[Caraviello]: Good evening. The 14th regular meeting of the Medford City Council, April 6th, 2021. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Present.
[Clerk]: Councilor Falco. He appears to be absent.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Falco is absent.
[Clerk]: Vice President Knight.
[Knight]: Present.
[Clerk]: Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Present.
[Clerk]: Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Present.
[Clerk]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Present.
[Clerk]: President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Present. 6 in the affirmative, one absent.
[Knight]: flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[Caraviello]: Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order, suspending certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law, Chapter 38, Section 18 of the Governor's March 15th, 2020 order, imposing strict limitations on the number of people they may gather in one place, this meeting of the Medford City Council will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. Specific information and general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and parties with a right or requirement to attend this meeting can be found on the city of Medford website at www.medford.org. For this meeting members of the public who wish to listen or watch the meeting may do so by accessing the meeting link contained herein. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time by a technological means. In the event that we were able to do so despite this efforts, we will post on the city of Medford or community media website an audio, a video recording transcript, a rather comprehensive record of the proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 2-1, 3-0-6, open mic. Vice President Knight, being so resolved at the Medford City Council, congratulate Terry Cotter on being named Methodist First Poet Laureate. Vice President Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. Many of us here in the community are familiar with Terrence Cotter and the work that he's done in our city, doing volunteerism, doing poetry, doing workshops out at the West Metro Community Center and the like. Just recently, he was named the city of Medford's first ever poet laureate. As we've seen over the past several years, the city of Medford has made a commitment and a focus on the arts here in Medford. And Terry Carter has been someone that's at the forefront of that, Mr. President. So I'd ask that they join me in congratulating Terrence on being named the first ever poet laureate in the city of Medford. Thank you, vice president Knight. I'd also ask that a citation commemorating this memorable achievement be put together for him for a presentation before the council. Thank you on the motion by Vice President seconded by Councilor Scott by Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Knight]: Council bears.
[Caraviello]: Yes. Councilor Falco was absent Vice President night. Yes. Councilmarks Council Morell. Yes. President Caraviello? Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent, motion passes. 21307 offered by Vice President Knight, be it resolved that the Medford City Council extend its deep and sincere condolences to the family of Allan McDougal on a recent passing. Vice President Knight. Mr. President, I erroneously excluded Councilors Falco and Scarpelli as co-sponsors of this resolution.
[Knight]: Where Councilor Falco and Mr. McDougal were very close friends in high school, I'd ask that this matter be tabled for next week with Councilor Oakley participating.
[Caraviello]: Second. On the motion by Vice President Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. To table for next week. To table for next week. Yes, Councilor Scarpelli and Falco, I erroneously excluded. On the motion to table for next week. Do you want me to add them as sponsors for next week as well? No. Do you want to add them as sponsors? Please, please. Mr. President. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Knight]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco is absent. Vice President Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks.
[SPEAKER_10]: Yes.
[Knight]: Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Yes. Six in the affirmative. One absent. Motion passes. Councilor Scarpelli. Motion to suspend the meeting until we hear from Chief Giliberti. I believe he's on the call.
[Knight]: Yes, he is.
[Caraviello]: That would be motion 21094. On the motion by Councilor Scott Felly, seconded by? Second, Mr. President. Second by Vice President May. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco is absent. Vice President Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Officer Scarpelli?
[Knight]: Yes. President Caraviello?
[Caraviello]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent. Chief Gilberti, welcome to our meeting. Could we unmute you?
[Giliberti]: Do you hear me, Mr. President? Do you hear me? We can hear you, Chief. It looks like we just lost the chamber for a second, so we might need to give it a minute to get back connected. Okay.
[Knight]: Anybody? Still waiting for them to reconnect. Here they are.
[Caraviello]: We set that? Chief, try it again.
[Giliberti]: How's that? Testing, one, two, three, four.
[Caraviello]: We got you, Chief. Thank you, Chief. Address of the record, please.
[Giliberti]: Say again?
[Caraviello]: Name and address of the record, Chief.
[Giliberti]: Frank Giliberti, Junior Fire Chief, City of Medford, 120 Main Street, Medford.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Chief. Chief, you want to give us a brief synopsis? Yes.
[Giliberti]: First, let me thank you all, Mr. President and Council Councilors for having me this evening. I'll begin with our lease agreement for the two ladder trucks has been signed last week. So that is a one step forward. Hopefully, in mid to end of May, we will be traveling to Wisconsin to do a final inspection on both of those ladder trucks. and hopefully take delivery probably hopefully by the 1st of June. I'm keeping my fingers crossed as you know with COVID the plant out in Wisconsin was shut down numerous times and everything is behind schedule. We're hoping to get these two ladder trucks at Christmas time and then it got moved to February And now we're at the mid to the end of May. Hopefully that's the last delay, but I can't guarantee that. But I did get some pictures updated. Every once in a while, they send some pictures. So they are making progress with the two ladder trucks. We have recently taken delivery of a new utility truck. with a eight foot plow and a hydraulic lift gate that was delivered a few weeks ago. We're still in the process of fitting it. We've had the lettering done. We're waiting to get all the emergency lights and then we can install those and then install the radio and have that service available. The task force report, I believe you all have had a copy of that. We have started some work on some of the outside stations, in particular, some of the roof works, roof leaks, things of that nature. Some of the small stuff we're trying to get knocked off. The roof at engine two has been repaired. We are in the process of getting it fixed. getting quotes and advertising to put in three new kitchens, engine two, engine five, and engine six. But engine six is right now on the back burner until we get the roof replaced. That station needs a whole new roof. New hires. We are in the process. I think that process has begun. Hopefully we will be putting some new candidates on the department. We do have some retirements coming up this year. By the end of the year, there'll be another additional five, I believe. And that's about it as far as what's happening. If I have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
[Caraviello]: questions for the chief. Councilor Scarpelli. Hi, Chief. Thanks for being here this evening.
[Giliberti]: Thank you. Thank you. Good to see you.
[Caraviello]: So I think that the reason why we've done this is really to get ahead of not really looking at the budget concerns, but just ask questions to get us caught up to date with some of the concerns and issues that we might have had in prior years before we get to the budget. Do we have candidates for the academy right now? I know we always had trouble finding spots in the academy to fill these retirements. Are we going to be okay with that?
[Giliberti]: The last report I received from the academy is they did have openings for the August class. However, they're probably filled by now. The new list, the new certification for the firefighters entry level was established on March 15th, so it's brand new. That's where our candidates will come from. And it's, I can't give you a date when they would go into the academy because of that process of hiring them is quite a lengthy and involved process. So.
[Caraviello]: All right. So what does that leave us with the retirement? So we still, are we going to be in some, we have some issues with staffing or are we okay?
[Giliberti]: Well, we're okay. Don't forget, we do have a 23 man minimum per ship, so, which constitutes overtime, so.
[Caraviello]: So again, so that's why, so we're hoping to get, are we going to go with just five or are we adding more? Do you know if there's plans to add more than five?
[Giliberti]: We've had discussions between five and 10 or so.
[Caraviello]: Okay.
[Giliberti]: Yep.
[Caraviello]: All right. And I know that the patch had that we started some, capital improvements for the fire department. You know, the mayor had a story. Does this mean that, um, Is this what you were speaking of earlier, the roofs, is that part of that?
[Giliberti]: Yes, yes, there's a whole, each and every station, the task force, and the task force began in October of 2020. We met for six months, weekly, and then we came up with, everybody in the department practically was involved with this endeavor. My six deputy chiefs, the house captains for each one of the stations, uh, several members of the task force firefighters. And we prioritized from highest priority down to lowest priority. And, um, we have begun some of the work, some of the low hanging fruit, if you will. And hopefully we will continue to do that. And until we have to tackle the bigger, bigger problems.
[Caraviello]: All right. Well, I I know there's a lot of bigger problems. We took those tours together and we need to put money where our mouth is and go after making sure that our employees in the fire department have everything they need to succeed and live in a safe environment. So I think that that's all I have for now, but thank you for being here again, Chief. Thank you. Chief, do you want to go over the mutual aid agreement with us also while you're here? That's a separate resolution. That's a separate paper, so I would add it after this. I will add it after this. Chief, I'd like to also, if I can, Mr. President, just thank our men and women from the fire department that joined the city of Somerville in that huge fire this past weekend. and their efforts. I think it's, this is what we'll be talking about later, but I wanted to make sure I give a pat on the back for everybody that was involved with that. So thank you. Thank you.
[Giliberti]: We have currently have companies over in Everett and Santilly Circle fighting a brush fire. It's on the Everett side. They've been there an hour now, I think. So that's what they need to do.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Chief Gilberti for being on the call. It's taken a couple of weeks to get the chief here. I heard he weighed up and now looking at him, it looks like he was laid up on the beach. But that's all right. I'm glad to have him here. Chief, if you can answer a question. The mayor's capital plan talks about looking at the headquarters in year 2024 of her five year plan. and the plan that was just submitted from this working group talks about having the fire headquarters be the last and priority, the last station to get any needs done. Can you just explain that to me?
[Giliberti]: Well, that's true. We need to get these outside stations up to par for the firefighters and The headquarters replacement or renovation is going to be a long process. The mayor has started to review the past feasibility study. So we need to move that along and that's going to take some time. So there is no real reason why we went with the outside stations versus headquarters. They all need a lot of work. Headquarters, the recommendation from the task force was to replace the headquarters building. And you know how long, that takes a long, long time to come to fruition from the planning stages through construction.
[Marks]: So Chief, that's one of my main concerns is that the headquarters, as we all know, was pushed off when we were gonna do a combined police and fire center. And we only ended up moving forward with the police side. And at the time, the headquarters had a lot of immediate needs. And now what troubles me is that the mayor's capital plan calls for looking at the headquarters in year, I believe it's four or the five year capital plan. And we all know that who knows what's gonna happen in year 2024, if that will still be the priority of the city, would be other needs that jump ahead of that. which I hope is not the case, but it was the case last year when other needs jumped ahead of the headquarters, the fire headquarters. So I'm concerned now that we're putting off immediate needs with the expectation that in year 2024, we may get a new station, a new headquarters, but that remains unseen. We don't know that. So we're kind of kicking the can down the street once again on the headquarters and, you know, I realize we don't want to put good money after bad money into the headquarters if it's going to be replaced. But I think the immediate needs, Chief, that we saw, the front of the facade that's pulling away from the building, the bathrooms that were in poor condition, as you know, the kitchen that's close to where the apparatus parks and contagions and everything else in the living quarters where these firefighters are. You know, I think these issues, although they're probably costly, need to be addressed immediately. And I'm hoping that under your leadership, Chief, that the fire headquarters is not last on the list, but should be first, Mr. Chief.
[Giliberti]: If I may, Mr. Councilor Marks. Some of the points that you touched on with headquarters, they have been addressed. The bathrooms, the bathrooms have been addressed. The wall pushing away from the building, that has been repaired. As far as the capital plan that's out there, that's not etched in stone. That can be updated. It's a fluid document. And that's all based on financial availability and need. So whether or not, That's your opinion, whether you're talking about having headquarters go first.
[Caraviello]: Right, I mean, I can only offer my opinion. True.
[Giliberti]: So, I'm just concerned where- Headquarters is also part of this, the task force recommendations too. There's a need to do some work here also.
[Caraviello]: But from what I read, Chief, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you were gonna take all the fire stations in a phased approach, depending on priorities, and that the headquarters was gonna be the last in the phased approach out of the six fire stations. Is that not correct?
[Giliberti]: That is correct, yes.
[Marks]: Right, so that's what I mean about kicking the can down the street on a building we already know, you know, it was housed where the police department was housed, and in my opinion, was in no better shape than the police department, which we condemned that building more or less and built a new police station. So I just want to put that out there, Chief. I know the brave men and women of the fire department deserve no less. And I'm glad to see after all these years of the council and residents talking about the condition, as well as the firefighters, the condition of the buildings that at least something's being acted upon. So I'm pleased to see that. I just hope we're able to get to each building and the needs that they have Chief. Thank you.
[Giliberti]: We had, don't forget, as I said earlier, we had a half a dozen of the membership as part of that task force. So everybody, as I said, chipped in, and that was the consensus with the task force to tackle those outside stations first, one by one, and then again, come to headquarters.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Falco?
[Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Chief, for being with us here tonight. And I apologize that it's a little bit late. And I have a couple of quick questions, three questions that actually, I think you touched upon some of it when Councilor Scott probably was asking me questions. So I apologize if it's a little repetitive. It's okay. How many firefighters do we currently have? How many are retiring? And how many should we have?
[Giliberti]: We currently have 111. That leaves us with 13 vacancies right now. We were budgeted this current year. As you know, we had lost 10 positions, but they have been put back into the budget. We have five retirements that will be taking place between June and the end of the year. which would bring us back up to 124.
[Falco]: And is the 124 is how many we should have?
[Giliberti]: That's how many firefighters we have been budgeted in years past.
[Falco]: Hopefully. Without getting too detailed because they know it's not a budget meeting. How many do you feel we should have?
[Giliberti]: Again, that's a tough question because in my 22 years, I think when I first became chief, we had 135, went down to 128. And now we're at 124. So we've been at 124 for quite some time. If I could have 200 firefighters, that would be great, but that's an impossibility. So if we get back to that 124 number, we're in good shape. Again, don't forget we have that minimum manning per shift.
[Falco]: Chief, thank you very much. And thank you to the men and women of the fire department.
[Giliberti]: Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Do we have any further questions for the chief? Mr. President? Councilor Marks. Just if I could, one recommendation that was made in the most recent report from that ad hoc committee that was set up by the mayor was to provide for a satellite fire station in the Wellington Circle area due to all the recent construction, due to the additional traffic and the nature of getting through that particular area. And, you know, for years, We had a member of this council that brought up that issue back so many years ago, Mr. President, was way ahead of his time, stating that because of the growth in Wellington and the high rises and the need brought that satellite up many years ago. And there were many people in the administration that pooh-poohed it at the time, saying it's ridiculous, it's a ridiculous idea and so forth. And now we're seeing that, we're revisiting that now again, Mr. President. And that's a recommendation with the chief just mentioned, this committee that was established that is comprised of many firefighters. And at the time, it was our colleague, Councilor Penta, that brought up that issue over and over again, Mr. President, and it fell on deaf ears. And I just want to thank my colleague for his insight on that issue and the fact that He was always looking out for the best interest of this community. And I believe having a satellite in that particular area is in the best interest of everyone that lives in that area, Mr. President. And I look forward to the ultimate recommendations someday of the creation of the satellite. Thank you. Chief, would it be possible to build something in the Wellington area, like in conjunction with Malden, something similar to like Revere did? with Malden over by the quarry there?
[Giliberti]: I don't know. That's not my expertise. I would say no. I don't even know how well that Revere Malden twin fire station is working out, to be honest with you. But as far as what Councilor Marks had said, I remember Councilor Penta talking about a satellite station in the Wellington area, but don't forget, it wasn't this administration, okay? And I just gotta say that this mayor has made the repairs and everything that we've done with the task force one of her top priorities, okay? And she's even involved in the meetings with us, and she keeps pushing forward and pushing forward. So I just want you all to know that. And I don't know if it's gonna be a possibility to have a satellite station, but with what's gone on over there and the continued build over there, hotels and apartments, Whether or not there's property over there that we can do that, I don't know. I don't know, that's not up to me. But I do remember the councilor bringing that up years ago. But that was under a previous administration, not this one. This one's right out front and pushing this forward, these repairs and the renovations of all these stations. And as I said, I thanked her. I can't thank her enough for doing what she's done so far. So.
