[Falco]: 28th regular meeting of the City Council will now come to order. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Present. Vice President Caraviello? Present. Councilor Knight? Present. I didn't hear Councilor Knight, but I can see Councilor Knight.
[Falco]: He's present.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks? Present. Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Present.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpello? Present. President Falco?
[Falco]: Present. All seven members of the President at this time, I'd ask everyone to please rise to salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the 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]: Mr. President, a motion for suspension of the rules.
[Falco]: If I may, I just have to read a quick note. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, general law chapter 38, section 18, and the Governor's March 15, 2020 order imposing strict limitation on the number of people that 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 or parties with the right and or requirement to attend this meeting can be found on the City of Medford website at www.medfordma.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 or 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 via technological means. In the event that we are unable to do so, despite best efforts, we will post on the city of Medford or Medford community website an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. And the motion of Vice President Caraviello to suspend the rule is seconded by Councilor Knight. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears?
[Bears]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven to nothing, the rules are suspended. Mr. President, 20583 and 20570. Okay, 20-583 offered by Vice President Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council commend and congratulate Stanley Chiozzi on his 101st birthday. 101st birthday. Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. It's not something I usually do, taking this out of suspension for something like this, but Mr. Chosey goes to bed kind of early, and I think 10 o'clock he's going to miss it. Mr. Chosey has turned 101 this year. Mr. Chosey was born during the largest pandemic in the history of our country, with the Spanish flu, where close to 100 million people died. And he survived that. He was also an Army World War II veteran. And here we are. In another pandemic, and Mr. Chosey is going to live through this one also. So at 101, he was a member of the bicentennial community for the city of Medford seven years ago, and outstanding member of the community. At 101, I want to wish him a happy birthday, and hope he lives another 100 more years. And I know he'll survive this pandemic also. Oh, thank you, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. And happy birthday to Mr. Chiosi on behalf of the whole Medford City Council. Happy birthday. On the motion of Vice President Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears?
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Councilor Marks? Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. While we are under suspension, Vice President Caraviello, the next resolution was? 20-570. 20-570 offered by President Falco. Councilor Knight, update on Lawrence Memorial Hospital. We have a number of, let's see, Lawrence Memorial Hospital with us tonight, and I thought I saw Ryan Fuller, I know he usually speaks. Sam, would it be? Let's see, we got... Sam, hi, are you presenting tonight, or Ryan, or Sue?
[Marks]: Ryan is here, he'll be presenting on behalf of Merritt's Wakefield HealthCare.
[Falco]: There he is, Ryan. Name and address for the record, I'm trying to unmute, there you go.
[Fuller]: Thank you. Ryan Fuller, 170 Governors Avenue, Vice President of Strategy and Business Planning for Lawrence Memorial Hospital. Also with us is Sue Sandberg. She's actually going to kick off our presentation, then she's going to hand off to me. Great.
[Falco]: I'm going to unmute Sue. There you go. Hi, Sue. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey.
[SPEAKER_24]: Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey.
[Sandberg]: Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey Thank you. OK, how's that?
[Howley]: Am I still echoing?
[Falco]: It's much better. So I think you're good to begin. Thank you.
[Sandberg]: OK. I'm still hearing it, guys. I'm going to just grab a different device real quick. Sorry about this. I just don't want to mess it up.
[O'Reilly]: I'll be right back with you.
[Knight]: Mr. President, motion to revert back to the regular order of business to take care of paper 20-476.
[Falco]: On the motion of Councilor Knight to revert back to the regular order of business, seconded by Councilor Bears, to take paper 20-476. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears?
[Caraviello]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello?
[Caraviello]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight?
[Knight]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight, I didn't hear you.
[Knight]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Thank you. Councilor Marks?
[Marks]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell?
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. 20-476, City of Medford Draft Ordinance Cannabis Advisory Committee.
[Knight]: Mr. President, motion to table the next regular meeting. City solicitor was requested to put some language together last week. She's not in receipt of that quite yet, so she needs another week to put that together. I'd move for approval to a date certain next regular meeting. Second.
[Falco]: On the motion of Councilor Knight to table this to a date certain to our next regular meeting, which will be next Tuesday night. On that motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Bears, Clerk Hardaby, please call the roll. This is the motion to table 20-476. Table till next week. You are correct, sir.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. 70 in favor, zero in the negative. The motion passes and the paper is tabled. Let's see, let's check in with Susan Sandberg. Are you ready to present? Okay, she's muted. Can I try unmuting you now?
[Sandberg]: Okay, is that better?
[Falco]: Yes, much better. Thank you.
[Sandberg]: I apologize. I'm a nurse.
[Falco]: I'm not an IT guy.
[Sandberg]: Thank you for letting me grab a different device.
[Falco]: Thank you. So just if I may really quick, this is 20-570. This is an update on Lawrence Memorial Hospital. Sue Sandberg.
[Sandberg]: Thank you. Good evening. And for those of you who have not had the pleasure to meet yet, I am Sue Sandberg and I am CEO for Melrose Wakefield Healthcare, including Melrose Wakefield Hospital and Lawrence Memorial Hospital. So thank you, Mr. President and honorable council members for the opportunity to be here with you tonight. I am happy to see all of you, even if virtually, and happy to see that everyone is safe and healthy. In planning for tonight's presentation, it was startling to realize that it has been a year since we last presented before this council. It was last October when we received unanimous approval for the special permit for the development of the ambulatory surgery center. Since that time, we have all experienced the significant impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the disruption it has had on our lives, our businesses, and our families. The once-in-a-century pandemic put to test the clinical foundation of our healthcare system, and proudly, we responded without fail. Along with our peers and colleagues throughout the state, in caring for our patients and our communities. I'm pleased to say that even with the significant challenges posed by COVID, construction of the ambulatory surgery center and renovations to the Lawrence Memorial Hospital lobby continued. More than ever, we are excited about what the ambulatory surgery center means for patients and the community as we catalyst to transforming the campus. I want to take this opportunity to provide you with a brief summary of what has been our response to the pandemic. At the start of the outbreak, which now feels like a lifetime ago, our clinical and operational leaders, led by our chief medical officer, who was also an emergency medicine physician, instituted incident command to operationalize and oversee our organization's response. The group met daily, each morning, to discuss and plan for key elements of our response, such as operations, including monitoring bed availability, staffing, supplies, planning and logistics, including coordinating with state and federal agencies throughout, and bringing forward innovative solutions, such as our ability to produce our own hand sanitizer. We also coordinated efforts daily with Tufts Medical Center and Lowell General Hospital Circle Health as our welfare partners to ensure that we had safe, appropriate levels of PPE throughout the system, that our patients were being cared for in the best and most appropriate environment, and that we had access to ICU beds and ventilators when needed. And when Remdesivir became available, we were one of the first in the state to receive a shipment. And we coordinated distribution of the treatment to be sure it was dispersed appropriately to all who needed it. We had contingency planning in place. We set up additional areas to be used as patient care areas if needed. And staff were cross-trained to support those areas, including medical assistants, physician assistants, and even surgeons. We took a tremendous leap forward in our capabilities to provide telemedicine visits for physicians and their patients, thanks in part to appropriate relaxation of regulations by state and federal agencies, which we hope will continue. At the Lawrence Memorial campus specifically, we had no interruption of urgent care services, which we continue to offer at the most extended hours in the area, from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily. We set up drive-through testing in coordination with state planning and our medical staff, and ensured availability of testing for our patients, and also for our region's first responders. Testing is conducted seven days a week, and to date we have performed more than 6,000 tests. And we continue to safely care for our geriatric inpatient behavioral health patients. And thankfully, due to comprehensive testing and admission processes established by our teams, we have prevented COVID from spreading in that unit to date. Lastly, and proudly, our School of Nursing successfully and safely graduated its students with little delay. The school responded proactively with changes in schedules and curriculum at the first talk of the outbreak and put our students at an advantage. 