, 2022 were passed to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, I have to sign them. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears.
[Collins]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Council night. Yes.
[Caraviello]: Before we close, I just like to let everybody know that August 21 is challenge day for the MIT baseball group, a long time group started in Medford for the boys and girls that are physically challenged. I ask everyone to please come out to Debra Park. on the 21st to support the group. People helping children with physical disabilities to have a good fun day with playing sports there. It's a good family day. There's all kinds of different people there, and animated characters. So I urge everyone to try and attend.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Carvejo.
[Scarpelli]: Sorry, I have to mention, I know that unfortunately I couldn't make it the other evening, but my daughter did go and the kudos to the Method Police Department on the National Night Out. What an event to really showcase what our Method Police Department does for our community and the discussions I've had with neighbors and friends that really never looked at the police in that light. It was such a refreshing conversation we had. So I just want to give them congratulations. And this is what really, these are the type of events that really enhance what NEPA's really about. So it's exciting to see. I think we should do more of those. So thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. Scarpelli. And I just want to note tomorrow's meeting, the whole meeting will be about tax exemption programs available to the city. Just an educational meeting to ask questions. It will be Zoom only 6 p.m. And also there is a traffic commission meeting probably of interest on Tuesday, August 16th at 5 p.m. because it talks about bike lanes on Winthrop Street, talking about Winthrop Street endlessly here at Stephen Miller Drive and Main Street at Mystic Avenue. Do I have a motion to adjourn? I have a motion of Councilor Scarpelli to adjourn as seconded by Councilor Caraviellola. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes.
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
|
total time: 26.89 minutes total words: 4809  |
total time: 19.31 minutes total words: 3319  |
total time: 11.82 minutes total words: 1889  |
total time: 22.31 minutes total words: 4929  |
|
total time: 8.38 minutes total words: 1611  |
total time: 35.79 minutes total words: 6270  |
total time: 7.83 minutes total words: 1166  |
|