[Caraviello]: Mr. President, if I could. My comment wasn't directed at any particular administration. It was directed at a need and a concern that was brought up by a member of this city council that we're finally seeing be called and said, you know, saying that there's legitimacy to it and there's a need for it in the community. That's the only reason why I brought it up. Regarding land in Wellington Circle, we know that's like a hen's tooth trying to get land in Wellington Circle. What it is is when we have development coming in, a public-private partnership to say, hey, it's great to build here, but we're going to look for you to put a small satellite that we can house a small fire engine and department in there to make sure we maintain the safety. This is how we have to get creative, Mr. President. It's not going out and looking for the city to buy land. It's creating these public-private partnerships to accomplish what our goals are as a community. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Martins. Any further questions for the Chief? Okay, hearing and seeing none, we have a motion on the floor to receive and place on file. Receive and place on file. I have a motion by Councilor Scott Perry to receive and place on file. Seconded by Vice President Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Chief, don't leave.
[Giliberti]: No, I'm not going anywhere.
[Knight]: All right. It's just to receive and place on file.
[Giliberti]: I've been locked here for all day.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President Knight. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello. Yes, I'm in the affirmative, motion passes. Mr. President, communications from the mayor please. On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Falco, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Okay, that's right. 2-1, 3-1-6. Our mutual agreement. Dear Mr. President, city councilors, I respectfully request or recommend that pursuant to Mass General Laws, Chapter 48, Section 59A, the city council, by affirmative vote of this communication, authorize the city of Medford Fire Department to go to aid another city, town, fire district area under federal jurisdiction in this commonwealth or any adjoining state and extinguishing fires therein or rendering any other emergency aid or performing any detail as ordered by the head of the fire department or the joint base Cape Cod fire district. And while in the performance of their duties in extending such aid, the members of our department shall have the same immunities, privileges that they were performing the same within this municipality. This is a resolution, this is a reauthorization of the Metro Fire Mutual Aid Agreement that was executed in November 2001 for a 20-year term, and will expire on October 31st, 2021. Chief of the Department, Frank Gilberti, will be present to answer any of the Councilor's questions. Sincerely, Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Chief Gilberti.
[Giliberti]: Mr. President, we had Metro Fire, our organization of 35 fire chiefs in and around the Boston area, we had our attorney review the mutual aid agreement that was actually 20 years old and revised it somewhat. There was some redundancy, but as far as Chapter 48, Section 59A goes, many of the communities 20 years ago, we don't know if they adopted 59A. So in order to put everybody on the same page and reaffirm and confirm, they ask that all cities and towns, whether it's through their local board of aldermen or council, that they authorize this through a vote of their body. So that every, again, like I said, so everybody's on the same page and it's a reauthorization of the mutual aid agreement.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Chief. Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. President, I think I brought this up earlier. I think this is a huge tool that we need to be part of. Like I said, two fires in Somerville, the Chief just mentioned right now in Everett, that we can help each other when it comes to something as devastating as fire and safety and wellness for our communities. And it goes both ways. I know that when we've had some serious fires here in Medford, we would often see neighbor communities here supporting our firefighters or at least covering our stations while our firefighters were out on the call. I move approval and like again, like I said to the Chief Gilberti, we appreciate everything our men and women do in our fire department and making sure everybody is safe and not only for our community, but our neighboring community. So thank you. Second the motion. All in the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Falco. Councilor Mux. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Chief Gilberti, I do have just one comment, Mr. President, that, you know, who really needs the mutual aid is our current firefighters who are going through a very difficult negotiation, Mr. President. And that's where the mutual aid is needed right now in our community. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. On the motion by Councilor Scott Perry, seconded by Councilor Falco. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Knight]: Councilor Bears. Yes.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Falco. Vice President Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Ferraro. Yes, Senator Deferment. Motion passes. Motion to revert back to regular business, Mr. President. All the motion by- Second. By Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Bears, I think it was. Regular business. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Thank you, Chief.
[Giliberti]: Thank you all. I appreciate your time. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: This is to revert back to regular business council bears. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 7 affirmative motion passes to 1308 offered by President care reveal will be a result of the city council have a city engineer, representative members source, attend the next council meeting to explain the new cutouts, Winter Street and areas that have already been dug up. The reason I put this on, I don't know if any of you have driven down Winter Street all the way down to the end. Areas of Winter Street that have already been dug up are now being marked out again. It looks like they're going to be dug up again. How many summers are we gonna have the residents of these neighborhoods go through another summer of construction? If they just got through digging and filling, why are we digging again? So I'll leave this up to my other Councilors for comments and we'll go from there. Councilor Scapelli. Thank you, Mr. President. I believe I put a resolution forward a few weeks ago asking for the administration work with Eversource to contact the neighbors in the Winthrop Street area so we can hold a meeting, again, outdoors like we did on Fulton Street, so it would be, you know, anybody that's felt uncomfortable with the COVID pandemic still, that we can speak openly in an area where we can get the information needed. And then we also asked for, I believe it was Councilor Falco that asked to post information for Eversource. I know that was one of the, one of my fellow Councilors that so the information could be online for our residents just to go to start the timeline. So if again, I could reaffirm this amendment that we asked to have this meeting as soon as possible so they can answer these questions as well as set up a timeline so we can keep all of our residents informed of what's going to happen in relatively a short period of time with you know, some major construction again on one of our major roadways. So thank you. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank you for bringing this forward. I was actually out on a walk this weekend and I did notice. that it looks like actually it's already pre-cut and it looks kind of almost like an S going all the way down Winthrop Street. So the question I had and actually Councilor Scott, probably you just hit it in the last part of your comments was basically let's find out what's going on, but let's get the timetable. Let's make sure that we have a timetable that the residents have a timetable as to when the work is going to happen, how long it's going to take and when this job is finally going to be done.
[Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Vice President Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. I believe when Eversource first came before us, some years ago now, it was Councilor Marksley called me at the time, I believe. And we discussed a number of issues surrounding this project. And one of the things I brought up was a requirement when we issued the permit for granted location that there was no storage of any equipment, materials, or debris. on the sites. And if you drive down that stretch of Winthrop Street, say from, oh, the gateway of Medford, from the Winchester line into Medford, past Temple Shalom, to the end of Victory Park, if you drive past the entrance of historic Oak Grove Cemetery, which we just invested, what, about a million bucks of community preservation money into, you'll find about 25 to 30 steel plates stacked up, rusted out, that have been sitting there all winter long, Mr. President, that they use to cover the holes that they make on the street. Again, in violation of the requirements and policy that we asked them to keep debris free from the street. And also if you drive a little bit further past Victory Park on the left hand side, Mr. President, you'll see an inordinate amount of kerbstone, granite kerbstones that have just been piled up there for months on end. This isn't what I would expect from a public contractor doing utility work here in our community. I'd expect our engineering office to be a little bit more strict when it comes to this type of thing. So I'd ask again, that we reiterate that question for the administration and stuff. what's going on with the storage of equipment and debris and material there, and whether or not they're going to be complying with the special conditions of the grant location. So you're making that a form of an amendment? I'd just like to ask for an update, Mr. President. Yes, amended for an update. Mr. President. Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you again. Councilor Knight brings up a good point. As we're proceeding with some major renovations to our roads and projects that again, to reiterate the Eversource, we have zero, zero benefit from. I think the city, we asked the city administration to make this paper, the city administration, that we truly have a clerk of the works presented. I know we haven't, I know that it's always been either the engineer or DPW director. I truly think we need people that are going to be checking in on the daily activity with the sites, making sure they're following through what we've asked them to do, because that's one of our, like I said, one of our major roadways. And we also talked about the safety and concerns of our senior citizens that live on that roadway that have to come in and out of driveways, and that's the only way to park, and not having the ability for safe travel, or safe exit or entrance to their home. So I think that we need to invest to look into putting clerks of works into these huge projects. And it doesn't have to be on the city's dime. I think this is something that our engineer, our city administration reach out to Eversource to fund that position. Again, Method isn't benefiting from this at all, but I think we definitely need a watchdog there as long as this process lasts, as long as it does. reiterate Councilor Knight said, these aren't small issues, these are big issues when you're leaving these plates and curb cuts on the side of the road because you see families and how they traverse down those roadways in a safe manner. So I ask that to be added to as an amendment. Okay, so you said.
[Knight]: Okay, so you amended by Councilor Scarpelli.
[Giliberti]: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you to my colleagues for their comments and suggestions along the lines of what Councilor Falco was saying. In addition to a timeline for the specific work going on on Winthrop Street, I'd also like the update to from Eversource to give us any sort of impact on whether the reopening on Winthrop Street will lengthen the project. We've been told, at least from previous updates, that we should be nearing the end of this project, which is you know, impact to the community for years. If they're reopening Winthrop Street, my concern is that we might see a whole nother winter without this project coming to a resolution. So I'd like to know what the long term impact if they're reopening Winthrop Street is. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Okay. Okay, so on the motion. If you could make the motion for me because I'm the president. Next week, when the city engineer can have a representative from every source and table this next week or next week. Okay, most of the table. So we report out the questions. So on the motion that we have a question we report the question with amendments from Council members. and Councilor Scarpelli. Do I miss anybody? Second, no. The motion by Councilor Scarpelli. Yes, yes. The motion to do the table, the resolution, but report out the questions by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Falco. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco?
[Knight]: Yes. Vice President Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Caraviello]: Yes. Seven affirmative, motion passes. 2-1-3-0-9, offered by President Caraviello, be it resolved that Medford City Council send its deepest and sacred condolences to the family of Irma Cassisio on her recent passing. Many of the, Irma, is a former employee of the city for many years, and her daughter has followed in her footsteps. And I've known her my whole life, and I say, good woman, nice family, and just wanted to send our condolences to her family on her recent passing. On the motion, Councilor Scott Blake, you made the motion for me? to a moment of silence.
[Falco]: Second.
[Caraviello]: The motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Falco for a moment of silence.
[Knight]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Knight]: Vice President Knight.
[Clerk]: My apologies, finish the roll call. Council Marks?
[Marks]: Yes
[Clerk]: Councilor Morell?
[Morell]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[Caraviello]: Yes. 7 in the affirmative, motion passes. 21-310 offered by Councilor Marks and Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the city's 5G small cell interim policy be discussed. Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank the number of residents that came out to attend this public meeting here tonight of the Medford City Council. After attending the March 31st ad hoc small cell committee public hearing, I am concerned that corporate grade and commercial benefits of 5G will outweigh the potential long-term health effects of 5G on our residents, home values, and environment. Method must delay any wireless build-out until the law and public policy catch up to the science. The Federal Communication Commission's declaratory ruling effectively tied the hands of local municipalities to make decisions best for their community. The city is prohibited from taking any action that is seen as prohibiting Verizon's 5G rollout. Verizon representatives at one point during the hearing told Method residents unequivocally that the FCC regulations would not allow for health concerns to be discussed as a reason for not approving their applications. This comment, true or not, is outrageous and requires a formal complaint be filed with the FCC and our congressional representatives on behalf of our community. The city, in my opinion, was ill prepared for the much anticipated 5G hearing. not presenting one subject matter expert to represent our city's interest and its residents, and only relied on the one-sided Verizon paid expert witnesses in which there were many. The city has not requested any potential mitigation from Verizon to address further disenfranchisement of the communities in Method who can least afford Verizon's new 5G. At the very least, Method should request Verizon provide free Wi-Fi to our communities of need, as well as schools, senior housing, and low-income housing. 5G will substantially increase resonant exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. This has been proven to be harmful to humans and the environment. We need to engage the U.S. government to require the FCC to do an independent study of radio frequency standards and health risks. We should support the recommendations of the 400 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand our government officials fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect the health and safety of our residents and environment. Human exposure guidelines for radio frequency used by the FCC are more than 20 years old and address only thermal, not biological impact of exposure. Over the past 20 years, A robust body of independent science has emerged showing significant biological impacts from exposure to radiofrequency microwave radiation, including clear evidence of cancer, neurological and cognitive harm, heart abnormalities, and reproductive effects. Populations especially at risk include pregnant women, Children, the elderly, individuals with implanted medical devices, or cardiac or neurological problems. Mr. President, at that particular hearing, I asked a number of questions of the committee, as well as many residents, of which many remain unanswered at this particular time. I am going to offer a number of questions that were asked at that meeting with the hopes that we will be able to get answers prior to the Thursday meeting that the Small Ad Hoc Subcommittee will have to go over the remaining 43 applications that's before us. Question number one, Mr. President, and I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli for co-sponsoring this with me. He's been there every step of the way and I appreciate his support in this. I know he has a lot to add as well. Question number one, the city's interim policy under the application process states, for residential areas, guidelines on structure height, lengths and minimum setback rules from dwellings, parks or playgrounds or similar recreational areas. I asked that question last Thursday, Mr. President. What are the setback guidelines that were created under this interim policy? And to date, there has not been one setback guideline in this community. So we don't know what the minimum setback. We heard from residents, and I think there's a resident here tonight, the small cell that they're going to put on the pole in front of his house is about 10 feet from a bedroom window. This admits, Mr. President, harmful, in my opinion, harmful exposure and radio frequency to residents of this community. We don't know what the impact is. There hasn't been enough studies. There's enough reading out there, and I must add on both sides, but we don't know what the studies are. Why are we going to move forward hastily without knowing what the impact is, the health impact. Whether the FCC allows it or not, we are here to represent our residents. The FCC doesn't care about the residents of this community. We are here, that's our responsibility. And we'd be negligent not to bring these up, these questions, and ask for answers before approval, Mr. President. So that's question number one. Question number two, under the city's interim policy, the applicant must provide a description as to why the desired location is superior to other similar locations from a community perspective, including proximity to residential dwellings, schools, parks, and playgrounds. Verizon submitted their location selection criteria for each of the 44 applications stating it is not directly adjacent to a park, school, or playground. And I asked this question last Thursday. Why did they omit dwelling? Why does their location criteria not in line with the city's interim policy that states it should be dwellings, schools, and parks, their location selected. They left out, Mr. President, dwellings. You know why? Because many of these are within yards of dwellings, bedrooms, front porches, play areas where kids are, and so forth. My next question, Mr. President, and I hope these questions don't fall on deaf ears. I know we have a meeting Thursday. And we got a robo call and we were already told by some members of that committee that they don't want any further discussion at this next meeting, which is outrageous, Mr. President. Outrageous at a public meeting to say you're going to pick and choose what public input you're going to accept. Outrageous, especially for a department head to make that comment. My next question. Under the current interim policy, the applicant is required to provide a certificate of liability insurance. The policies submitted by Verizon currently are all expired for each of the 44 petitions. I brought that up at the meeting. The chair of the meeting thanked me for bringing that to his attention, and then proceeded to say they can make that a condition of approval. Anyone else, Mr. President? If you wanted to file for a license in this building or an application to build, they would not let a submission of an incomplete application move forward, except for 5G. They'll make that a condition. Unacceptable, Mr. President, in my opinion. Amendments, Mr. President. Those were, I'm sorry, I have a few more questions on the back. Next question. How are the neighborhoods being chosen by Verizon for the 5G rollout? Wasn't my question at that meeting. A lot of residents asked Verizon representatives, why did you start off with the rollout with these particular neighborhoods? We could not get an answer. We could not get a straight answer, Mr. President. In my opinion, the neighborhoods that they picked out We're going to be the neighborhoods with least resistance. My personal opinion, which I'm entitled to. I also believe, Mr. President, if you talk to anyone in this community, and they'll tell you when they drive through certain sections of this city, that they lose their phone call. They lose their internet service. And by the way, it's not in the areas where they're rolling out. It's in other areas that they're not rolling out. that are the most complaint driven. That says a lot about this process, because the minute they get 5G in this community, it's gonna be extremely difficult for the other 150 applications, which are coming, this is 44, there's gonna be another 150 and maybe two or 