300 students went completely online within one week's time in March. all eligible students graduated on time, and ultimately they passed their licensure exams this summer at rates significantly higher than the state average. And now with the start of a new school year, the school is conducting a mix of remote and in-person learning with staggered classes. The school's plan, including contract tracing models, have been approved by the city and by the State Department of Public Health. All the safety precautions that were developed for the protection of patients and staff at the height of the outbreak, including separate areas in the emergency department for COVID care, and inpatient isolation units for COVID positive patients, as well as universal masking and pre-procedure and pre-admission testing remain. I want to emphasize it is safe and appropriate to receive care in our hospitals and in our physician offices. It's important that our patients and communities know they should not delay the care they need due to fear of COVID. and to contact their physicians with questions or concerns. And I also want to thank you, our local leaders, and our local businesses, our neighbors, and our communities for the overwhelming expressions of support you gave our caregivers. It meant so much to all of us during the most difficult and trying times of the outbreak And we thank you for the sacrifices you all made during the height of the surge to help flatten the curve at the times they were most needed. It's been very difficult for so many, but your efforts truly made a difference and have had a positive impact on disrupting the spread of the virus. For that, we are grateful and know we will continue to respond to this pandemic together. And with that summary, tonight we will be providing you with an update on the ambulatory surgery center development and the lobby renovations, including an update on the construction timeline and our continued vision for the campus. Thank you again for your time this evening. I'm pleased to turn over the presentation to Ryan Fuller, our strategic planner and development leader. Ryan.
[Fuller]: Thank you, Sue. For the record, Ryan Fuller, 170 Governors Avenue. I'm from Massachusetts. Pleasure to be back speaking to the Council and to all the residents watching on Zoom. I'm going to try and share my screen because we do have a few slides to share. So can I get a thumbs up if a comment about working people? Thank you, President Falco. Thank you. So as Sue alluded to, we thought it was important to tell the council and everyone listening that our vision for this campus remains the same. We are transforming care at Lawrence Memorial Hospital. This is the same slide that we gave a year ago today. And we couldn't be even more excited about where this vision is taking us, because the changes in the industry have continued to We're really excited about where we're going with the campus. So our vision is to transform care. So we're here in Medford and caring for the residents of Medford and a greater region for the next 100 years. a little bit. It's to talk about patients. to have the most extensive hours in their region, open 7 days to 11 days a week. Last month, we averaged just about 48 patients a day there. So we continue to see an increase in volume there. Some for COVID testing through our drive-thru, but mostly people actually coming in as well. was a transition that we have had made. But the important thing we want to talk about is our anchor tenant in our transformation, and that's the surgery center. And we're nearing completion of that and excited to share some details there. It really is one of the new services coming to the state of Massachusetts. We're going to be early on in this, and I care. It's something that is just stop at the ASC. ASC is our anchor tenant, but also the catalyst for additional programs coming in. So some of our specialists that will be performing surgery there are going to also be seeing patients there in terms of what the Fedex ear, nose, and throat, gastro, GI. And then with those specialties, you start to have ancillary services like physical therapy, internal medicine, and our women's health program. Looking forward to planning that that we're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going the city of and they are very excited about where we're So talking specifically about the surgery center, we are on schedule despite all the new challenges posed by COVID-19 for all stakeholders. That's not just us, all of us have had to change our lives because of it. We have implemented COVID-19 safety protocols in coordination with the City of Medford Health Department and proud to say we've had zero positive cases on the job site. We have continued our community engagement with our acute community advisory group meetings, or what we call our CAG. Doing those via Zoom now, like everyone else, being appropriate. And we continue to send our community email updates whenever we have something large happening on the campus, something that we need to get communication out, or just general updates. And that's something we're going to continue to do throughout the rest of the project. construction is almost complete. to be completed by the end of the calendar year. We're hoping to So one thing we wanted to explain to the council today was a change that we had. And part of this is a change because of the great process that you go through in collecting feedback from various city departments and stakeholders. So one of the changes we have is in our roof screen. you'll see an existing mechanical unit. And you'll recall the big change that was a win for everyone was moving the ASC inside the existing structure and renovating inside the current campus. So this was kind of pre-construction from a view. We had an 11-foot high building, a 14-foot high mechanical unit that has been there for quite some time, I think in the early 80s, when that building was put on. this location. Our intent was to to try and hide that mechanical unit as best we could. So this is the first we had was a 9 foot coming up from where the wall was today. to the roof or anything that happens in the building. It was a 9 foot high parapet. Again, that mechanical unit was a bit higher. But because of elevation changes, we thought this was going to cover most of the mechanical unit and provide something. But again, it wasn't going to be safe for everyone. And we happily made that change. We went to an unconnected screen idea. This is actually when last year it was screens. it was not going to be feasible for all of our first responders. It was not going to be feasible when we took into account the wind load and the structural engineering component. It was getting away from actually blocking that mechanical unit, again, because of the height of it, and to allow safe access in the period when our civil engineers got involved. It was not going to be feasible. We actually had to move them in further than what was presented here based on, again, additional feedback. And it was not going to work. So we landed on the current thinking or rendering three. We think this is a great place to land on. Again, our intent was to try and blend in or hide that mechanical unit that you see here. So this is trying to blend it in from an eye perspective with the rest of the campus behind you. We feel like this is true to the intent of what we're trying to achieve. We have communicated this to our CAG, and we sent a community email out about this change. And we also fliered everyone on the opposite side of Governor's Ave today explaining that this change was happening. And received really good feedback from a good number of residents that we talked to today around the idea and where the campus is going in the direction. So what you see is kind of 3 different colors that we put for information. I will continue to make that final selection and that in the coming weeks. But we think So with that, that was one change we wanted to come back and tell you about. We also have some very exciting news as it relates to particular community funding. So Lori Howley from our team is actually going to speak about that. So if we can unmute her, I don't want to do something myself here.
[Falco]: Okay, Lori, I'm trying to unmute you now. Okay, Lori. Great.