300 after that from other carriers. Once they get their foot in the door, there's gonna be no stopping them. And that's what they're looking for Thursday to get their foot in the door. The next question, Mr. President. So I'd like to know why they selected those particular neighborhoods for the rollout. I believe it was South Method, Method Square, and the Hillside. The city's interim policy under aesthetics and requirements states each small cell wireless infrastructure antenna should be located entirely within a shroud or canister type enclosure. Why is the ad hoc small cell committee not following the city's interim policy and allowing Verizon not to locate these devices in a shroud or a canister? Why are they allowing a condition of approval? Why did they ask Verizon what their preference was? Why are other cities like Cambridge stating that every single cell that they're putting up will be enclosed in a shroud or a canister? But here in Medford, it's fine to ask Verizon, the petitioner, what's your preference? And guess what? They prefer not to have it enclosed. My last question, Mr. President. There's four members of the board, this small ad hoc committee. They're all department heads here at City Hall. And I must say, this is a very, very difficult decision for them to make. It may sound like an easy decision. It's not an easy decision. Our hand is tied. And we really should be looking at our federal delegation, our congressman, a woman, and our senator. or our senators to be asking for relief, Mr. President. But why, out of the four representatives, when they took the first vote, which they approved, was the vote three to one? Three in favor, one against. The one against, Mr. President, in my opinion, did not state a reason why they were against. And that one person was the director of the Board of Health. That should be concerning for every resident of this community, and I'd like to know what the reasoning is for the Board of Health Director to state that she was against these 5G small cells within our neighborhoods. That's an important thing, and I'd like to know why, Mr. President. I have eight amendments, if you could just bear with me, and I'd like to go through them. I know the clerk does a great job capturing these, I feel comfortable that this is all being captured. I'd like to make a motion, Mr. President, my first amendment. The city's interim policy should be updated to include a cap on the number of 5G installations allowed in Medford. Currently, there is no cap at all. You can locate 10,000 of these in the city of Medford. There is no cap, no restriction. So I would ask that as my first motion, Mr. President. The second motion, the city's interim policy should establish setback guidelines to address the distance small cell wireless facilities can be placed from residential housing. So before we move forward, before we take any other vote, Those guidelines, we've had plenty of time. This policy has been in effect since 2019 from the previous administration and currently 15 to 16 months with this current administration. The interim policy was created by Mayor Burke at the time. It's a policy. It's not a city ordinance that would be created by the council. It's an interim city policy. So that would be my second motion, Mr. President, the guidelines and distance from housing. Third motion, amend city's interim policy to include the following language. In residential zoning districts, installations should not be placed directly in front of a residential home. Where there is a side yard setback with open space or other space, preference should be given to applications to locate an installation on the public way in front of a side yard setback. I didn't create that. I wish I did. That's in the city of Cambridge's policy. Mr. Clerk, if you don't get all this, I have it in writing so I can give it to you. Fourth motion. The city amended its interim policy to create a location requirement which lists the most preferable locations. Right now, we don't have such policy. The following are the most preferred location areas for 5G installation in order of preference. Industrial districts, number one, if not adjacent to a park, playground, school, residential district, or historic district. The second most preferred location, public rights of way areas, if not adjacent to a park, playground, school, residential district, or historic district. Motion number five, amend the city's interim policy to include the following language. No application may seek approval for more than five proposed facilities. No applicant or closely held applicant may file more than two applications within a 60 day of one another. So right now we have 44 applications that were filed, if not all the same day, within a day or two. Other communities state no one application can have more than five and no applicant may file more than two applications, so that would be 10 within a 60-day period. How did we end up with 44 with another 150 to come, Mr. President? Why? Because our interim policy, for better words, stinks. Thank you. It stinks. But it can be changed. Motion number six. to request the Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee not approve any more 5G applications until the city has ample time to review questions and policy comments submitted. Be it further requested, the city consult with its own 5G subject matter experts regarding issues of concern raised by residents regarding health and safety setbacks FCC 5G regulations, potential mitigation, and other issues of concern. So I'm asking for a vote tonight, Mr. President. We can separate these motions. I'd like to do them all at once, but I have all night. We'll take a vote on each. But this motion is asking that we send a message Thursday night to the ad hoc committee No different than the message we sent, Mr. President, to the Zoning Board of Appeals back so many years ago when this council stood up and we thought that the Zoning Board of Appeals extended relief to a developer that hurt a neighborhood that we sued our own Zoning Board of Appeals. If Verizon doesn't like it, bring it on, Mr. President. Bring it on. Lawsuits don't scare me. Bring it on. What scares me is health concerns in our community and not being at the table and being able to have input. Motion number seven, request our federal delegation calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect the health and safety of our residents and the environment. That is crucial, Mr. President. That has to catch up with the science, Mr. President. Currently, the FCC is working off 20-year-old information, and there's much more information that has been updated over the last 20 years. Currently, Mr. President, another amendment, the city's policy states, and I offer this as an amendment, only one small cell wireless facility shall be eligible to be approved on a poll and support structure in the this is the town of Burlington, and this is what they state. So the town of Burlington states only one wireless on each pole, for each provider. I'm sorry, thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And that makes sense, Mr. President. However, many communities require co-sharing, and they write it right into their policy. So if Verizon wants to come in and you see the ads for AT&T now all over about 5G, They're coming in. There's no doubt about it. They're coming in. And to allow them to go on separate polls means they're going to be in front of every hall. You can guarantee they'll be in front of every hall. So at least if we can safeguard, if these are going to be installed, which I'm opposed to, that my motion would read, It is the town's strong preference, on this case the city, that whenever an applicant poses to place a new small wireless facility, that the applicant co-locate the same on an existing wireless support structure. And I would ask that that be adopted into our interim policy, Mr. President. And the last thing I just want to give is notification like I did last time. There was over 160 residents that were on the Zoom call. on March 31st. 160, Mr. President. You really, very seldom, I attend a lot of hearings, meetings, very seldom see the like of that. And let me tell you, if you had it on Zoom and opened it up to the public, that small ad hoc subcommittee should be meeting here at the chamber. If this is not big enough, let's meet at Chevalier. If that's not big enough, let's meet at the Bosch at Karen Theater at the high school. all handicap accessible, Mr. President. So I don't want to hear the excuse about COVID. We can accommodate and also accommodate the social distancing requirements. So that alone, Mr. President, we had 160 on Zoom and we shut out many people that would love, that don't have access, that would love to come up like we have up here tonight and also participate. Many seniors that have concerns, Mr. President. And again, I would respectfully ask the committee, they're under no obligation. They can continue the meeting. They already continued it once from the 31st. They can continue it again to have an open public forum where people can attend in public as well as Zoom. I don't want people to start calling me up and saying, I'm trying to discourage Zoom. I'm not discouraging Zoom. I'm saying add another avenue for people that may not access Zoom or may not want to use Zoom. We can do it in a safe fashion, Mr. President. So I would ask anyone that's in shouting distance that this Thursday, April 8th at 6.30, the Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee will meet once again. And the meeting is a continuation of the meeting originally begun on March 31st at 6 p.m. And it's a continuation of the public hearing for Verizon applications for 43 proposed small cell infrastructures in the city of Medford. And I would also state, Mr. President, that if anyone tells you on that committee they're only hearing certain testimony only allowing certain public comments. If you already spoke, unless this is directed directly in front of your house, they're not going to allow it. They are in violation as far as I'm concerned, of the open meeting law and allowing for public input. They're in violation. There's no way that states that you can only speak one time, Mr. President. There's no way that states that you have to be directly impacted to speak in a public hearing. The Zoom information, meeting ID, for those that want to go on Zoom, 933-7697-5064. And the passcode, they really don't want people to get on, because usually you go on a Zoom meeting. This has a passcode on top of it. 035-999. And the dial-in number, which you can, 929-205-6099. Mr. President, I know there's a fair amount of residents here today that took the time. I know Councilor Scarpelli, which co-sponsored this resolution, and we spent much time going through many of the recommendations here. And I'll let him speak for himself, Mr. President. And I want to thank my council colleagues for indulging me on this very important matter, Mr. President, of safety and awareness in this community.
[Caraviello]: On question number three, can you go over that again, the certificate of liability insurance?
[Marks]: So question number three, Under the current interim policy, the applicant is required to provide a certificate of liability insurance. The policies submitted by Verizon are expired. They were submitted when they originally filed the petitions back in 2019. And the life on these was a year, and many of them were from just say June 2019 to, you know, the end of, yes, May of 2020.
[Caraviello]: Just so we can have them in the form of a question, you're requesting a new certificate of liability.
[Marks]: That is a requirement of the interim policy.
[Caraviello]: Right.
[Marks]: So, you know, and they weren't aware of it until I brought it up. And that's a very important, it may seem like a small thing, but insurance certificate of liability is a very important thing to safeguard our residents, our poles, safety walking underneath these poles, and so forth. I appreciate you bringing that up.
[Caraviello]: If you could pass all those questions on to the clerk, as neither one of us, we couldn't, we couldn't write that fast. So if you could please pass those out.
[Marks]: I will do so. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Marks]: Absolutely.
[Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you. And again, I will not try to match what Councilor Marks has said, because I said this the other night. This is what a Councilor does. Council Marks was ahead of this before anybody else. He did his homework. He was thorough, and when he went to the meeting the other night, I was on that meeting, and I think it would have done a major disservice if I jumped in with what he's already done. I think that we're lucky to have him spearhead this effort because there are concerns. I know that Councilor Knight also has done his homework, and I wanna leave what he's done to be presented by his expertise. All I'm really focused on right now is Um, the understanding that I support Councilor Marks and every syllable he mentioned this evening. I think that there is such confusion out there right now. That's coming from the administration. It's coming from different department heads that who can do what, this is the city council's privy, this is the mayor's privy, so we'll clear that up, I believe, this evening. But I do want to, if I can, there were department heads that were there the other night, Mr. President. Do you know, unfortunately I can't tell, is Tim McGivern or Alicia Hunt on the call right now?
[Caraviello]: Hold on a second. I do not.
[Scarpelli]: Okay. Is that as Dave Rodriguez, the chief of staff, is he eligible to speak? If I asked him a question.
[Caraviello]: I do not see him on the call.
[Scarpelli]: Okay.
[Caraviello]: Do you see him? I don't see any of the people that you asked.
[Scarpelli]: Council Marks already brought this up, but I wanted to make sure that we had someone on the call today that we can implore to them that the biggest call that one of the biggest bothersome issues that came about was something this council has worked hard to do, and that's making sure that everybody is represented, that everybody has a chance to speak. I mean, we can go all the way back to the budget hearings last year that we had enough concerns that we didn't show up to a meeting because we wanted to make sure that there was a forum for everybody to speak. We worked hard, the council president worked hard with the administration to make sure we have people here that I will bet you a dollar for everyone that they wouldn't have had an opportunity to get on Zoom to express their concerns to them. They're in a safe manner, they're socially distancing, they're following through all the rules, And that brings me to the biggest question, the biggest issue I had with this, is that a department head mentioned that this, we've heard enough community participation and no one else can speak. I wanna make sure that the chief of staff and the department heads understand they're running this meeting. Everybody that'll be there on Thursday, I know listen, we've been there. We've been the marathon meetings that lasted to one two o'clock in the morning. This is our job. This is your job. This is this affects everybody's just because it might not follow the telephone pole in front of your house doesn't mean that you can't listen to every concern of every citizen in our community because it matters. Because today it's in front of one person's home. But like we talked about, they're expecting another 40, 50 who knows how many more So this scares a lot of people. There are a lot of questions out there. And I'll tell you, it just tells you how great the city of Medford is. I heard some great dialogue from some brilliant people in our community. Unfortunately, the only people that were answering those questions were scientists, or managers, or people involved with Verizon. Either they work for the construction companies that'll be doing the installation, they weren't directly, one of the questions, do you work with Verizon? And the answer was, no, I work for this company. Well, that's the company that puts in the towers for Verizon. So technically, he's telling the truth. But these are the issues that we have. And why do we know that when communication can either help or hurt, with the lack of? A few years back, a gentleman named Bill Carr Jr. started a committee to build new fields behind Medford High School. And what he did was he went out and secured a cell phone tower of over a million dollars to pay for those fields. And he was given every single hurdle to jump over, every single route to run through. And one of the biggest questions those neighbors had in the area, because everybody knows around the Medford High School area, there's absolutely zero cell space there, that no one can pick up a call. And that's one of the number one cell areas in the country, we were told. And what we did is we brought in Educators and scientists from MIT and Tufts that we didn't pay, they came in on their own, brought in by the community members because they worked at MIT or worked at Tufts, and they brought these professionals in that really helped all the neighbors understand what the scenarios were. And that, to be honest with you, it calmed a lot of people down. What we're seeing right now, what I'm hearing now with hundreds of emails and phone calls is the lack of representation of an independent person, an independent scientist that are gonna give us a little more insight. Instead, we heard some great dialogue from people that have done their homework. I know one gentleman, he had the study from Europe that they don't allow this at all. It's not even a question. So, you know, the Board of Health was a member of that committee who voted no, that should speak volumes. So again, I implore the city administrators that will be running this meeting, whatever department it is, whether it's Alicia Hunt, whether it's Tim McGivern, that they do not stop the process of our residents being able to speak, because this is their forum. This is their community. And I will tell you, if that does happen Thursday night, I will do everything in my power to make sure they are punished in every way possible through the state. So again, Councilor Marks, I will not try to delve into what you've already said. I think that it was stated perfectly, and I appreciate you standing strong, and I agree. We're gonna sue our own entity here in the city. I'm not afraid to stand up and make sure that our citizens are safe. So thank you.
[Marks]: Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Vice President Knight.
[Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. And thank you for my two colleagues that preceded me on this topic. I'm going to try to keep it short. But ultimately, Mr. President, bottom line is people should have the right to know what health risks are associated with devices that are being affixed to poles outside the house by government entity. I mean, that just It's ludicrous to me to think that the federal government would not recognize health risk as a basis for denial of an application. It's shameful. But Mr. President, I think the understatement of the year was made this evening when Councilor Marks made his opening remarks. The city of Medford was ill-prepared, ill-prepared for the 3/31 meeting. Going back to April of 2019, That's when the first 5G site meeting was scheduled. April, 2019, two years ago, and it was canceled. In August of 2019, then Mayor Burke came to us with this small cell ad hoc committee, and the council supported that. In November, residents were notified of a site placement hearing, and that meeting was canceled. In January of 2020, An info session was held with Verizon and the members of this community here in this room. That was a total and absolute failure. Round tables, no question and answers. It was more like a high school science fair than it was any type of symposium for residents to get questions or answers to their concern. Which brings us to January of 2020 yet again, when this council passed a resolution unanimously with, I believe, a councilor that was sitting here. No, no, she wasn't sitting here anymore. Now she was across the hall. We passed it unanimously asking the city call for a symposium where residents from this community could come and meet with the ad hoc small cell committee representatives from Verizon and the administration to talk about their concerns in the rollout of this project. That never happened. The very next week, Councilor Marks put forward a resolution because we haven't seen any movement that the small cell advisory committee implements stricter standards on their application process to make it a little bit more difficult to walk into our community and do whatever they want. So this is January 2020, February 2020, nothing. March 2020, there was a 5G site meeting that was scheduled and canceled. April, May, June, July, August, September, radio silence, nothing. No movement, no activity, nothing. November of 2020, the city administration calls for an executive session with this council to discuss a potential lawsuit from Verizon to the cities in action on the applications. November of 2020. December of 2020, nothing. January of 2021, nothing. February of 2021, a correspondence from the mayor's chief of staff indicating that they're going to move forward with the site hearing for 5G with the Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee. March of 2021. Scheduled, canceled, and rescheduled. March 31st, the meeting was held. We are two years, two years from the initial date that these applications became an issue in this community. Two for 24 months. And we are no further ahead today than we were on August 28th, 2019. No further ahead. I commend my colleague to doing his homework for raising the questions and bringing these issues forward, Mr. President. They're serious issues, serious issues. And to think that one of us behind this rail is gonna take a vote not knowing if one of those devices can cause cancer to just one person in this community is insane, is insane to think that we're gonna take that risk. We're going to take that risk, and it's shameful for the federal government to put us in that position. I'll stay with my colleagues all day on this one. I'm not taking a vote that's going to hurt people and put the health at risk if we don't know. If we don't know, we shouldn't be taking the vote. And I stand with my colleagues on this, and I thank you both for bringing this forward.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Vice President. Thank you. Councilor Bears?
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to my colleagues. I won't reiterate the points and discussions that have already been made, but I do want to focus in on specifics around the legality here. I agree that it's shameful that corporations have managed to get the government to pass legislation and write regulations that gives them so much authority and takes authority away from local governments that are really responsible for these decisions at the end of the day. But I do want to propose a B paper, and I'll get to the text of it in a second, that focuses on the legal matters here. There were two orders issued by the FCC in 2018. An August 2018 moratoria order and a September 2018 small cell order that essentially is the reason that we're in this position. Completely limits the ability of local governments to address the issue. Those orders have been litigated. Communities have challenged those orders and all the way up to the Ninth District Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the litigation has been denied. Courts have said that the FCC order is a blanket, that that is, you know, that that's the law. So I agree that with what Councilor Knight said especially, this is not, you know, something that we should be voting on. But at the end of the day, unless we have a change in federal law and unless state laws are changed, if there's litigation, it'll be moved up to the chain, you know, moving up the chain of courts and eventually Verizon will force its way through anyway. and it will also cost the city money according to the FCC order. So I'd like to propose a B paper specifically focused on the legal question, which is that the city council request that the Biden administration, the FCC, and our federal delegation amend the FCC's August 2018 moratoria order and September 2018 small cell order to remove restrictions on local government authority to regulate the design replacement and installation of 5G small cell transmitters. And that we receive a reply within 30 days. And Mr. Clerk, I'm going to send that to you right now. And I appreciate the comments of my colleagues. I just wanted to focus specifically on that legal question. Because, you know, we may find ourselves right back in the same position after years of lawsuits.
[Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Marks for bringing this forward tonight. And I know Councilor Marks, you brought a number of resolutions regarding 5G before us. And I want to thank you both for all your time, effort, and energy that you put into this, because I know you put in a large amount of time and effort. I think the last resolution you put forward, there were at least nine amendments, which, you know, it was very detailed. And I thank you for your time advocating for the residents and thank the residents for coming down as well. You know, technology is great, but if there are adverse health effects, you know, those need to be looked at and they need to be researched and there shouldn't be a rush to judgment. I myself have someone that I actually have a telephone pole right in front of my house. It's probably about 15, 20 feet from the house. And I know I wouldn't want it in front of my house. You know, I mean, from everything I read, it's questionable. We don't have the answers. And to vote on this, I mean, I don't feel comfortable on it. I mean, I know I wouldn't want to put it in front of my house if I didn't have those answers. And I feel like it's very unclear. The research is unclear. And it needs to be researched more. And like I said, if there's any type of health effects, negative health effects, they need to be researched. You know, I thank you for, you know, standing up and then fighting and I'm here with you and I support your motion, your amendment. So I thank you for continuing this and bringing it forward and I'm with you. So thank you.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my fellow councilors for their many salient points on this. I definitely agree with Councilor Marks and Scarpelli that this was a real miscommunications opportunity from the city. I think that's where we can kind of get runaway narratives in both direction when we are caught on our heels like this. And through my research and looking at other communities addressing this, because of course, we're not alone. The town of Belmont actually completed a full report, you know, assessing the technology and how to communicate it to residents and how to engage with residents around, you know, what a community could benefit from something like this. Is there a benefit that is being offered? And I think that's a major the city of Medford. I think it's a. Bone of contention and that it's essentially Verizon coming in for all of their benefit. No talk about how this could benefit the city of Medford or what impacts, um. Could be for the city of Medford. Um I also, um, being on the meeting. I definitely took issue with the, um. The representative from Verizon. I uh, the scientist that was different times. I don't think that did anyone any favors by having that gentleman really talk down to residents. A lot of people have very valid questions. And again, as other councils have pointed out, we don't have the people we should have independent experts to help answer that. We are in no shortage of people studying this at our many great universities surrounding us. So I think it would be, again, as others have pointed out, very beneficial. to have those people to speak to it. I very much support more research on this. Unfortunately, that's not what's before us right now. I would like to add, I guess it would be a C paper at this point, in that it's my understanding that if we were to either adopt an ordinance or if the policy were to be updated, I don't know if that could be applied to the 44 Um, that applications are already in. It's my understanding from the FCC, the way the legislation is written, that these aesthetic requirements or any conditions have to be set prior to receiving applications. So I would just seek clarity on that. You know, if we were to adopt, um, additional conditions, if the city were to adopt additional conditions, could they actually be, uh, could they stand? Could they be legally applied, um, to existing applications?
[Caraviello]: If you could email that to the clerk also. And I for one, I say, this is why we were elected to this body here, to protect the people of Medford and not be bullied by a big corporation like Verizon. Council Member Rollins is right. They were arrogant and rude and very condescending to the people that were there, and said, we're there to ask questions, and this is what we do, is we protect the people of Medford. I want to thank my fellow councillors, especially Councilor Marks, Councilor Scott, Councilor Knight, for the tremendous amount of work they did on this, and I thank them, and this is why I'm proud to be a member of this council, and I support all their motions. And we have some residents of the public that would like to speak on this. And let me see, excuse me, name and address of the record, please.
[Knight]: My name is Anthony D'Antonio. I live at 24 Hicks Avenue.
[Caraviello]: And I'm glad to hear you Councilors talking about the dangers involved with 5G. I was fortunate enough to work in the last 40 years that I've worked for the National Security Agency and U.S. Foreign Service members. And to give you an idea, how the technology has advanced to today. They used to use 18 inch concrete walls to keep the radiation, the microwaves and everything from going between office to office to office. When we were in the Cold War with Russia, Czechoslovakia was involved. All these people were involved. This is dangerous stuff. They will not admit it to you. I could show you people who suffered horrible deaths because these rays that are coming everywhere you put one of these towers. This is a dangerous thing. And I don't want to overstate it, but I'm going to give you a name. I'm going to say one word that I see coming in with this 5G networks, because it's only a money thing. And there's more control behind this 5G operation than any of you know right now. And I'm going to say one word, Chernobyl. Remember that when you talk with these people from Verizon. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mary Ann Broxton. Mary Ann. Mary Ann, name and address for the record, please.
[Broxton]: Mary Ann Broxton, 25 Exchange Avenue, Medford. Councilmarks mentioned one thing, I'm sorry and I just want to have them clarify when he was talking about commercial districts, and it was in your list of amendments. I. Could you clarify what you were saying, whether you said that it is okay to put these boxes in commercial districts. And if so, um, I have a question about that because I live in what is considered a commercial district by the city of Medford housing development report. So if you're saying it's okay to be putting these boxes in, in a commercial district. There's residents that also live in commercial districts. So could you please clarify if that's what you said or if I just misheard you.
[Caraviello]: through the chair to Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. So my motion regarding the most preferable locations was the following, to locate them in industrial districts, if not adjacent to a park, playground, school, residential district, or historic district. So the most preferential would be an industrial district. The second one would be a public right of way in areas not adjacent to parks, playgrounds, schools, or residential districts. So if you live in a residential area that abuts an industrial district or public right of way, this would not be a preference. So in your case, Marianne, it would not be located near your parcel or housing. Miriam, does that answer your question?
[Broxton]: Yeah, because I just want to like, when you say, are you making, what is the distinction between a commercial district and an industrial district? Do you know, because what is your distinction with that?
[Caraviello]: Well, that's how the city zone. So the city zoned in single family, one districts, single family, two districts, which would be multiple, you know, two family, three family neighborhoods. Industrial districts are more of a high-level industrial use. We don't have many in this community, to be honest with you. And most surrounding cities and towns put that as a preference. So they don't want the 5G located in residential areas, single-family one, single-family two. They want them in industrial areas. which I don't believe you live in an industrial area.
[Broxton]: Well, I live in what's considered a commercial district according to the city of Medford housing development plot, which is right off of Mystic Ave. And they consider that to be a commercial district. So that's why I wanna know like, what is your definition between the difference between an industrial and a commercial? Because then if we're saying that it's okay to put it in, is it just like a technicality of wording or is it two names for the same thing? Because if that's the case, then there's a lot of homes that are right off of Mystic Ave.
[Caraviello]: Right, and either way, it states that you can't put it next to a residential district. So if you're on Mystic Ave and they're saying you're in a commercial district, they couldn't put it there because it abuts a residential district, right? Okay, thank you for the clarification. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you, yes, thank you. Thank you, Marianne. David, just for the record, please. My name is Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, Menton, Mass. I'm a member of the Saugus Party. I see a couple of things different here. First of all, I'd like to thank the new sheriff in town, Councilor Marks, and his deputy, Mr. Scarpelli, because they did the work that the city should have done. The city was totally ill-prepared, and they were rude, and I will agree with you from what I watched. I couldn't do the whole four hours, but what I watched and what I saw. But everybody seems to be forgetting this is a $5 billion enterprise by Verizon nationwide. $5 billion. They're not giving this away for nothing to their subscribers. And if you can remember some few years ago, a couple of years ago, they put 143 new poles in the city of Met that they were preparing for this. And there was no questions asked at that particular time as to why. So if in fact they were doing it then some two years ago, and you come to a meeting where the city is not only ill prepared, but they're staged against professionals, well, that's all that they do. That's what they get paid for to support their clients. Well, certainly the taxpayers of this community are not gonna get a hit. This council votes, this council votes on road and street construction via any contractor that comes in. Can someone please explain, you're taking the time to explain it, secure some votes and send it to a committee, why this council is not having the final vote. Can somebody please explain why the mayor of this community is gonna have that sole authority of a four member committee? It's not even odd, it's an even member committee. What is the city of Medford getting out of this? Is there some financial remuneration? Is there something coming back to the school department? Is there something coming back that's going to be a complete benefit to this community? Verizon isn't doing this out of the goodness of its heart. And let's take those areas that they want to go into. They went into the lowest socioeconomic areas of the city of Method, where they'll get the least resistance. Because if they went into the higher areas of the Lawrence Estates or in West Method, the pushback would have been different. Because the people there probably have more time and they understand the project a little bit better with the negative effect that it could have. Progress is something that we should not be afraid of. But progress should not make you afraid. to be afraid, because that's the problem that you have here in front of you. If this city council is not discussing this, the way you are, nobody out there via Zoom would have the ability to even want to understand what's going on, because technically it's just so far advanced. Now, when G4 came in, 4G, nobody said nothing. I probably don't even know what's going on with 4G. 5G is just the next one up. Maybe it's a little bit faster, as you indicated, Councilor Marks, maybe the microwaves and the biology that goes around it, we don't have the answer. And even if you do get all the answers, and even if you do send all your resolutions in support of not having 5G, because number one, the city doesn't even know, you folks don't even know if you're gonna get a benefit financial or otherwise from Verizon. Who is this four member committee? You're gonna let an even number four member committee make a determination. for the entire taxpayers of the city of Medford on Verizon 5G. Your rates are gonna go up whether you realize it or not. They're not gonna spend $5 billion for nothing. That's a big number, $5 billion. Everything that an enterprise does, they don't do it out of the goodness of their heart. Sure, you may get quicker. Listen, I'll show you. This is funny. I'm still on a flip phone. And this flip phone to me works just as well as any modern cell phone that you have out there. It does the same thing. So I'm not in my mind saying I have to have the most technological. There aren't many people like me that have this, but the ones that don't have it and the younger kids that today think that they have to have an Apple 8, 9, 10, whatever it might be. This is the crazy part about this thing. They're playing upon the emotions of the people and of the youngsters. But the unfortunate part is they're playing upon the medical part that nobody has an answer for yet. And until that answer is forthcoming, that subcommittee and this mayor should not make any determination whether they were accepted or rejected. And when the department head says that she, the office of community development department has said, they are not going to allow you to repeat yourself with a question, as Councilor Scarpelli alluded to, that is wrong. That is absolutely wrong. That's your first amendment right to speak. A taxpayer in this community, that's their right to speak. And if they don't like what they see or hear, they should not do it. And you know something, Council President, I would hope The thrust of this argument of having the ability to speak runs itself just as strong on the school department side on an issue that they've got over there, because they've not allowed the people to speak. They've not allowed the people to voice their opinion, and they've not allowed them to understand that there's two sides to a story. Until you have the tolerance to listen to both sides, nothing will ever get accomplished. Thank you. As former president Mayardo said, this is the people's world. Thank you.
[Kendall]: Do we have any other residents who would like to speak? I'm Barbara Kendall. I live at 101 Sheridan Ave.
[Caraviello]: If you could put your mask on please. Oh, thank you.
[Kendall]: Okay. Yeah, would you pass them along Tim? Thank you very much. And this has been my family home since 1955 and a 5G small cell tower is scheduled to be installed on a telephone pole in front of my house. All the homes in Sheridan Avenue are affected by this installation. They all can be seen from their front doors. We are adamantly opposed to the placement of this tower in our residential area and we'll seek legal counsel if necessary to stop this particular installation. In the short term time since I received a copy of the application application 29. I have been able to collect 20 signatures of homeowners residents and taxpayers, sure enough, or opposed to this installation in the application. or this thing that I'm showing you now, you'll see which shows the poll and the proposed additions to the poll itself. Five additional boxes excluding the antenna. The application states that three antennas will be installed, 2.5 feet high, almost a foot wide, and a half a foot in depth. The NEMA 3R cabinet is four feet high, two feet wide, and almost two feet in depth. That's in that packet as well. In addition to this cabinet, there are additional boxes, a service disconnect and distribution box, as well as a service meter box. These are also, again, shown in that LE2 drawing. le three shows me a tenant orientation plan with a small diagram showing the street grassy area the pole sits the sidewalk and the beginning of my property which is five feet from my front walking grass this pole already supports a lot of equipment existing primary power existing secondary power existing ctv existing telco slash fiber existing terminal box and a street light. Now, in deciding on 101 Sheridan Ave, and that's in this packet as well, Verizon, which is a multimillion dollar for profit company, did not take into consideration the impact on the neighborhoods. Verizon staff only looked at the four poles on Sheridan Avenue from Hooker Street down to Central Ave. Verizon, as you'll see that in the Verizon application it tells why they should pick that spot. Verizon did not look at the rest of the polls on Sheridan Ave from Hooker Street to Salmon Street. There are areas of commercial businesses on Salmon Street that are more suitable for this type of application and will not impact the peaceful enjoyment of private homes. As this installation will have to be monitored on a regular basis, this will be another disruption to the neighborhood. We are already plagued by airplane noise. And now we will have to contend with cooling fans with quote, low noise profile. We all know what that means, a constant hum or whine. My bedrooms are on the second floor and a direct line with this pole. This installation does not enhance the neighborhood and will be an eyesore. Verizon stated that their equipment cannot be enclosed in a container or shroud as previously promised in the interim policy. My question is, why are these towers being installed in residential neighborhoods, in front of people's homes, instead of commercial or industrial areas? All the designated applications have some commercial property on every corner, gas stations, corner stores, restaurants, banks, and all of Stevenson Square. Spring Street has commercial properties at the top of the street, i.e. Salem Street at Central Ave and a small square before Magoon Avenue. According to the interim policy that I read, for residential areas, Method will establish guidelines on minimum setback rules from dwellings, parks, playgrounds, or similar recreational areas. Method has yet to establish these guidelines for setbacks. Consequently, the setback on my house on Sheridan Ave is less than 25 feet from my bed, and this is totally unacceptable. According to Tim McGovern, 101 Sheridan Ave has a setback of 24 feet from the pole to my front door. and my bedroom, but the actual setback from the pole to the beginning of my front walk is five feet.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Thank you. Diane Sullivan. Diane Sullivan.