[Howley]: Hello, everyone. Can you hear me okay?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Howley]: All right, well, thank you. It's Lori Howley. I'm Executive Director of Corporate Communications, and I also oversee Community Relations and Community Benefits. For the record, my address 170 Governors Ave in Medford. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. It's really nice to be here with you again and to see you even virtually. And I want to just echo Sue's comments and hope everyone is safe and well. Just very quickly, we wanted to bring back to this group and to remind everybody that another benefit of the Ambulatory Surgery Center is the allocation of community funding. This is an opportunity that comes through the DPH in partnership with health care providers and approved DON projects. That allows us and states the opportunity to earmark a percentage of the projects cost to put aside for grant funding for community groups throughout the greater, for Medford and the greater Medford area. So what's exciting about this is it really makes available a significant amount of funding to help support community goals and DPH goals that address causes of health disparities and for resources, programs, agencies, services that promote health equity through policy, system, environmental changes. So really dollars that help get to the root cause of what we, again, is what we talk about is health disparities in our area. So this, an RFP, these fundings just became the process, I should say, for accessing or applying for these funds was just last week. So September 30th, an RFP went out and is being promoted in the Medford area, in the greater Medford area and the surrounding communities. $475,000 plus dollars are available to support grant funding to support health initiatives. This money is dispersed over 4 years. You can see it's open to non-profit organization, public entities, municipalities, schools, health institutions, based, like I said, in and around Medford. There is a comprehensive, how this process works is under the guidelines of DPH on their established protocols. a comprehensive RFP process has been developed. There's a multi sort of a representation of an allocation committee, including strong representation from Medford. Specifically, Mr. Neil Osborne is on the committee. Ms. Marianna O'Connor is on the committee. community advocate, Loretta Kemp is on the committee. We have actually a local resident who's also an employee, Amanda Nemi is on the committee. So we're excited about what this means in terms of being able to fund important initiatives over the next four years that come directly as a result of the approval of this project. to the city Council. And I want to everybody who might be listening tonight and you think you might want apply for grant funding. We encourage you to do so. There's a link on the Melrose Wakefield dot org slash RFP. And we can email that link out to the City Council so you can have it available on your this project. So I think it's an opportunity that has come with
[Fuller]: Thank you, very much. So just one final slide here, just to bring it back from a timeline perspective for the Surgery Center. The landscaping plan that was part of it, the landscape plan for the project we anticipate to implement this season, so and be completed with that in fall of 2020. That is inclusive of the fence installation that the community and the neighbors voted on in terms of closing the current gap near Joyce Road that will be installed in fall of 2020. our new lobby entrance will be open to employees right now. They are going through, employees are going through a temporary entrance. And we will have, we will install our ADA accessible ramp from Governor's Avenue in November as well. So we're very excited about bringing additional accessibility to the campus there. Our special permit items, our requirements, we anticipate to be completed We as I stated previously, I should say on the special permit items and completing those, we are in close contact with the mayor's office in City Hall and coordinating those efforts and we again anticipate to finish those up by December. in January. And then the 4 to coming back to this Council in the and hopefully rotation of 6 month So with that, that's the end of our presentation. And thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on what we think is an exciting project to bring additional care to the residents in there. Thank you.
[Marks]: Mr. President, thank you. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank Ryan and Sue for their detailed presentation. I have a couple of questions, Mr. President. One, if maybe we can get back to that first rendering of the building and the screening that was discussed by Ryan.
[Hurtubise]: Yes, sir. Pulling that up now. One second.
[Buxbaum]: This one, sir?
[Marks]: The screening itself, so that's the initial concept, right? Yes, sir. And that can't be accomplished because of concerns with the fire department, is that correct?
[Fuller]: Correct, yes, sir.
[Marks]: Okay, and the second rendering, that one right there. So the unconnected screens, what was the reasoning why this couldn't be accomplished?
[Fuller]: to be pushed back even further than what was anticipated here based on that additional feedback. So it needed to be, I believe it was 10 feet back from the edge of the roof line, plus 4 feet of down the mechanical unit. So when you factored that into what was actually going to be needed for height to block the mechanical unit, it was getting away from the original purpose of trying to block that unit. And then it also wasn't structurally possible.
[Marks]: Okay, so I guess the concerns that I've received, Ryan, just so you know, is that I guess what the hospital's pushing for is to actually just paint the electrical box, is that correct?
[Fuller]: Our intent is to try and blend it in as much as we can with the rest of the building, and that's what you see in the current record.
[Marks]: Right, but clearly there's a huge difference, aesthetically speaking, from your initial proposal to this current rendering here. And I can see why area residents would have some concern with that. Is there any way to make the exterior, I can appreciate the fact that our fire department may need access and so forth. And I don't want to block access or go against their recommendations. But is there any way we can make this more aesthetically pleasing? Because right now it just looks like a giant gray, what I would refer to as icebox. And the exterior of the building looks beautiful, the frontage. And that, in my opinion, sticks out like a sore thumb. So I was hoping that maybe the hospital can circle the wagons back and come out with a couple more renderings on other alternatives to just painting that icebox. that would be aesthetically pleasing for the neighbors and something that I think would fit into the new construction. So if that's something that the hospital can do, can you speak to that?
[Fuller]: Sure, Councilor Marks and Jeff Lucia, please jump in if I missed anything. Jeff is on the more technical side of things. Yeah, I wanted to jump to this slide, Councilor Marks. I think it shows You know, on the left-hand side, the pre-construction, there was a true icebox, you know, a big silver mechanical unit. You know, what we have now is still a construction project. On the right-hand side, there'll still be a lot of landscaping plan put in, the flagpole, et cetera, which will soften that. But we have three different options in terms of a paint color. you know, it's it's
[Marks]: Right, so why can't we put some type of screening right onto that mechanical box? Something that's aesthetically pleasing like the second proposal or maybe some type of building material that could be affixed to the box itself rather than just painting it. because your initial plan, I'm sure, was costing tens of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover that up. I'm not sure why we can't take a look at putting something else there that would be pleasing to the neighbors and Director Butters. So I would ask that that be taken into consideration and that you provide a couple of more proposals other than just the painting of the electrical box itself.
[Fuller]: like this idea. I'm not sure if you can hear me. you know,
[Marks]: Okay, I'd appreciate it if you can work on that with the CAG group, as well as area residents. My second question is regarding the exterior of the building, and in particular, the bottom lower part of the building itself. Do you have any renderings of that?
[Fuller]: Where do you mean, Councilor Marks? I apologize.
[Marks]: So the front of the building there, Well, now the other rendering, the other construction. Is that a wood slat there, or is that brick?
[Fuller]: Yeah, so that is a, we'll defer to Jeff if we can get him unmuted. It's a terracotta material. What we wanted to do here was to try and find something that is in the same complimentary the same color, but also show something that is new. Again, modern without being way too modern. Modern in terms of we want to be here delivering care for the next 100 years, but something that also blends in with the campus and the existing structure that is there today. So it is a terrifying sighting in the same family.