[Sullivan]: Yes, thank you, President Caraviello. I'm sorry, yes, Jerome Street, West Medford. I just wanted to note that And really highlight seeing unity on an issue is actually really encouraging to me. I appreciate the pushback that is being given. And I just want to note that, you know, we're all coming and rallying around potential threats to public health. And I just want to note those things that we know are threats to public health. And I just want to highlight a couple and just hope that we can see the same type of rallying and the same type of unity around issues like racism and hunger and homelessness. So I just wanted to note that and put that on the record. I appreciate everybody's energy around this. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Andrew Castagnetti. Mr. Castagnetti.
[Castagnetti]: Yes, sir.
[Caraviello]: Name and address of the record, please.
[Castagnetti]: Castagnetti Andrew, Cushing Street, Method Mass. I want to thank all the councilors for bringing this up. and Mayor Marks and our citizens. I'm also very concerned about this 5G. As a matter of fact, if it's so safe, as the Verizon people were telling us a few days ago, how about the mandatory, they put up a $10 billion bond for future possible health issues in 02155. By the way, I have a loved one who they plan to place one of these boxes in front of his bedroom window. And I'm very, very concerned. And it's unfair and it's appalling that we as a community, according to GOP, have no push or say because the government okayed them. I presume Verizon and the other entities of that nature had their had their people, you know, basically bribe the politicians to give them cop lunch. I'm very, very concerned. I'll see you Thursday night.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Mary Ann Broxton, did you have another question? I see your hand up.
[Broxton]: Yes, hi. I just want to say I appreciate Mr. Penta's comments, but I would like to say he said that people in low income areas don't understand these issues. We can talk about an issue without insulting people that live in low-income areas or questioning people's intelligence based on their income status. And I would wish if some council members that were sitting there, when they heard that, also called it out. So we can all talk about issues without bringing up people's intelligence based on their income level. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: I don't think that was the intent of Mr. Pinto to do that. And we apologize if we took it that way. I apologize.
[Penta]: Mr. President, I would like to, if the young lady felt insulted, I apologize. But that's the marketing that Verizon does when they go out there. They go to the lowest socioeconomic areas because that's the ones that they feel that they can move into first. That's what I said.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Do we have anybody else from the public in the audience who would like to speak? only one of you, just one, just one. Name and address of the record, please.
[Celestro]: Hi, my name is George.
[Caraviello]: You can say six feet from him, he can stand there. Name and address of the record, please.
[Celestro]: George Celestro, 1145 Bergen Road, born and raised in Medford. I want to thank Councilor Marks for standing up and stopping the votes on the night that they were doing that. The one that they did pass, the one and only that they did pass, and you stated that they're supposed to be away from Parks. College Ave, it's Stearns Ave, I believe it is. You got College Field right there. Tufts College is right there. There's schools across the street. And my house, they want to put a tower on the front of my pole. They did a great job of taking the picture from Court Street, because the pole is directly in front of my house, 10 feet from my property line, and the pole is only two feet from my property line. So it's a total of 12 feet. My living room, my bedroom upstairs, it's just, and not to mention, I live 20 feet from a park, Brogan Park, Hickey Park. So it doesn't even meet the criteria that they're saying. And the reason they put it there, because they said there was no room on Park Street. And I don't wanna, you know, I mean, I have friends on Park Street, but somebody in the city or somebody cut five trees down on Park Street. That was one of the reasons they didn't put it on Park Street. I have four other properties that I got notices about it. I have tenants that are also, 10, 20 feet away from the house. It's not right that four people on a committee have the right or whoever put them there to make decisions for everybody in the city. It's not right. And then it was the worst meeting I've seen in my entire life that I've watched. And believe me, I don't watch many meetings, but this meeting was just
[Knight]: brutal.
[Celestro]: They were clueless. They weren't prepared. They didn't have the right people on their team. They just, they weren't prepared. It was just, it wasn't right. And it was a sad night to stay up till 11 o'clock. And they kept saying, oh, we got to end this. Thank God, Councilor Marks got up and stopped it. Or they would have voted on all 44. I just I know the council will do the right thing for the residents of the city. Thank you very much.
[Calto]: Hi, Dennis Detling, Calto for 120 North Street, Medford. I don't know what to add because I've already made comments in the past and I've sent emails. Just wanted to say that I'm very impressed with what Councilor Marks has put forward as far as the resolution. And I hope that these measures pass. I know that it's always tough fighting the good fight against large corporations. I've been involved with this on and off all my life on issues of fighting racism, sexism, anti-gay bigotry. And so this is not new to me, these kind of fights. And I know that What people do and their voices speaking up does have an effect. And I noticed that, I don't know if it's a coincidence, but when I wrote to President Biden that he should fire the head of the US Postal Service, who is trying to destroy it, the next day, He appointed some members to that board. So I do think that public opinion does have an effect, and I think that the cities have an effect on what they say to the federal government. I think that the Federal Communications Commission is out of touch. And whether or not this technology, which I believe is not safe, but whether it is safe or not, I believe that an independent study needs to be made. and that the city should have the right to regulate anything, any kind of utilities that go into place in their cities. And so we should really fight for that. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Do we have anybody else from the audience who would like to speak? Good evening. Name and address of the record, please.
[Jordan]: Good evening. My name is Marilyn Jordan, and my address is 101 Sheridan Avenue. That's my sister in the back. I have a question, where do we go from here? I know he put these, Councilor Marks put the amendments in, will you be voting on them this evening? So if we get an affirmative vote, where do we go from there? Do we take that Thursday night to the ad hoc committee?
[Caraviello]: We will be sending these recommendations to the mayor. To the mayor.
[Jordan]: So would it behoove us, because we've gotten signatures, we're starting to organize in the Sheridan Grant area, would it behoove us to take those signatures up to the mayor's office?
[Caraviello]: Anything you'd like to, that would be helpful.
[Jordan]: Okay, and so once we do this and we get up to the mayor's office, should we then go visit the, well, I don't know if they'll let us come en masse, if I can get enough of a group together, but should we go then to the ad hoc people? Are they in a committee by themselves or are they in different departments? It seems to me you said they were all department heads.
[Caraviello]: The mayor would give them to the ad hoc committee. Mr. President, if I could. Thank you, Mr. President, you raised some excellent points because what is the next step? And this committee was created by an interim policy which was created by the previous mayor. So the previous mayor created this and selected these four department heads to be the ruling authority over this. So that's why they have the authority to vote on these applications. They can also deny them as well. But my suggestion is they requested a continuation for March 31st. And their meeting is coming up on April 8th, which is this Thursday. I think what we have to do in order to realize you said you have a petition, we have a number of outstanding questions that have to be answered. People in this community have the right to unite and rally around an issue. I think we have to ask Thursday night for a continuation for them not to vote because ultimately that's what they're meeting for. They're meeting to vote. So we have to get on that meeting Thursday night and ask them for a continuation to allow for unanswered questions to be answered, allow us to get our petitions around, give us ample opportunities. It's been two years, as Council Vice President Knight mentioned, give us the opportunity to unite around this issue. Now, whatever ultimately happens, happens, but don't take this issue away from us. So I think that that's what I'm going to be on Thursday night, asking them to continue the meeting once again. They have every right to do so. Horizon's not going to like that. But I think every resident that gets on that call, that should be our request. Continue the meeting to a later date, a date certain. That's what they're required to do. So they have to give a date when they're gonna meet again. And then we have the ability to get together and start meeting and asking some of these questions and looking into the policy. Some of my colleagues brought up some great points. We were told that night, and I think Councilor Morell mentioned this, that I actually mentioned that at the meeting, whether or not if we got some changes to the interim policy, would they go into effect? And we were told by KP Law, which is a firm that's hired by the administration that appeared to be on the side of Verizon, but that's a whole other story. We were told that whatever changes we make to the interim policy would not have a direct impact on these current applications. That's what we were told. So knowing that, knowing that we have to do a lot of work with the interim policy, I think the best thing to do is a continuation So we can figure out what our next steps are as a community. This is far too important. Sorry for being so long.
[Jordan]: That's okay. Does a city solicitor, has she weighed in on any of this interim policy that it is the new ones could follow under the new policy, but the old ones don't follow under the old policy?
[Caraviello]: I haven't heard the city solicitor's response to that. All I heard was KP law, which is a high, outside firm that's hired by this administration.
[Jordan]: Are the citizens of Medford paying for this hired outside firm?
[Caraviello]: You better believe so.
[Jordan]: Through our tax dollars? You better believe so. And who does that firm answer to? The administration. The mayor. Okay, that answers that question. I hope she's listening. You promised us a lot, Mrs. Mayor, and you're not delivering.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Any other residents would like to speak? before we motion for a vote. I want to thank everyone who came up with this evening to voice your opinion and this is what it's about, coming here, speaking your opinion. So, on the motion by Councilor Marks, on the motion by Vice President Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, and we have, Uh, questions. We have an eight. We have the beat paper, uh, by Councilor Bears. And we also have a, um, a C paper by our Councilor Morell. The Councilor that is asking that we vote on them, uh, on one package. Does everybody agree to that? I have to have a second, second, seconded by Councilor Marks. Okay. Mr. Clark.
[Knight]: This is to consolidate all the papers and amendments. Yes. Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Nights? Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? President Caraviello?
[Caraviello]: Yes, seven affirmative motions passes. And the motion on the original paper. Second. Seconded by Councilor Falco. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Knight]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight?
[Caraviello]: Councilor Marks? Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello? Yes. I move the motion passes. 2-1, 3-1-1, offered by Councilor Bears, being resolved at the Medford City Council, that we celebrate March 31st, International Transgender Day of Visibility and show our support for our transgender neighbors and friends. Councilor Bears?
[Giliberti]: Thank you, Mr. President. I put this on the agenda a little bit after the fact, but it was after actually seeing a lot of messages from trans and non-binary residents of the city, people who I'm friends with. It's been a very difficult time. There've been a lot of laws that are being put forward to the extent of even preventing, you know, transgender youth from getting health, you know, any help from their doctors, any healthcare services, So it was a very important day for a lot of my friends and a lot of people I know to make it clear that trans and non binary people are here. They're here to stay and they have the rights of everybody else. So that's my intention putting this forward. And I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution.
[Caraviello]: Second motion. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think Councilor bears for bringing this forward. This year marked the first time the state had a presidential proclamation, and it remains really more important than ever to celebrate and recognize transgender and non-binary people, and also acknowledge the violence and discrimination that many transgender and non-binary people, especially trans women of color and black trans women still face. So as Councilor Bears alluded to, I want to note that so far, and this is as of last week, according to the HRC, there are 192 anti LGBTQ bills under consideration state legislatures across the country at this time. And of those 93 directly target transgender people. So this resolution is very important. And I very much support it.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Second by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Knight]: Councilor Bears?
[Caraviello]: Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Yes, affirmative. Motion passes. 2-1, 3-1-2, offered by Councilor Bears, be it resolved that the Medford City Council express its support of Bill 3207 and Bill 2-1-2-9, an act relative to the payments in lieu of taxation by organizations exempt from the property tax. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council express its support of House Bill 1469, an act granting same method, the authority to require the adoption of institutional master plans subject to the review of the municipality. Be it further resolved that the city clerk forward a copy of this resolution to the method list legislative delegation, as well as House Speaker Mariano and Senate President Spilka.
[Giliberti]: Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President. So this is, these items are in regards to pilot payments in lieu of taxes. I know we've discussed this. many times, as well as accountability for tax-exempt institutions in our community. So the first resolve is regarding HD 3207 and SD 2129. That is a bill currently pending in the legislature that would allow cities and towns to enact a local option around pilots, requiring the 25% of what would otherwise be paid if these institutions were not tax-exempt. the city. Right now, as you know, pilots are voluntary, and we've actually had an example very recently. Harvard Vanguard down in the square used to provide a pilot payment to the city. It's a large building worth a lot of money, and it doesn't currently pay property taxes because it has an exempt purpose. They are no longer providing that pilot payment to the community. And that is because they decided not to, and they refused to come to the table with the city to negotiate a pilot agreement. So this would legislation would allow under state law cities and towns to have the local option to have pilots being non voluntary. The second piece of this HD 1469 is regarding the institutional master plan home rule petition. It was approved by this council prior to 2020, and Representative Barber filed it again for this new legislative session, and that would require Tufts and large tax exempt institutions to provide master plans to the city so that we can review and approve their plans for expansion. So that's the context here, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: I think President Biden is going to know my name after tonight, maybe President Spilka, maybe House Representative, Speaker of the House. Mr. President, I'd ask that these papers be referred to the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs at this point in time. They have docket numbers. You know what I mean? I said it last time. You know, we're foraying into the forbidden world of being state representatives and state senators these days.
[Knight]: It seems like we're talking a little bit more about national politics and state politics than we are about local stuff.
[Caraviello]: But I'd like to take a look at these bills in a little bit more depth to see what impact it's going to have on our community. You know, we have a number of tax-exempt organizations. We have a number of tax-exempt organizations that are struggling through this pandemic. Nonprofit organizations that do provide some good to this community, and I might be concerned about the impact that a mandatory 25% tax would have on them. However, it doesn't mean I'm opposed to it, Mr. President. It means that I want some more information before I'm comfortable voting for it. So it has to just be referred to the subcommittee on intergovernmental relations for further study. I second that, Mr. President. Okay. The motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli.
[Giliberti]: Councilor Bass. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. I just want to make the point that this is about home rule authority. And it is a local issue, and we should have the local authority to address these on our own, but state law currently prohibits that. So that's why these have been put forward. And, you know, I appreciate Councilor Knights wanting to look at it further. I'd be happy to discuss that more. it would provide us a local option. We wouldn't be making a decision tonight to mandate it, and it would still require a state law to pass, and it would still require an ordinance and discussion of the council. So there would be ample public process before anything would be instituted.
[Caraviello]: Point of personal privilege, Mr. President? Point of personal privilege, Vice President Knight.
[Knight]: Having worked in the legislature for a number of years, I've witnessed firsthand the fact that nothing ever comes out the way it goes in.
[Caraviello]: have they been assigned the host number yet does not appear so thank you. I'm Eric. Name and address of the record please. Hold on. All right.
[von Berg]: Eric von Berg 369 High Street. Good evening, President Caraviello and members of the city council. I am the Medford co-chair of the Medford-Somerville Pilot Working Group. And these are bills that we've worked hard to get in front of the legislature that would give the option to create pilot ordinances and to collect pilot taxes. It doesn't mean that the community has to do anything. but it will give the option for doing that. And that's why we're looking for support for this to get it in and get it more than just a docket number to get it to be a resolution. And this is really an important bill because of the budget shortfalls in the community and the money that is lost in communities that nonprofits don't pay taxes for, and I think it's really important that the city council vote in favor of this. And thank you for my time, and thank you for the support you may give.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Caput. Thank you, Mr. President. I understand Councilor Bears attempts, but I too follow with Councilor Knight's thought process of what this would do to a lot of nonprofits that are really taking a beating and do provide a huge benefit for our community. So I understand that the concept when you're talking about the Tufts universities, the Harvard vanguards, but they're a lot smaller. So I think in discussion before I would vote on anything positively with this, I think that Councilor Knight is correct in I would extend more of a discussion to understand it in depth. So I would second Councilor Knight's motion. Further discussion?
[Giliberti]: I'm sorry. If I may. Councilor Miss. And I hear that. I just wanted to maybe lay some concerns off the bat that The language that was in the bills that were in our packets this week would only apply to institutions with greater than $15 million in exempt property, so wouldn't apply to many of those small nonprofit organizations in our community. And I would ask that the Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee meet within 90 days to discuss the issue.
[Caraviello]: Vice President Knight. The motion by Vice President Knight, as amended by Councilor Bears to meet within 90 days. Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight?
[Knight]: Yes.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Marks?
[Knight]: Yes.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello. Yes, I'm in the permanent motion passes to 1313 offered by Council Falco be resolved that the administration provide the city, Medford City Council with an itemized list of how the $250,000 was spent from the Clair Channel billboard agreement, Councilor Falco.
[Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. As our budget season is quickly approaching, it is time to look at all of our various accounts to see where money is and how it's being spent and to make sure that we finish the year in good shape and start off the next fiscal year in good shape. Back in 2010, then Mayor McGlynn signed a billboard agreement with Clair Channel. And the agreement stated that Clear Channel would make a lump payment, an impact fee payment to the city in the year, in the 11th year of the agreement, which would be fiscal year 2021 of $250,000. And I came across this through some research, basically after the budget was passed. And when I asked the administration, I was told that this was not factored into the budget, And that came from the CFO. And then I was forwarded on to the chief of staff, Dave Rodriguez. Dave did tell me that they learned of the payment after the budget was prepared and therefore was not part of the budget. And at that point in time, I asked, well, how's the money being spent? And the explanation I received was that the city's current plan is to use it for one time unanticipated costs and emergency health safety costs that cannot be covered by the CARES or FEMA. For example, let's see, there's an engineer that contacted the mayor's office in a panic that the road work at the bottom of Bedford High School is scheduled to be done. This is back in August, that they didn't have enough, let's see, that the, was gonna be canceled due to not having necessary funds available. And the mayor was able to okay this by using these funds from, that they had from the, from the impact fee. The section of Harris Park did not have fence, which the city staff were concerned about from a safety perspective. And they were able to repair this using these funds. They used these funds for roading control in response to complaints received throughout the community. And they also used it for road and safety, pedestrian improvements around the city, particularly around the schools. So that was a plan for the funds, but as we approach the budget season, I'd like to get a full detailed listing of exactly how these funds were spent and how much was spent on each of these projects. So if we could get, so basically if I could get a detailed itemized listing of how the $250,000 was spent from the billboard agreements, and if we could send that to the CFO and to the chief of staff. I greatly appreciate and I move approval.
[Caraviello]: President. I'd just like to move to further amend the paper in that request that we get a copy of the agreement, as well as all associated public documents that go along with the clear channel billboard mitigation agreements pilot program. Okay. On the motion by Councilor Falco, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Councilor Marks? Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello? Yes. Seven in the affirmative. Motion passes. 21314, offered by Councilor Falco, be it resolved that the Medford Police Department place the speed trailer at the intersection of Belzab and Hickory Ave in the interest of public safety. Councilor Falco.
[Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. It sounds like someone's been reading the agenda. I went by yesterday and the speed trailer is there. It is there. So that has been put in place. Hopefully it's effective and hopefully it's going to slow down traffic in that area. As we know, traffic has been a major concern in that Fells Ave neighborhood. And we had a Committee of the Whole meeting there back, I think it was in November of last year that was well attended. And at the conclusion of that meeting, there was going to be a follow-up Committee of the Whole meeting. And I would ask if you could please, if I could amend the resolution to request that we have a follow-up Committee of the Whole meeting with regard to all of the safety improvements that have been made potential of additional improvements. I know Councilor Mark said we've had some amendments in a previous resolution with regard to, I think it was, no through traffic, I think that's on particular streets, if I remember correctly. So if we could have a committee of the whole to revisit this issue. I greatly appreciate it.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Falco, as amended by Councilor Falco to have a Committee of the Whole meeting, seconded by Councilor Mark. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello? Yes, I'm in the affirmative, motion passes. 2135 offered by Councilor Falco, be it resolved that the administration provide the Medford City Council with the following information. Amount spent on KP Law since inception. Budget to actuals for the accounts that pertain to KP Law invoices. Councilor Falco.
[Falco]: KP Law has been a point of conversation, I think, since they started doing business with the city of Medford. And I know that there is a, I believe it's a $5,000 a month retainer And it's basically 60,000 for the year. But there's work that they do outside of their general month to month work. We've asked many questions about the 40B projects that they're working on. We don't tend to get too much information, but I know that they've been working on it. Basically, I think all of the 40B projects that have come about. And when I go through the detailed bills that we get from the CFO, I have not found any, KP law invoices that have come through outside of the budget of $5,000 per month. So I've gone through, I can't find anything. And I know that various consulates have had many questions about KP Law since their inception into working with the city. So what I'd like to do is just ask that the administration give us basically breakdown of all the invoices outside of the monthly retainer, a breakdown of all of the invoices that have been paid And basically what's outstanding, it seems like, from what I can tell, they've been doing work with us for over a year. And it seems like there are no invoices. It seems like the administration hasn't received any invoices to pay. To me, that's just, it's ludicrous. I mean, what company does work, it doesn't build a client. I mean, there should have been some sort of invoices that have come in here. I mean, I also like to add to further to find out where, where is that cost spend budgeted in the budget. So it just seems like KPI just seems like there's a really, it's a lot of, it's a big gray area. When you look at the budget, it doesn't look like it's budgeted for and from what I can tell, you know, it doesn't look like there are any invoices coming in outside of the $5,000 per month appropriation that has been made.
[Caraviello]: uh at least the third request for this information and maybe the fourth and i don't know um i don't know why we can't get an answer from the administration so again i thank you for bringing this up again uh for probably at least the third or the fourth time uh again i agree with you that uh offerings don't work for free uh the only son that i know i bet if you find one let me know well i mean we're coming into but we're coming into the budget season this is important information we need to know this
[Falco]: This is vital. We need to know this. We need to know how much we're paying them. You know, what's outstanding. I still don't, I don't understand how a law firm does work. It doesn't build a client. It doesn't make any sense.
[Knight]: Mr. President, I share Councilor Falco's concerns wholeheartedly. As a matter of fact, this is a topic that I've brought up in the past as well. And when we look at this month's Warren article, this previous month's Warren articles, we'll see that we've received seven bills of $5,000 to the tune of 30K, Mr. President, for what is labeled as, I'm sorry, six, I'm sorry, six, 30K. Monthly legal retainer, it says, monthly legal retainer. So six months, monthly legal retainer. And this is being paid, Mr. President, out of the professional services legal line item. Now, if we go to the previous year's budget, We'll see in the previous year's budget, underneath the law department, if we look for professional and technical services, other, that line item was funded at $1,500. Now my assumption, Mr. President, is that this line item was not approved in the next year's budget at an amount that would be four or 500 times that amount. So with that being said, it appears to me that they're doing some deficit spending and come the end of the year, there are gonna be some little fuzzy math transfers that we're gonna be doing over here to figure out how we're gonna pay for this, Mr. President, because quite frankly, I don't see that it's being paid for out of an account that's funded to the level that it's being built. So with that being said, I thank my council colleague and I support his resolution and I second it.
[Falco]: Thank you.
[Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Falco, seconded by Councilor Knight as amended by Councilor Falco. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello. Yes, I'm in affirmative, motion passes. I think we've gone through all the questions. Okay, public participation. By David McKenna, 94 Rockland Road, FMS. I, David McKibbin, would like the opportunity to discuss public properties in Medford and the procedure of changing said name. I would further like the clarification on what rights the majority of the city have in being able to have healthy dialogue and discussion when it comes to said changes. This issue has been a dividing wall in our city, and citizens are not feeling like they have a say in the matter. Moving to the record, please. Good evening, David McKillop, 94 Rockland Road. I want to say thank you for allowing me to have the opportunity to speak on this situation. And the only reason why I'm here right now is because there's a large majority of people that I've spoken to and that really were working really hard to have their voices heard with an issue reference the changes in names of certain buildings in the city of Medford. And to understand why we're here today, in fact, I was just kind of listening to everything and it was encouraging to see how unified we all got behind the 5G situation. And I hope that somewhere along the line, we can get unified in many other areas in the city. And it's unfortunate that we can unify on one situation and then divide in another situation. And that's where we're at right now with this process. The reason why I'm here is to talk a little bit about a recent change and the way it went down in June 6th. There was a decision and a vote that one of the buildings in Metro would be changed with the name. And it was kind of, the way the process went was people felt like they weren't heard. People felt they didn't even have the opportunity to speak. And even in the patch, I know that it was the, the final hour that it was presented on the patch that there was the opportunity for people to speak in a meeting for this change. And then about two or three weeks ago, we had the opportunity again to speak. I spoke, I know I spoke on a Monday night and really tried to kind of tug at the sympathy and the respect of the people that feel disenfranchised, and the reason why they feel disenfranchised, and please indulge me in a little bit of a history lesson, and I'm sure some of you know this, why the heck is a guy with the name McKillop even interested in this? Well, my mom's maiden name is Joanne Camela Labasse, so I'm just as interested in what's going on as anyone else that's interested in this. Columbus, it is something that is of historic significance for not just the name and not just the person, but for the reason behind it. Columbus is a word now that symbolizes something that's very important to the Italian-American community. Columbus, back in the 1800s for Italian-Americans, was a person that did do a lot of discovery. But in the late 1800s, 1890s, I don't know if a lot of you know this, but Italian-Americans were treated very poorly. In fact, I would go as far as to say like dirt. They were treated so poorly that there were certain Italian-Americans that were accused of a murder they did not commit and were acquitted. And people didn't like that. So they actually pulled these people, dragged these people out of a jail and they lynched them. They lynched them. They lynched Italian-Americans. And this got so bad. This got so bad in the United States that two countries were separating because of it. the United States and Italy. Dignitaries from Italy were removed from the United States. Dignitaries from the United States were removed from Italy in the 1800s. Imagine this situation and how it catapulted the Italian American community into a totally different level. In 1891, the president of the United States recognized what was going on, recognized that this just cannot continue. So he did something unprecedented in its time. He went and he offered condolences and money to the families of the lynched Italian-Americans to help them offset the situation. He also took it one step further. And with the help of the Italian consulate, he created a day of remembrance and gathering and family, and that was called Columbus Day. It was only supposed to be one event, one event, and then it goes away. That became so important to the Italian American community because what it did was it took them away from a racist situation. There it is, that's the word. This was a tool, a facility that the president of the United States put together with Italy to remove racism or help move the Italian-American community closer to inclusiveness. It became so important that it became Columbus Day, that it was so important to the Italian-American community that Italy itself created a statue, not unlike the Statue of Liberty, and sent it over to the United States in response to what the president did. So Columbus is not Christopher Columbus, the person, not just that anymore. And by the way, looking at a person through the lenses of today, shame on us. Shame on us. The history that people are talking about, the jury is still out on that. We're not quite sure. So let's really just understand where we are today. Christopher Columbus and that statue meant a heck of a lot more to Italian American people than what is perceived as of today. I was really happy and kudos to Councilor Bears for bringing out the transgender day. Kind of the same thing. It's interesting. We could bring out a transgender day and yet we can start to remove this icon of a name from buildings. Now I'm hearing that it's being considered to be removed from parks. Now I'm hearing that we're moving on to other names. I mean, where does this end? Where does this go and where does this end? At what point do we start taking a stand and saying, this is our community, let's breathe through the nose. And if we're going to make changes, first of all, I want you all to understand, we know the decision was made. We also know it has nothing to do with the city council in the respect of making that decision. That's not what we're here for today. We're here to say our voices were not heard. When we had the opportunity to be heard, we were given two minute intervals and we were asked not to repeat. Not unlike the part that you're frustrated with, with 5G, right? You are very frustrated with that. Imagine the people on that Zoom meeting because, and no disrespect to anyone, we can't come here to talk to the city council. So we have to talk to them on Zoom. I'm sorry, on school committee, my apologies. So we had to talk to them on Zoom and we were given two minute intervals and asked not to repeat ourselves. Can't even get a point across in two minutes, I'm sorry. And I tend to be a bit long-winded, so I like to speak. So that's the reason why I'm here today, to let the city council know there is a group of disenfranchised people in the city of Medford. It doesn't make any sense to me that we can allow that when we're talking about so many other things that address those issues. So we need to work together. We need to come together. We need to start getting back to the gravity zero center of the city. and stop extreming everything that we do. This is a dividing rod for this city. It's appalling that it's happened. And when we have elected officials saying, I don't care how many people say they don't want to change, it will be changed. That is a sign that this city is coming apart. When we have the people signing a petition And over 630 people signed that petition and gave it to the school committee and said, hey, we don't want this to happen. And 300, just over 300 people said, hey, we do want this to happen. Common mathematics say two thirds of the people do not want it to happen. When does this stop? Where do we go from here? And if we can't communicate here, then where? If we can't communicate now, then when? And if we can't communicate to them, and we can't communicate to you, then who? And this is where we're at today. So pardon me if I'm a little upset about this. This was something that was, in my eyes, swept completely under the rug. It's a done deal. And now they're putting together a committee to name this building. I'm sorry, but if you read the bylaws of that committee rules, if you don't agree with them, give up. What kind of a committee is that? Where are we at? We need your help. We need your guidance. We need some understanding. Where is this city going and what is happening? And this is not gonna stop with just the school. It's gonna be a park. It's gonna be a street. It's gonna be anything else. And let's take it one step further. Anybody in the United States who had done wrong things in their life, paid the price, went to jail, got accosted, and then turned their life around and did good things. What will history look at them like? Let's take it in a step further. A celebrity business person anywhere in the United States makes a donation to another city. Where do they go when they're looking for that? Mr. McKillop, You're coming upon your 10 minute mark. Okay, thank you. So I leave you with just this. What makes the human spirit work is this. What drives us is this. What makes us so great is that we are imperfect and we learn from the people before us. We don't erase them. Thank you. Thank you. And as you know, as you stated, this boy does not have the ability to name schools And I did a little work today, and the name of parks would have to go before the park board for any change of that. But as far as buildings, like you see, the city yard got named after Mr. Pompeo. And that was a decision of the mayor. You see like in the street corners, those are decisions of the mayor. Those, I mean, city council can make recommendations, but ultimately it is a decision of the mayor. I thank you for your time this evening. Mary Ann Braxton. Mary Ann.