[Marks]: So is it like a brick master, like a terracotta that's carved in? Is that what that is?
[Fuller]: Jeff, I think you're unmuted. Do you hear Councilor Mark's last question?
[Kirsten]: Let me find him.
[Falco]: Ryan, it's Jeff. He's here.
[Fuller]: I'm having some technical difficulties there. So Council Member, can you just repeat that one more time? I apologize for that.
[Marks]: You said it was a terracotta. I was wondering if it's similar to like a simulated brick master where they put a layer of cement down and then carve the design that they want to carve into the terracotta or cement, whatever the substance is.
[Fuller]: No, sir. It's a panel system that is on clips. They're not a brick master.
[Marks]: Is the intent to look like brick? Is that the intent?
[Fuller]: No, sir. I don't think so, sir. I think what we're trying to achieve is something that would show something that is different from today, while also blending in something that's complementary in the same palette.
[Marks]: OK. Okay, it doesn't blend in much to me, but if that's what you guys arrived at, that's fine. My other point I have is regarding, as you know, Ryan, you've been involved with this since day one. A lot of the direct abutters going up Governor's Ave, there was a lot of discussion in the back of your parking lot, the second lot, regarding fencing, shrubbery, trees. I know that was part of your presentation. The home at 216 Governor's Ave has completely no barrier at all from your parking lot. And I was originally under the impression when we were looking at providing a barrier between the neighbors, whether it was plantings or fencing, that that was part of the project. Are they not going to put fencing next to 216 Governor's Ave, which would separate your parking lot, a very busy parking lot, from the residents.
[Fuller]: I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about. As of today, actually, so we have talked to, you know, we did get him added to our list, sir. We've talked with him specifically as our closest neighbor. I want to continue to engage with him. But right now, the plan is to not extend that fence.
[Marks]: OK. I would ask respectfully, Lawrence Memorial has been great during this process. We've come a long way. And I would ask in the interest of being a good neighbor that I believe it's roughly 100 feet of fence. that Lawrence Memorial make a commitment to extend that fence so we don't have a neighbor that's completely open to headlights and noise and everything else that's going to be associated with the parking lot. And I would ask that Lawrence Memorial make a commitment to work with the neighbor at 216 to put up a fence, a barrier, in the interest of being a good neighbor.
[Fuller]: And that's what we're trying to do. So we will continue to work with that individual specifically.
[Marks]: Okay, so I take that that sounds like that you will put a fence up.
[Fuller]: A commitment to talk with him and see what is feasible.
[Marks]: Okay, I appreciate that. And just my last point, I know my colleagues have questions also. During this entire process, some of the concerns within the neighborhood and the direct abutters was speeding cars, additional signage, pedestrian crossings. And I know much of which involves city input, the traffic commission, the police department. Has there been any steps with Lawrence Memorial Hospital and the Method Police Department or Traffic Commission to work on some of these concerns regarding speeding and pedestrian safety?
[Fuller]: and finalizing those plans that are coming together. So we're appreciative of the coordination, collaboration with the city departments on that. And that's what I was alluding to, those things will be finished by the, wrapped up by December timeframe.
[Marks]: Okay, and do you have anything you could publicly share with us at a later date on what's being proposed and what's being worked on?
[Fuller]: you know, we take direction
[Marks]: Thank you very much. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Ryan and Sue. Thank you for your commitment to the community during this COVID crisis here. And I myself and my family have had the opportunity to use services at Morell's Wakefield during this, not by choice, but Thank you for the care you've given my family up there. One of the questions I've got for some of the residents is, you have that dirt piled up on the corner of Lawrence and Governance. Is that going to stay there, or is that going back up on the project, or is that going to be removed at some point?
[Fuller]: have a question for you. this is an additional a lot of people.
[Caraviello]: Okay, so that'll be staying there, and it'll be leveled off at some point, and some type of grass will be planted there. As far as the, maybe this goes to Sue, the rest of the campus, any vision on, any word on any more physicians coming into the campus?
[Falco]: So I'm going to unmute you right now. OK, Susan, you're on.
[Sandberg]: Yeah. As we said, the surgery center will be built, and then we'd start on that. So yeah, there is interest. And I think Ryan gave you a preview of some of the first groups. And so I'm not giving away any secrets. When Larry Conway came to the city council and said he was coming back to Medford, he's going to be him. And he's also now bringing his partner, as Ryan said, Dr. David Crystal on. So they have both started work in Medford. They're starting at our building at 101 Main. And then they will move into the new medical village as we get that built for them. And there's some more cardiology physicians joining them. So there's a little teaser for you as this starts.
[Caraviello]: Yeah, I did get to see Dr. Conway and I was happy to see him come back to MedFed and talk about an icon in the community, it's Larry.
[Sandberg]: He's so excited, he is so excited.
[Caraviello]: And again, I just wanted to thank you for what you've done for the community during this COVID crisis and hopefully this will be coming to a completion soon and you'll be serving more members of the community.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. Any other questions from the council?
[Knight]: Mr. President, if I may?
[Falco]: Yes, Council Knight.
[Knight]: Mr. President, I just want to take an opportunity to thank Sue and her team from Melrose Wakefield Hospital, the Newton name that they're going by now. But they've done a great job in responding to the council's inquiries, the council's concerns, and always being ready and available to come here to address this body when we have issues. So I do want to thank them and commend them for the work that they've done. And I look forward to working through some of the design issues that we have and the construction issues that we're having in the neighborhood between now and our next meeting.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. And if I may, Sue, if I may, you mentioned a second ago, you said Medical Village. So I guess this is more of a branding question. So do we know, is it going to be called the Medical Village, Medical Campus? Do you have any update on that?
[Sandberg]: We're working on the branding right now, so stay tuned. But we are working, you've heard, call it Medical Village, so that's what I'm calling it right now. but we're working on a branding with a branding consultant right now.
[Falco]: Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. And I wanted to also thank you and Sam and Ryan and Laurie and, and the whole LMH team that's been with us from the beginning. Thank you for all your hard work and look forward to working with you in the future. It seems like this project is moving full steam ahead, so it's going to be great to see it when it's done. So we wish you all the luck and thank you for all, Are you helping answering all the questions that we have? Are there any other further questions? Yes, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President, I'm sorry. Again, I just wanted to reiterate my thanks to our team at LMH and thank them for always being on the other end of the phone. Again, I'd be remiss to say the backbone of communications, Sam Tarabelski. It's nice to see Sam back and And just reiterate, we have bumpy roads and to have the commitment of a partnership with Lawrence Memorial and Hallmark Health. And hopefully as we move forward to bigger projects, especially in our backyard up in the heights in the future, that this partnership stays strong and moves forward in a positive light. So thank you everyone for all your hard work and we still have some more to go, so I look forward to our future. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any other questions from the council?
[Marks]: Mr. President?
[Falco]: Yes, Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: I just would like to put my three recommendations in the form of a motion. The first one would be that two additional renderings of the electrical box and other alternatives aesthetically pleasing would be provided to the CAG group and to the city council, as well as neighbors and direct abutters, and that a fence be installed between the properties, between the parking lot and 216 Governor's Ave, a full fence, and that as soon as the discussions had with the police department and the traffic commission regarding public safety, pedestrian safety, and speeding, as well as signage, that those discussions be presented to the council. So those three in the form of a motion, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Clerk Hurtubise, do you have the wording on those motions?
[Hurtubise]: I'm working on the last one. The first one is the 2 additional veterans. Of the electrical box. He provided the community by the Council and the neighbors. Second recommendation is that the is that offense be installed between the parking lot to 16 governor's Avenue. And the 3rd is that when the
[Falco]: Perfect. Thank you. Okay. Thank you on that motion of offer by console. Mark seconded by a console. Ask our Pelley clerk heard of these, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Stacco.
[Falco]: Yes, and the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Any other questions from the council? No, okay. Clerk Hurtubise, does anyone have their hand up?
[Hurtubise]: Not that I can see, but I'm scrolling through.
[Falco]: Oh, I think Marsha. Marsha, I'm trying to unmute you. Marsha, name and address for the record, please.
[Kirsten]: Yes, thank you. My name is Marsha Kirsten. My address is 11 Upton Terrace in Medford. I sat in today mainly to thank all the people from the hospital for all the hard work they've done and for the many times that they have listened to me. I still have a dream for Medford and for you that you can eventually, when some of these crises are passed, to go beyond the ADA in accessibility and continue to build medical services for seniors who are 20% of the population. The people I have met from the hospital have been wonderful. And I appreciate all that, too. They have cared deeply about the community. So I know that all of you do that as well. Also, I would like to thank the city councilors who have been patient with me and listened also during a long period of time. And I still have that vision. And I hope that some of you can When we can work more toward the future, we'll think about it and try to implement it. It's my dream for a society I would like. Thank you so much.
[Falco]: Thank you, Marsha. Okay. Clerk Hurtubise, is there any more hands? Oh, Beverly O'Reilly, name and address for the record, please.
[O'Reilly]: Yes, 16 Joyce Road, Medford.
[Falco]: Okay.
[O'Reilly]: I just want to follow up on a point that Lori made about the DOM funds and how some of that will go back to the community and be on record as having asked the hospital if those funds can be shared with our community in Medford since we are the ones that are going to have visitors from other communities coming into our city to access the ASC. So I would like to see the funds that are shared with community organizations to be shared with Medford programs, please. Thank you very much.
[Falco]: Thank you. Laurie Anich, if you wanted to comment on that. Laurie?
[Howley]: Yes, thank you. Thank you for that. So the process is quite prescriptive from the state, from DPH. There is an RFP process. Anyone, clearly from Medford and surrounding communities who meet the requirements can apply. funds that, as the DPH has described, that really support root cause of health care disparities, or the kind of programs and resources and services that they're looking for. So I think there's a lot of good opportunity in Medford specifically, and knowing that we've got a very robust and diverse allocation committee who And as I mentioned, some key members who really understand the community, understand Medford, will be in support of that. So I encourage people to go to the website, as I mentioned, and to read up on it. And if you think you have some good ideas, please, please, please do apply. Thank you.
[Falco]: Mr. Clark, you see anyone, anyone, any hands from anyone that has not spoken so far? Okay.
[Hurtubise]: I don't see any additional hands, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Okay, thank you. Do you have any LNH? Okay, let's just dispose of this first before we move forward. Okay, is there a, the chair awaits a motion with regard to 20570. Motion to receive in place. Okay, on the motion of Councilor Knight to reconvene in six months, seconded by? Second. I'm sorry, as amended by Councilor Marks. Apologies to Councilor Marks.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Falco]: Okay, second.
[Hurtubise]: So Councilor Knight's moving to reconvene in six months?
[Falco]: Correct. Or sooner if need be, Mr. President. Or sooner if need be. And that was seconded by Councilor Bears.
[Scarpelli]: Yep.
[Hurtubise]: Mr. President, I do have one question.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Since you already voted on Councilor Marks' motion, is that a B paper or is that going to be an amendment to the main paper? I mean, you already voted on it.
[Falco]: We'll make that a B paper. Is that all right? B paper.
[Hurtubise]: OK. So council night's motion is to reconvene in six months or sooner if necessary Correct You are correct on that motion Yes Yes President Falco call.
[Falco]: Yes, Senate affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Thank you everyone at LMH, we thank you for being here tonight. Councilor Morell.
[Fuller]: Thank you council, appreciate it.
[Falco]: Thank you.
[Hurtubise]: Okay, while we're on the suspension, we will take- Mr. President, you actually reverted to the regular order of business.
[Falco]: I don't think we did because- Okay, so on the motion of and the motion got somewhere off to suspend the rules seconded by Vice-president Caraviello, please call the roll Yes No, he said no
[Hurtubise]: motion passes. The rules are suspended. That was
[Falco]: 20-587, October 1st, 2020, to the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council, City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, regarding COVID-19 monthly update. Dear Mr. President, members of the City Council, in response to the Council's request for monthly COVID-19 updates from the administration, Medford Board of Health Director, Marian O'Connor, will be present at the regular City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 6th, 2020, to provide an update to provide an update on the city's response to COVID-19. The latest community data and other relevant data and information as available. The updates Mary Ann or designee will provide include but are not limited to. Latest positivity rate. Currently we are posting case numbers daily to www.medfordma.org slash coronavirus dash information, as well as state data on a weekly basis and full breakdowns of positivity and death rates by race and ethnicity on a monthly basis. We can answer additional questions regarding this data, our stage designated color code and what the data means for our reopening plans in Medford. Tufts University updates. We can break down the university's public dashboard with positivity rates, tests completed to date, and answer any questions regarding Tufts-specific COVID-19 plans. Reopening plans and related information. Of particular interest for October, the state has announced that cities and towns may proceed to phase three, step two, as of October 5th. as long as the community is not in the red category. We can provide information about Method Step 2 plans and protocols. Additional updates and information as necessary and available, we will provide updates on programs and resources like the city's RUOK program for seniors, upcoming flu vaccine clinics, and using these to prepare the potential future COVID-19 vaccine clinics, updates on nursing home data and schools and other information. Marianne or another member of my team will be available to the first city council meeting each month to provide these updates as requested, and we will answer any additional questions you may have. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn mayor. So we have, let's see, Marianne O'Connor. I just unmuted you. Hi, Marianne.
[O'Connor]: Hi. Hello, President Falco. Hello, members of the city council. That's a lot. Happy to answer any questions and give you some updates, but I don't know if you want to start with questions, or you just want me to start kind of telling you where we're at right now, and then maybe open up to questions now, whatever.