[Broxton]: Hi, thank you. I want to start by apologizing because I thought you were actually going to talk about the city of Medford committee housing plan in this meeting this evening. Um, so I would like to address my public comments towards that. I know that last week, go ahead. The city of Medford, um, housing report.
[Caraviello]: We're not, we're not discussing that this evening, Marianne. Yes, but may I make a meeting earlier on that?
[Broxton]: Yes, I know. And I, that's why I apologized to begin at the beginning of my statement, because I thought it was actually going to be discussed in this one.
[Caraviello]: The public participation is on something, it's on public properties, not on the housing protection plan. So, but my comment actually reflects- Mr. President, with all due respect, public participation is an item where individuals in the community can get up and speak. You can speak on this after we're done. After we're done speaking on this issue, if you'd like to speak on the housing protection plan, that'll be later in the evening, after we finish this discussion. Okay, thank you. Back point of information is there's not even a discussion of public participation, the individuals come up and they say that we're speaking at this particular issue at the moment. Come back and speak on that. I would say though, that this isn't the appropriate forum to debate the, you know, ongoing legacy of Christopher Columbus. That's not what we have. Let me just the record, please. Anthony D'Antonio. This is a very contentious issue with me. Columbus Park, Columbus School, the South Medford neighborhood where it exists. It's very special to many, many, many Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Russians, and so on and so forth, because that was the neighborhood. The Columbus was not just a school. It was a family. My grandfather came from the Southern mines in Italy and busted his hump to realize the American dream. Never asked for anything. My other grandfather, same thing. Donated to that school. Donated to the St. Clement Church. They worked hard. They never put their hand out like everybody's doing today. Give me more, give me more. All right? So it's not just the school. And shame for this stranger who comes to the city of Medford and decides he doesn't like Italians, so he's gonna change his damn name. I'm sorry, but that's not good. We're not going down that road. All right, we're not going to go down that road.
[Knight]: We're not going down that road.
[Caraviello]: What you're doing is you're taking history away from the people in South Metro. We're not going down that road. No, they're taking history away from the people in South Metro. You don't do that, all right? Thank you. They ought to do something different with their lives.
[Jordan]: Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Name and address of the record, please.
[Jordan]: Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, Method Mass.
[Caraviello]: Just a quick follow-up. Dave McKellar brings up a good point as it related how Italians were treated. Because if you go into some of the social media here in Medford, they do take a swipe at Italians. And I resent that very much, whether I'm Italian American or whether you're Irish American, no matter what it might be. And if anybody really needs to know, of all the immigrants that came into this country, it was the early Italian Catholics who came into this country as immigrants, and they struggled to make their way And they were hostilely treated, hostilely treated throughout the entire United States. In 1785, they wanted to build a church in Manhattan, New York. This goes back a little bit in history here. And St. Peter's Church, which was the heart of where the Catholics made their proposal to build their church. But the pushback was from the people at that time, they feared the papacy and the sinister foreign influences that was forced upon them to relocate outside the city limits. And on December 24th, in 1806, two decades after the church was built, on Christmas Eve, there was an enormous, how can you say, meltdown at the church because people just didn't like what was going on. Resulting from that, on Christmas Eve, there was a protest in which dozens of people were injured and a policeman was killed. That's the sad part about the early part of immigration as it relates to the Italians here in this country. And then as Councilor McKillop, excuse me, Mr. McKillop alluded to, on March 14th, 1891, the biggest lynching then and now in the United States of America was against the 10, 11 Italians, falsely accused and acquitted in a court of law of killing a police chief. And there was a mob riot after that situation that took place. And because of that mob riot that took place, the then and he was becoming the president of the United States, Teddy Roosevelt, who everyone thinks he was a great guy, he might be in some people's, he indicated it was rather a good idea that those people were lynched. And then a gentleman, his name was John Parker, who helped organize the lynching said the following, he said of Italians, that they are just a little worse than the Negro, being if anything filthier in habits, lawlessness and treacherousness. Why isn't that? And that today, that today spell, unfortunately, divisiveness that's taking place. The Medford social media, for those people who wouldn't even have the tolerance to allow a different conversation to their revisionary history, has alluded to exactly what Mr. McKillop is talking about.
[Falco]: You just went through a 5G conversation, very nicely and tastefully said and done, and respectfully done.
[Caraviello]: This is not taking place in the city with this particular Columbus school issue. You have a former principal, Marie Rizzo, who wrote a very fine letter to the mayor and every school committee person on her thoughts about that name change, and she did not get one response as of last Sunday. That's total disrespect to a woman who spent over 42 years as an educator here in the city of Medford. And if we look at the history, of the Columbus School. It goes back to September 6, 1929, in the midst of Mercury, where the story goes, it was because of the neighborhood people who got together and raised money for the school, that that's the reason why the then school committee changed the name from the Mystic School to the Columbus School, because they were of Italian American descent. The Medford School Committee and the mayor ought to be ashamed of themselves for not only entertaining this, but now they want to have an intermediary next month before school starts, change the name one month ahead of time, and then go into making a final change. You want to talk about having kids all screwed up and parents all screwed up. There it is right there, a school committee that can't even listen to the people. It's a shame. What you guys did tonight set the tempo of how a discussion should take place. The school committee has lost that ability and they've let one person. another town to come here from two years ago to take over and move an issue.
[Falco]: And move an issue. I didn't mention his name.
[Caraviello]: I didn't mention his name. We're not going to bring up anybody's character. I said I didn't mention his name. I don't care.
[Jordan]: He's another town.
[Caraviello]: He came into the community and he changed. I'll set you up. You can't set me up. I didn't mention his name, Rick. I'm asking you to be polite here. Just get with him. Don't be afraid of the truth, Rick.
[Sullivan]: I'm asking you to be polite.
[Caraviello]: This is the truth, okay? I'm asking you to be polite here. We're not doing anything.
[Sullivan]: We're not doing anything. Point of information.
[Caraviello]: I'm telling you about the school committee. The school committee- Mr. President, with all due respect, the reason that we created public participation and adjusted it this way was so the councilors and citizens wouldn't get into debates. I think that the whole idea is that we're gonna sit back, let him say what he's gonna say, and then let's move on because I don't think anybody behind this rail is really interested in having a discussion about whether or not the school committee made the right decision or not, quite frankly. I think we all have our own opinion on it, but it's not within the purview of this board. I feel as though it's nothing more than a dog whistle, Mr. President, at this point.
[Knight]: Thank you, Councilor Knight.
[Caraviello]: Okay, thank you. So I just concluding to say, as Councilor Knight has alluded to, you know, they come here to say whatever our opinion is. And I think the 5G issue basically said the whole story. You have the opportunity to hear it. You knew it took place on March 31st. You're not going to hopefully have the same thing on Thursday night. And all I'm saying, and I think as my two predecessors who came here to speak, was what's taking place on the school committee does not represent the best interests of the city of Metro. Thank you. Thank you.
[Knight]: Name and address of the record, please. Tony Pujol, I'm in Tanger Street. Thank you for listening to me. Thank you all for being in this beautiful chambers tonight to hear us. I'm not going to beat up a dead horse.
[Caraviello]: Those ships have sailed, so to speak, the proverbial ships. The reason I'm coming up is because I want to know, to follow up with Mr. McGillip said, what can we do as a city council to help prevent this from occurring over and over and over? Is there anything this council can do to enact an ordinance or some type of rule to prevent this from becoming a problem? I'm not talking about the school committee, with all due respect to the president. But going forward on other buildings, there is no actual procedure in writing. Understood. Maybe if the administration wants to adopt an actual procedure, that is up to them. But currently, there is nothing in writing that gives us a procedure on where to go. Exactly, councilor. And that's why I'm saying, can this council take a step in that direction to help present You could see that you could feel the anger in the air, just in this room with only so many people in here. Can you imagine what's going on in the rest of the city? Of course you have. And again, I don't want to go on and on about this. I'm trying to move forward, okay? I'd like to see this council, if possible, and I'm asking if you could get your heads together and come up with some type of rule or something just to show that, you know, hey, you can't just come in here and just all of a sudden just change some rules because you said so, because you felt like it. We need some input from citizens in this city, okay? Before large decisions are made. Again, I don't expect you to check with every individual person in the city. That's not what I'm saying. But there should be better communication when large decisions are made with members of the city. And that goes, I'm not speaking for the school committee. I'm speaking for the city council and the school committee. I would just appreciate it if, If, you know, especially during the pandemic where some of us feel marginalized because I don't want to say any, any groups, you know, but there's some people who weren't really good with zoom and, uh, they weren't able to get on and voice their opinion. These people, they feel marginalized because this all happened and they feel like it happened behind their backs. Uh, they may say it happened in June and they had all this time, but you know, I don't want to talk about the committee anymore. What I'm trying to say is please see if you could put your heads together and come up with something. to help not so much prevent this, but just that the community can have more participation and say in such large decisions. I would appreciate that. I respect you for listening to me tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Castagnetti]: Andrew Castagnetti, 101 Main Street, temporarily under doctor's care.
[Caraviello]: Sure, what is that address?
[Castagnetti]: 101 Main Street.
[Caraviello]: If you can give me a proper address, it would be appreciated.
[Castagnetti]: I'm Christian and 101 Main. Did you miss me? I didn't think so.
[Caraviello]: We miss you.
[Castagnetti]: Not here. Not for a year. Not for a year. Anyways, it's nice to see most of you back in the City Hall chambers, taking care of the people's business. and not Ohio in your Corona basements. I did not write up anything. I guess this time it's very personal. Columbus, he's a big one. And I've been to the old country 12 times, even though I was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
[Caraviello]: There's good and bad in every race, creed, religion, including cops and politicians. I want to commend Councilor, excuse me, David McKillop for having the courage to come forth and bring this issue before us. The only guy that had more courage, and he had more courage than everyone in this city, 57,000 people, was Christopher Columbus himself, who wanted to prove the world was around, and no one in Europe believed him, except for maybe some of the Knights Templars. And he would have proved it, if it wasn't brought by the two continents. The English were here first, after the Indians were here originally. I understand. And then the discrimination started from day one. As the Irish knew, they did not apply for a job. The Italians, they went through hell. They're still being discriminated against. Today, I have proof. personal. It's just, the way it was, the name was taken away, it was not fair to the people, they had no, no forum in person. And I can go on and on and on. I want to mention Sacramento and Manhattan and New Orleans, Louisiana, they were pulled out of the jail and hung. I think I'm just gonna cut it short. See, I'm disappointed. However, I'm gonna ask the city council, with all your legislative powers that you still claim very often, can you put this in the November ballot to save, keep, and reclaim Christopher Columbus' school name? Is that possible and doable? If somebody wants to, if a council wants to do that, that's. This doesn't fall, that doesn't fall within our purview to change names.
[Castagnetti]: So your legislative powers, you cannot put on the ballot.
[Caraviello]: You want to, is that possible? If someone wants to make a motion, they can do that. It is possible. I don't think anybody wants to even get into this situation. We've already said this from the start. It's a done deal. The school committee made the decision. The decision has been made, the scout says there's no power to overturn it. If you want to go out and get some signatures and put it on the ballot, that's your option. I'm still working on my own occupied real estate tax exemption, chapter 59, section 5C, for 21 years. This is not fair. You insulted, not you, some peoples have insulted a lot of people in this city. And it's not gonna stop.
[Castagnetti]: Mr. McKillop was right. Where it stops, nobody knows. And I don't wanna go down that path with this canceled culture.
[Caraviello]: It's horrendous. Matter of fact, this political correctness is turned by Christmas. Upside down. Thank you, Andrew. Mr. President. We have one more person here, Councilor Marks. We have Miriam Brock, would you like to speak? On this? No. I'd like to speak on this. Okay. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank the speakers for coming up tonight. You know, this has always been an open forum for anyone that would like to come up and vent their concerns, Mr. President. And that should never, ever, ever change. Whether I agree or disagree, everyone has the right to come up here or on Zoom and express their thoughts and opinions. And we should never, never take that right away. You know, my opinion, I've been in government 26 years now. I'm not, you know, afraid to say that, Mr. President. I'm proud of my years in service. I think the one major flaw with this process is the fact when the resolution was offered, it was offered to do something certain by a certain date. It wasn't inviting people to give input and say, what are your thoughts about this? How do you feel about this? Let's take the name out of it. It doesn't matter who the name is. The names are interchangeable. The process was flawed from the start because it didn't ask for public input and give people the ability to get up there and say, these are my issues. And once that happens and you set that into motion, right away, you're going to disenfranchise a certain number of people on the other side, whichever side it may be. Sometimes you may be on the prevailing side. Sometimes you may be on the losing side. That doesn't matter. So right inherently what happened from the start is this process was flawed because right away it said, we're going to do this and by a certain date. And that's a problem, Mr. President. If the resolution read, we're gonna discuss this and look for input, we're gonna discuss other options, other alternatives, it would have been a whole different scenario. And I've heard this from members of the community, even people that are pro change in the name and people that are against change in the name. I've had more people come up to me that are against change in the name saying it has nothing to do with Columbus. Honestly, nothing to do with Christopher Columbus. It has all to do with the process. And when there's a sense of frustration out there, as you're hearing, and it starts to build up, this is what you're gonna have. You're gonna have a divided community. And it's really unfortunate the way it rolled out. I don't think anyone else behind this wheel can speak to the fact that I was the only member behind this wheel to actually vote on a school name. The only member. And guess what? Guess what? I voted against the name that was offered by the school committee. And I won't bring up the name because the school's named after that person now, and so be it. I was the only member to vote against it. And my reasoning was at the time, Mr. President, that the school committee changed their policy because you had to be deceased in this city under the school committee farmer policy in order to have a building named after it. And they took a vote to change the policy because they wanted to name it after someone that was very much alive So they changed the process in order to name it after who they wanted to. And I was a new member of the school committee. It was a difficult vote. It was against a very prominent person in this community. But I stood tall, Mr. President, because that's what I believed in. And I think that's what's happening now, Mr. President. The process is inherently flawed. And we're never gonna be able to come to the middle with a flawed process. And I would respectfully ask the school committee to reconsider. Take a look, revisit this. There's no rush to judgment, Mr. President. That school's been named that way for 100 years. There's no rush to judgment, Mr. President. It's more important to me that this community unite, especially during these difficult times, than to try to pass an agenda. That to me is far more important that we unite as a community, like we heard about 5G. So I would respectfully ask that the school committee, when they're in their deliberations, I know they set timeframes and so forth, but they respectfully look at what is being done to this community, ripping this community apart. Some of these wounds you're not gonna be able to heal, but guess what? It's not done right now. So we have time to say, let's take a step back, let's take a look at it. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Mr. President. Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: You may see her, right? Sharon's had her hand up for quite some time.
[Caraviello]: Marianne's been waiting a while, and we have a couple of others after Marianne. So she's been waiting a while, so we'll let Marianne speak. Marianne Bruxton. Marianne?
[Broxton]: Hi, sorry, I'm getting off the topic, so is that okay?
[Knight]: That's okay, you've been waiting long enough.
[Broxton]: Okay, cool, thank you. So what I wanted to talk about, again, was the city of Medford housing proposal plan that, and again, I'm sorry that I thought it was in this meeting, but it's basically to address the comments on the resolution that, I'm sorry, I believe Councilor Marks offered last week talking about the two, lower income funding apartments that are coming up to not require the funding anymore. And he said at that time that if we do those and the four that are proposed, it would equal out to be 11%, which would push us over the 10% that's required by the state. But actually, if you look at the report itself, on page 80 of the report, it states that even if the Currently, there's three apartment buildings that are being proposed that are in the pipeline. And there's one more that's being proposed. And even if all four of those were to go through and be built, that would only bring us up to 10% of the, no, I'm sorry, 9.1%. It wouldn't even bring us up to the full 10% that the state is required by the state. I love affordable housing, I think we should have more of it I think we should go well beyond 10% in the city of Medford. Um, but my, my issue that I have is so the apartment building that's being proposed on the stick out is 378 units and 96 of them will be affordable, which is great.