[Falco]: Why don't we do that? If you could give us an update, and then from there, I'm sure there'll be questions, and we can ask those questions as they pop up.
[Knight]: You read the update, didn't you?
[Falco]: Please continue.
[O'Connor]: OK, sure. So I guess we'll go back. So as you know of yesterday, right, so we entered into phase 3, step 2. But obviously, just as a reminder to everyone, phase 3 is still titled Vigilant, right? The fact that we are starting to open things up a little bit more. The fact that the weather's getting a little colder outside and people are moving indoors. It's really important to remind people that we are still in a vigilant phase, which means social distancing and mask wearing is critical and so important to stopping the spread. But I'll just kind of highlight some major changes as to what this next step two means in phase three. especially for us here in Medford. Some of the major significant, I should say, changes are outdoor events that expands to 100. However, still private events, your own backyard, private wedding or whatever, that is still limited to 50. Indoor still remains at 25. So that has not changed. While the outdoor has, the indoor has not. Performance venues are now open, although no singing is still involved in our wind instruments. Indoor, 50% occupancy, up to 250. Same with outdoor, 50% occupancy, limited to up to 250. But indoor and outdoor performances, which were typically not, especially indoor, were not allowed in lawn space, are now allowed. seven or more interesting changes.
[Falco]: Extra seating. Marion, one minute, please. Point of information council night.
[Knight]: Do these phase three, part two updates that you just gave us relative to capacity extend to the Medford City Council Chambers?
[O'Connor]: So no, so this does not apply to municipal bodies. So municipal bodies are exempt from these, but you still have to comply with the six foot social distancing rule.
[Knight]: So there's no limit on the capacity of people, it's just we're exempt from that, you said?
[O'Connor]: As long as you can do six foot social distancing. So whatever the capacity would be with the six foot social distancing is what you're allowed.
[Knight]: Okay, so we could have more than 125 people in the council chambers provided that we could maintain safe space?
[O'Connor]: If you could do that in there, sure.
[Knight]: Thank you.
[Falco]: Please continue. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Knight.
[O'Connor]: So the only other kind of more pertinent changes would be that retail now, that's retail specifically, so that would be your 7-Elevens, even your grocery stores are considered retail. They can now do self-serve beverage only. And in restaurants, seating has been expanded from six to 10, which you may or may not already know. And seating at the bar is now allowed. Again, that's not like bar seating. That's not for bar service. It's for seated dining service, but you can sit at the bar. The bar, there's a six-feet distance between you and the bartender or the employees. That's kind of the highlights from the new. There's a couple of the sports differences, changes in spectator numbers and stuff. But that's kind of the high-level look at the phase three, step two changes. Gyms and libraries are now allowed 50% occupancy. That's another one that would affect us here. As far as the latest data is concerned. So we are really looking at the state's data that comes out on Wednesday evenings. However, you have to know that that Wednesday evening data is based on data that ends the previous Saturday and goes to expire. So as of our last week's data, we are still in the yellow zone. So there's the gray, green, yellow, red. We are still yellow. We've been yellow since, I believe, September 3rd. So the entire month of September we were yellow.
[Falco]: So point of information, Mr. President? Mary Ann, if I may, point of information, Councilor Scarapelli.
[Scarpelli]: Could you just clarify that? I thought last time we talked, Mary Ann, you corrected me and said we were in the green, I believe.
[O'Connor]: I think you said we're in the green. I'm sorry, Councilor. I think you said we're in the green, and I said, no, we've been in the yellow. Yeah. So we've been in the yellow since about September 3rd, the entire month of September. Oh, thank you. Yes, no problem. Which means we have an average over that 14-day period that the state uses that data point in, we have between four and eight cases, less than eight, greater than four cases. And it looks like, you know, coming forward, some of the new data will come out tomorrow night. And that will be based on, you know, the Sunday 9-20 to the Saturday 10-3. That's a two-week data week. You know, it comes out on Wednesday. It ends on the previous Saturday. And for my calculations, if my math skills are any good, but the way that the state categorizes it or does their math, kind of, complicated, and the fact that cases change every day. So even though they're going to pull this data tomorrow morning and end on last Saturday, the data is changing every day as to whether a case may have been not ours, should have been somewhere else. The data is very difficult because it's never at the same time that everyone's pulling the same data. But anyways, that being said, I'm thinking there are probably about 52 cases. As of last Saturday, for those past two weeks, which I believe still puts us in the yellow, again, if my math matches the state's math. However, we're going to be higher than we have been. So last week we were at an average of 4.82. I think the 52 cases are probably going to pull us up closer to a 6, which is higher than we've been in a while. So again, given the increase in cases, not only here, but statewide, it's really important that we be diligent in what we're doing, and mask wearing, and social distancing, and gathering limits, and really paying attention. The percent positivity as far as the state's rate last week was, and if I'm getting to it, if it's more than 20, please let me know. But the percent positivity, so that's the amount of positive cases over the amount of tests done, right? The amount of positive tests over the amount of tests done. State has those last week as .36. That's not totally real here because of all the testing that Tufts is doing. puts our positivity rate looks really good because they're doing so much testing. So that's not what we really want to look like. And I am working with the state, I've used to pull it out. I think we're looking more to probably a 2.4 right now. And you know, we don't want to be above that. So we're looking at that too. And all of this is being looked at with the school department as well. And certainly the red, yellow, green, and mapping has been looked at at the schools as far as how they're moving and moving forward. But I must say that what Tufts is doing with their own students, with their own community, it really seems to be working quite well. Their productivity rate's extremely low. They've only had about 25 cases since they started this testing, which was back in early August. Less than half of it, about, so of 25, I think we've had I wouldn't say 11, 11 and 12 have been housed, and maybe 13 have been made consumables. So we're pretty evenly spread, but still, I believe the tough system, what they're doing, they're isolating students immediately, they're contact tracing and quarantining students immediately. I think they're really doing, I have to say, a great job. As you've seen in other colleges, they've had some horrible, nightmarish outbreaks, and we, would have not seen it. And I think that's impacting Tufts efforts. Tufts did announce today that they will be offering community testing to neighbors. So those are streets abutting the Tufts campus. There's quite a few lists, quite a few streets listed. You can find that on their website, their community relations website. It's free to those folks who live on those streets. And again, that's out of a bunch of caution. I hope that maybe the neighbors know that neighbors are concerned, as well as should be. And they will be gearing up to about 300 tests a week. I don't believe they're going to be at that quite yet, like next week when they stop. But they will, if necessary. It's kind of going to see how much interest there is out there. But they will be offering free testing to those streets, to those neighbors. who live abiding the Tufts campus and abiding the streets that house a lot of off-campus students. So that's great. We will be offering a family flu clinic. It's very important this year, I can see you from here and everywhere else, that we have, you know, combined with COVID, that flu is coming up and we certainly don't want to have a combined situation. So we are providing our food clinic to our seniors at our senior center, which was quite successful. And we're doing it COVID-friendly, social distancing. People don't have to worry. We're following the rules. But we will be offering it from 9 to 1 on Saturday, October 24 at the McGlynn for families. We'll be offering to school-aged children. As you know, we order from the governor for school-aged children. should be receiving their flu vaccine by 1231. And so we're trying to help with that. We did order additional flu vaccines, and we are opening that up. The first one is Saturday, October 24th. We're hoping to do additional ones and drive-through potentials so that we can prepare and drill for what it's going to look like when we have the COVID vaccine. But right now, we want to get the flu vaccine out as much as we can. So please put that on the calendar, October 24th, or 9-1-1. I'm not sure if there are any other updates or information. The other thing that we are obviously doing with TAF's assistance is we are offering teacher testing, which has been great, really helpful. Prior to teachers who were doing the hybrid back to school model, prior to those grades starting class on Monday, we are testing the teachers who will be entering the buildings for the first time previous Wednesday. So tomorrow will be our first of three. Tomorrow will be our third testing that we've done for teachers who will be entering the building for the first time next week. We were able to catch a couple of positive teachers in our first round prior to them entering the building. So that was really great that they did not enter the building as positive cases. And last week we did not have any positives, but we will be doing testing again tomorrow for the teachers and staff who will be entering the building next Monday. So that's, and that again has been in collaboration with Tufts and Armstrong Unions has been also helping greatly with those efforts as well. stay with approximately 200 per week that we got staffed up to do those testings every Wednesday. So, I think that's all that I have here. I'm not sure if there's any additional questions.
[Falco]: Okay. Mary Ann, thank you very much for the update. We have a number of councilors that have questions. We have Councilor Bears, Councilor Morell, Councilor Scarpelli, Vice President Caraviello, Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Mary Ann. I think you've had an incredibly difficult job over these past several months, keeping people alive, keeping people safe and healthy. And now, as it drags on, as the serious situation drags on, you have the job of trying to keep people in our community, keeping them safe from themselves, to an extent. We all want things to go back to normal. We all want things to be the way they were before, but we are where we are. So I just have a couple questions. You mentioned that we've been in the yellow for over a month, that our positivity You know, we have positive tests at some point in the Medford Public Schools. And, you know, we've seen over the past two weeks in Massachusetts, a 65% increase in COVID cases, positive cases over the past two weeks in Massachusetts. And the governor today was talking about a winter surge. So it's not the time to let our guard down at all. We have to be vigilant. We need to be careful. We shouldn't be pushing things faster than they should go, as recommended by our public health experts. I was just wondering, Marianne, given those statistics and given what the governor was talking about today, what are the plans or what are the thoughts around if cases continue to go up over the next couple months?
[O'Connor]: Yes, thank you for that. You're right. And I think everyone is experiencing some COVID fatigue, right? It's been going on a long time. This is time to be more vigilant than ever, because yes, everyone is predicting a second surge. And yes, we have seen increases in the state metrics, in our local metrics. So we are concerned, absolutely. And again, I think people need to be more vigilant than ever. stay socially distanced, don't go to large gatherings, don't have large family gatherings. And our plans are to continue to watch the data, watch the metrics, and certainly I've already had discussions with the mayor about, you know, things continue. Yes, you know, the state is walking into, you know, phase three, step two, but if things go the wrong way here in Medford, We can't go weaker than the state, but we can always go stronger than the state. So we could pull back on those gathering rules on, you know, pull back the 100 back to a 50, you know, stop some of the, I know this is disagreeing, and I do feel for that. I understand that, and I feel for that. But there, you know, we may have to take some serious decisions going forward if things continue, specifically community-specific here in Medford. The state may walk it back themselves if things continue to go the way they're going. I don't know. But so part of the message, I guess I didn't explain to you, is so we're entering into phase three, step two, because we've been for the last three weeks. If we had been red in any of those three weeks, we would not have been able to move forward. Going forward, if we turn red, like I said, if my math is right tomorrow, we're still yellow, but we may be pushing. But if we turn red, and then if we're red for three weeks, we step it back. That means all of those performance guidelines The restaurants go back to sixth seating. We go back to step one. And then we need to be out of the red for three weeks before we can go back to step two. Because if we go into the red for three weeks, So that's.
[Bears]: Thank you, Director. And I mean, I don't think anyone needs to hear it. I think we've all heard it ad nauseum over the past five days. But we have the best example of someone or some group not being vigilant when we have someone who's getting tested every day, catching this coronavirus and super spreading it. So we just need to be careful. If the President of the United States is vulnerable, I think we all are. One other question, you mentioned it a little bit in the positivity rate, Mary Ann, and I was reading about this too. The state's calculating the positivity rate based on the number of tests, but the old measure was actually on the number of people tested. Were you saying that the, you know, you said that because there's so many tests at Tufts that our positivity rate was like .36, but if we based it on the number of people being tested, what did you say that number was again?
[O'Connor]: Well, I would still recommend the empties to get it cleared out So if you have two college students, two college roommates, one's being tested four times, the other one's being tested six times. And on the sixth test, he pops. So that's the data kind of gating that we're playing here back and forth. And Tufts is being really helpful. They're going to try to help us sort that out, as well as the state epidemiologists. The state epidemiologists, as much, you know, we've gone back and forth, but they say, you know, these Medford students are in Medford. They are part of your community, so you cannot not count them from your case counts. They are low-income students, restaurants, and stores. So they are part of that community. As far as the positivity rate goes, there's a little bit of a question.
[Falco]: Excuse me, Mary Ann, point of information, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you. Mary, could you just reiterate, I know that I don't want people getting nervous if they read this the wrong way. You said that the way it's read, that if you talk to two students, one is positive, one is negative. That's not the case, though.
[O'Connor]: No, so I was giving an example of if- But that's how, yeah, so that's how it's written.
[Scarpelli]: Right, so there's only 25.
[O'Connor]: That's how you want to look at it. What's really giving you the best data for your community. Is it that one in ten test?
[Scarpelli]: Right.
[O'Connor]: Test positive? Or is it that one out of two students tested?
[Scarpelli]: Okay, so one in two students aren't tested positive, right? That's just to make sure. Thank you. All right, thanks Marion.
[Falco]: Okay, thank you Councilor Bears. We have Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Marianne, for that extensive presentation and update. I really appreciate it. I did have some people reaching out as far as you mentioned the two positive cases, I believe, with the schools. Questions about, as far as maybe numbers for quarantining, because there are the positive cases and then there are the people who may need to quarantine, and obviously that would impact the number of staff available to support the school. So I'm curious if the quarantining numbers, if that's something that can be shared or has been shared or any information around that.
[O'Connor]: Yeah, so when that first week of testing, they hadn't been back at the building yet when we had those two positive tests. So there wasn't a lot of quarantining happening there. you know, in the buildings. Recently, we've had a positive test within the administration, high school administration staff. And that has led to additional quarantine. But for the most part, it's been administration staff and not teacher related, for the most part. So as far as staff available for students, So far, we're good.