[Caraviello]: Mr. Gabb, it's again, it's an environmental justice area, which was named by the- I just want to make sure because we did have a close to a two hour meeting prior to this meeting. And I just want to set the record straight. The report we received from J.M. Golson regarding the draft housing production plan. If you look at it on page 82, it talks as Mary Ann just mentioned, about the chapter 40B projects that are currently in the pipeline in the community. And this is the report, this is not me stating it. It says if all four of these projects come to fruition, Method will have an additional 1,087 units eligible to be counted on the subsidized housing inventory, bringing the city's portion of the SHI units to 11.7%. So I just want to set the record straight. that according to this report, that's not me, and the consultant that was hired, if these four projects in the pipeline, the 40B projects come to fruition, we will be over the SHI rate that's required by the state.
[Broxton]: Okay, thank you. I'm sorry, because I just saw in that one part of the text there where it said it would only bring us up to 9.1.
[Knight]: I also believe that because it's a 40B project, there's some sort of contingency that would say that all the units that are developed can be considered underneath the safe harbor, as opposed to just the affordable units.
[Caraviello]: That's why it's 1,000, it's 1,000 something, 1,087. Thank you.
[Broxton]: Okay, and the point that, that's okay. The point that I would like to get to is that in the method of resiliency report, it said that a majority of people of Medford, the families that live here own two cars. So if we're putting 378 units Most likely people will have a car. Maybe they may have two cars. Yes, it is right in front of an MBTA bus stop. So maybe they will use the bus to commute back and forth. But the issue that I have is that prior to COVID, the 95 was extended into Arlington. So there's more people on the bus now. And knowing that the 326 and 325 were canceled and the 95 was recommended to be one of the buses that people that usually take that route use, that's even more people. And I know last week that Zach Bares asked to the amend when you were talking about bus route 70 being continued again, that he added into 326 to be considered, but you have to look at, okay, so there's 378 families in there. However many, if it's a four people family, how many more people are going to be on this one bus that's already extremely crowded and you're putting a multifamily unit in an already environmental justice area for people? So that's my concern is that, Are we also going to make sure that, all right, what is the MBTA going to do about this? Are we going to have an overcrowded 95, that it's going to take you an hour, maybe, if you're lucky, to catch the bus in the morning to go someplace? Because we're going to have this many people. And like I said, I'm not against affordable housing. I love that we should be going beyond 10%. We should be going on beyond 11%. But I feel like it's always, okay, why are we putting them in areas that are mostly specific environmental justice areas, like how many, how is that going to affect the community? If we have this many people coming in and living in the community, what is that going to do to our resources? If they all have a car, how is that going to affect the smog and the soot that's in the air for people? You know, so like, are we thinking about this or what is going to be done to make up for this, to compensate for that, for the people that live here now? And I'm not trying to sound nativist, saying like, well, we don't want this house is there, we don't want more people here. But what are we going to do to make sure that people that are already taking this bus in a low income area that may not have a car themselves will not be pushed out of it because we're having the people from Arlington also on the 95, people from 326 already on the 95 and then 378 units added to that bus route. Thank you, Marion. Mr. President.
[Caraviello]: Just if I could, just to clarify. The city of Method is not dictating where these 40B projects are gonna go. What happens is because we don't meet the 10% threshold which is required by state statute, they're able to come in into 40B, which allows them to circumvent state law. And that's what's happening right now. So they can pop up and go anywhere they want in the community. We're not picking particular sections for them to go in. This is what is allowed under state statute 40B. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Marianne, are you finished? Marianne? Thank you, Marianne.
[Broxton]: No, no, no. I'm sorry. I was having trouble. So basically, my question is, so what are you going to do to make sure that people that take this bus every day will not be having to wait an hour or be able to be crammed on a bus that's already crowded in the morning? Will you work with the MTA to make sure that more is there?
[Caraviello]: Mr. President, a couple of things. Number one, the MBTA determines the level of service and the level of service for our bus community is based upon ridership. So if there's ridership, then the bus services should increase in a perfect world. The MBTA gives us a very large assessment and that assessment based upon the services that we deliver to this community, number one. Number two, when it comes down to where the development comes from, like Councilor Mack said, property owner petitions the city for a comprehensive permit under Chapter 40 B. They petition the city for a comprehensive permit under Chapter 40 B, it bypasses local zoning. You know, so if the concern is how many people are gonna be riding the bus, ridership drives the level of service at the MBTA. And I think that the city clerk, having been the former chief of staff, they can probably confirm that. Thank you. All right, Marianne, are you? Yes, thank you. Thank you, Marianne. Chairman Diaso, Name and address of the record. Sharon? Name and address of the record. Do we have you, Sharon? Sharon? Are you there? All right, we'll move on. Kelly Cattaro. Name and address of the record, please. Mr. Clerk, will you unmute Kelly Cattaro, please?
[Catalo]: Kelly Catalo, 46 Otis Street in Medford. I understand the process is the way the process is right now, but there seems to be people are missing the connection between the naming of the building and the value of the building. So protecting the asset definitely is in the purview of the city council, regardless how this goes this point forward. I think that the council should come together and should have a meeting in regards to renaming of any city building in the future. A lot of people that have been in New York City can have fond feelings for Rockefeller Center, and how many people would not be happy if it was named Trump Center? How many people would be happy with that? The naming of a building absolutely goes to value, and I'd like to see the city council come together in the future to perhaps come up with a resolution so that we don't all of a sudden see the renaming of every building in the city based upon the feeling of poor people. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Do we have any other, I think we're done with any more public participation. I don't see any more hands up. We have one paper under suspension by Councilor Marks. Motion to take the paper under suspension. Oh, you want to take that off the table also? Okay. On the motion by Councilor Knight to take paper, hold on, to take paper 21307 off the table. Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks?
[Knight]: Yes.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Knight]: Yes.
[Caraviello]: President Kiriboy. Yes, 7 in the affirmative. Motion passes. 21307 offered by Councilor Knight, Councilor Scarpelli, and Councilor Falco. Be it resolved that Medford City Council send its deep and sincere condolences to the family of Alan McDougal on his recent passing. Vice President Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much for allowing me a moment to remember my friend Al McDougal. I first met Al as a freshman in high school trying out for the football team, and Al was our freshman football coach. And I went on to play lacrosse that spring, and Al was our freshman lacrosse coach as well. And over those years, since my freshman year in high school, I've been able to develop a great relationship with Al.
[Knight]: He was a dear friend. He was very committed to American Legion Post 45 and the fundraising efforts and the volunteer and charity work that they do up there. He was a Verizon employee that worked at Verizon for a number of years. But most importantly, Mr. President, he was one of those guys that would sweat blue and white.
[Caraviello]: He was a Metro Mustang through and through. He was captain of the last Metro High School football team that won the Greater Boston League Championship. And just recently, he passed away while on the line of duty working for Verizon.
[Knight]: So Mr. President, I'm asking that my council colleagues join in and expressing their deep and sincere condolences to the family of McDougal, of Alan McDougal. He was someone that certainly made a difference here in this community, certainly someone that touched the lives of many youth in this community, and certainly someone that has a legacy that deserves to be remembered. So with that being said, Mr. President, I rest my case and ask my council colleagues to support the resolve.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Vice President. Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, Council President. Um, it's a sad day when we have to talk about the passing of a true legend. Uh, Alan McDougal meant a lot to a lot of people. And you could see that by the outpouring of, of condolences to toward his friends and his ceremony last week and, and just celebrating his, uh, his life and just knowing him. Um, yeah, Alan was a true, true definition of blue and white flowing through the veins. I know Mr. Kelly, uh, when he brought that to Medford, There was one person that stood up and followed that, and then pushed that along to everybody else to make sure everybody knew what that meant. It's just not a statement of words, but it's a way of life. And it's sad because I think that if people loved Medford the way Alan loved Medford, a lot of the issues we have today wouldn't be issues. And when you have that much passion, that much love, and that much respect for the blue and white, for the city of Medford, for what it stood and what it stands for, Alan was that true leader to do that, whether it be on the football field or whether it's coaching with him when we were coaching, you know, he was coaching football, I was coaching soccer. Alan was this big opposing figure that would scare most people. And I still remember Alan in high school, you know, typical, you know, walked around as a typical jock angry, you know, you get so nervous as a young kid. But I'll never forget Alan's demeanor and how he would just walk up to you make you feel welcome. And it took away so many of those stereotypical thoughts of what high school was all about, you know, or the big captain of the football team and how he was supposed to respond to younger kids. But Alan didn't do anything that we were told it was going to happen to our kids. He was a kid that brought people in and gave them a lesson and how to love Medford. and be a Mustang. And I've said this way too often too lately, is who's gonna pick up that baton. When people like Alan McDougall leave us, who is gonna be the next person to pick up that baton? And I hope as we move forward, I know that his friends, you know, looking at scholarships and so people can actually benefit from Alan's death, but also spread his word and who he was, so we can really keep his name alive. And I'll tell you, there was one sad day when I got that phone call to say Alan Tugel just died. So rest in peace, my friend, and I'll make sure that in my life, in my circles, that his name and his legacy will never be forgotten. So thank you for bringing this forward constantly. Thank you. Councilor Falco.
[Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Knight and Councilor Scarpelli for the awards. I first met Al when I was a sophomore in high school, 1985. I was on that team that won the GBL championship. And I remember when I first met Al, it was a pretty intimidating situation. He was a captain, but he was a leader. And he could lead both on and off the field. Really nice guy. When you're on the team, you treat it like family. And he was a great guy, a fierce competitor, great football player, offense, defense, he could do it all. He kicked too. He was a kicker at one point. And he was just a great competitor. And, you know, like Councilor Scarpelli said, I remember those days, Coach Bud Kelly, another great person. He would always talk repeatedly. He got blue and white running through the veins, and no one had more blue and white running through their veins than Al McDougal. You know, he was just a great person and he won't be missed. So, Captain Al, my thoughts and prayers are with you. Thank you, Councilor Palacio. Councilor Marks.
[Caraviello]: You know, I couldn't say enough with my colleagues already said, I appreciate Council Vice President Knight putting us on. You know, the old saying, don't judge a book by its cover. It's exactly what Councilor Scarpelli mentioned. When you first looked at him, you say, wow, this guy would, you know, pretty intimidating. And the way he came across, he was big in stature and so forth, but you couldn't meet a nicer, kinder, gentler person that really would go over and above to make someone else feel welcomed. And he just had that personality about him. And he will sorely be missed. Mr. President, his love was to his teammates, his love was to sports in this community and student athletes. And it really showed through the work he did for many years, volunteering and so forth. So my heart goes out to his family and friends. Thank you, Mr. President. Personally, he was a gentleman. Believe it or not, I probably saw the guy four days a week. talk to him for at least four days a week. He's a good person, a good family, and he's going to be sorely missed in our community. Any further discussion? And on the motion by Councilor Nathan, the meeting will be dedicated in his honor. Please rise for a moment of silence. We have one more on too, Mr. President, if you want to do it at the same time. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Knight]: Councilor Bears?
[Caraviello]: Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Councilor Marks?
[Knight]: Yes.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Ferraro? Yes, I'm in the affirmative motion passes. Offered by Councilor Marks. Be resolved in a moment of silence, beheld for a long time by President Joseph DeRocco on his recent passing. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. For anyone that knew Joe and his lovely wife, Carolyn, they were the epitome of a couple in this community. Married 62 years. Whenever you saw Joe, you saw Carolyn, and vice versa. You know, many people knew Joe as Umbrella Joe, which sounds like a strange nickname, but he loved hanging around the beach. And he was at the beach so often, they used to call him Umbrella Joe. I guess this could be worse names. But, you know, he served in the United States Army and fought in the Korean War. The last of the, you know, the old generation there that you said they went to war, they raised a family, they worked hard, they had family values. And it's sad, Mr. President, seeing these residents that were losing one at a time. It really is sad. He loves spending time with his family and his grandchildren, and he will be sorry, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Will you rise for a moment of silence, please? On the motion by Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Knight]: Councilor Pears. Yes. Councilor Tocco. Yes. Vice President Nights. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello. Yes.
[Caraviello]: 7-7 motion passes. Records. Table records of March 23rd were passed to Councilor Marks. Councilor Marks, how did you find those tabled records? I review the records, Mr. President, and find them to be in order and in approval. The motion by Councilor Marks, seconded by Vice President Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Peters? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello? Yes, I move the permanent motion passes. Records were passed through Councilor Morell. Councilor Morell, how did you find those records?
[Morell]: I found them to be in order and move approval.
[Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Morell, seconded by Vice President Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks.
[Knight]: Yes.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello. Yes. Seven in the permanent, motion passes. Councilor Scarpelli. Before we leave, I just want to give a couple of notes, just share a couple of notes. Everybody, we've got an email today, starting on Wednesday, April 14th. It's evening work to start the overnight work for safety improvements for South and Main Street, starting this next Wednesday through its completion. They're talking about painting of the lanes, signage and some barriers. So it's exactly what they have put through for traffic calming initiatives that will be implemented until the study is done and then move forward with the full time traffic signal at that location. So I know that people have been talking about that. They still haven't seen anything, but it's good to hear that Wednesday night you'll see some action and hopefully that leaves for a safe corridor for the time being until it's permanently completed. The second thing I wanted to share is I know that a couple of months ago we were here with a food truck permit and there was some questions and issues and concerns and there was some anger and some things were said. I just want to share something with everybody that When that happened, before the meeting was over, I got a text from a few restaurants in the city. And I know Vivian Sue, the president of the Andrews Middle School, she works diligently for the kids to make sure that they have funding for any sort of activities for the kids, even through this pandemic year. A fundraiser, thanks to Marie Carroll and Carroll's Restaurant, they're providing a fundraiser, which is a true fundraiser. He's doing for food in-house, anybody that comes with the flyer from the Andrews, 30% of the proceeds will go back to the school and the takeout 40% of the proceeds will go back to the school. So I think this is the true indication of what we're trying to go that evening with that our restaurants, our brick and mortar buildings were hurting. And we knew that if there could be an organization that would help, you know, we, I think there were three restaurants that were mentioned, and Carroll's, Razzo's, I think Salvatore's, but these restaurants stood up and Marty's Carroll's stepped up again. And I know that, I don't know, I'm watching what I'm eating, so I can get a salad, but I'll definitely pie that. I just watch. But I just wanted to share those two, to issues with the community. And thank you, everybody. I know Councilor Knight wants me to shut up. So thank you. Motion to adjourn. Second by Councilor Scott Quayle. Mr. Quayle, please call the roll. Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Vice President Knight?
[Knight]: Yes.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Marks?
[Knight]: Yes.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. President Caraviello. Yes. Assembly affirmative motion passes.
[SPEAKER_10]: Meeting adjourned.
|
total time: 93.82 minutes total words: 14603  |
total time: 2.38 minutes total words: 403  |
total time: 8.81 minutes total words: 1437  |
total time: 28.39 minutes total words: 3872  |
|
total time: 3.36 minutes total words: 577  |
total time: 6.74 minutes total words: 1107  |
total time: 10.81 minutes total words: 1829  |
total time: 0.3 minutes total words: 50  |