[Morell]: OK. Thank you. And thank you for that information about the flu clinics. I know you shared the date and time. Is there somewhere on the website people can find that information, too, and if more flu clinics are offered in the future?
[O'Connor]: Sure. Yeah, we will be posting that. I don't believe it's posted yet. But that will be posted on our website and the state website that people can go to along. And it will be on the school website as well.
[Morell]: Wonderful. Thank you. That's all I have.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Councilor Morell. Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you so much, Marion, with all the information. Can you just, so where do we stand with youth sports? Are youth sports participating now? Have they been approved?
[O'Connor]: Yes, so youth sports are allowed. There are like four levels of risk associated with different levels of sports. So your basketball, your hockey, your contact sports are considered higher risk sports, where football is still not really allowed unless they're just doing There are different levels of risk. The best place for guidance on the sports is the Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs are really controlling and putting out the guidelines for youth sports. But we've been in touch with most of the youth sports programs, soccer, hockey. Like I said, they're allowed to do it. Depending on their risk level, there's certain guidelines that they have to follow.
[Scarpelli]: So LaConte rink is open then?
[O'Connor]: I'm sorry?
[Scarpelli]: LaConte rink is open?
[O'Connor]: Yes, yes, and hockey is open. But they're requested that they wear masks during face-offs, for example. Okay, and what- And cohort to specific groups and tents, saying kids are playing all the time and not exposing other people.
[Scarpelli]: And one parent is allowed in the rink at a time with a child?
[O'Connor]: Yes, under M18, one per student, of course, per participant.
[Scarpelli]: All right, and it looks like the kindergarten are back in school with their teachers, so far. Yes, yes.
[O'Connor]: The kindergarten are back on Monday.
[Scarpelli]: Okay, so what I'm getting at, you're seeing a positive trend here moving forward. And I know that I asked the last subcommittee, I mean the committee, the whole meeting we had to give me some bullet points that I can present to you as a guideline. I had a great conversation, thanks to you, with President Asak from the Brockton City Council. And they enlighten me on some great avenues to take to open up the council chambers. She also enlightened me that the good news is we can use our COVID funding to help fund the opening for open meetings. like our city council meeting, so that was great news. So I know that I have a question later to our city solicitor to answer some of those questions. But now with the numbers that are increasing, I think that there's some pretty good strategies that I'd like to share with you down the line. If you can help me out with some of those bullets that I could share back with you to open the council chambers to a safe limit and open it to those people that want to come to our meetings in person. So my last question is, I think that, where do we stand right now with Halloween? I know that's going around. Has the mayor and the department talked about, as Halloween's coming soon, what protocols we're going to be reaching for or what that's looking like right now? Is that something being talked about?
[O'Connor]: We've had a lot of discussion about Halloween. So certainly the CDC has put out some really great guidance around Halloween and what would be considered higher risk versus lower risk. I think a lot of that is what we're going to be falling back on. A lot of that is what the past DPH has recommended. I don't believe that DPH at this point, and they have said, I know the governor might have alluded to something different today, but what I can tell is that they're really not going to put up any strict guidelines for us. It's more of us going to be up to the locals. There are certainly safer practices than others, but the CDC guidelines are really great. They suggest putting out individual bags of candy on the front steps for kids to take. I would love to do that, but I don't think I'm going to have time to make individual bags, but I guess we're going to get there. But certainly, you know, being careful, like you don't want to stick a bucket of candy out for people to take by themselves because that's transmission and you don't want that to happen. So again, we're going to be referring to the CDC guidance. We're trying to come up with some fun ideas here in Medford that are going to be safe and I think people are going to like. So we're working on that, but we will be putting forward some guidelines as well, but most of it will be based on the CDC. So I would recommend people look at that website.
[Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Falco]: Good.
[Caraviello]: Good for now, yeah.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mary Ann, where are we on our update on the three nursing homes in Medford?
[O'Connor]: Oh, great question. Thank you. Yeah, I meant to touch on that. So we're still in touch with all three nursing homes. They are right now doing well. Are there any active cases? We have not had positive cases for residents. They're still testing. We have had a few positive cases for staff pop up within the last month or so. very infrequently, I want to say maybe four over the last month at the various nursing homes, but they are continually testing staff and they are continually testing residents. And we are there in a really good place right now, thank God.
[Caraviello]: Is anybody monitoring the several group homes in the community?
[O'Connor]: Yes.
[Caraviello]: Are they doing that on their own?
[O'Connor]: So we are notified if there's an issue with the group home. And again, we have not seen anything for several months out of any of the group homes. Previous, if we were notified that there was a case and certainly there was follow up there. But again, they have been very quiet as well.
[Caraviello]: What about the boarding houses?
[O'Connor]: Same.
[Caraviello]: Same thing? Are they policing themselves, or is your department monitoring them also?
[O'Connor]: So we only would monitor them if we were aware of a positive case coming out of there. But they are up to their own guidelines. They know the safety protocols they're supposed to be adhering to. And for the most part, again, they've been quiet. So we're assuming that they're doing the right thing.
[Caraviello]: Is anybody monitoring the women's health facility on Mystic Street?
[O'Connor]: Again, that's up to them to do their own safety guidelines, attestations that they're following the rules. Because that isn't a neighborhood. Only if there was a positive case out of there.
[Caraviello]: So again, they're monitoring themselves. We're not, the city is not monitoring. So we don't know if, because that's a live-in facility there.
[O'Connor]: So the state has basically said that they're all up to, you know, it's not up to us as the Board of Health to go in and monitor all of these. That's absolutely no. really way that we would be able to do that, but- Well, they're a semi-medical facility.
[Caraviello]: I mean, I think they might be considered a medical facility, because they treat women with disorders. So, I don't know if that falls under your purview. Because they say there is a park across the street, and children play there. And some neighbors have raised some concern about that. And I'm just, I say, I didn't know if that falls under your, they say where they are some, they are maybe, they are a medical facility. You have no jurisdiction over that either?
[O'Connor]: No, it's a state license that would fall under the state. Again, we would only become aware if we got a positive case out of there. But they are all supposed to be self-attestations, that they are following the safety guidelines and the regulations.
[Caraviello]: And last, I appreciate all the vaccine clinics. If we could do, if I can make a motion on the paper that the vaccine clinics be sent out over robocall. Because a lot of doctors aren't seeing patients still. And I think in light of everybody needing a flu shot, I think they should be made aware that they can come down and get it without an appointment at the city facilities. And will we have enough availability of the senior dose of the flu vaccine?
[O'Connor]: Currently we have another 100, I think 100 plus high dose. that's at our disposal. We did get quite a few at the senior clinic last week. So last week or the week before, I don't know. But we do, I believe we have 100 plus more doses of the high dose available. And I know our public health nurse has been doing visits to some shut-ins who have called, that we do encourage people who are, if they are unable to get out, to please call us and we will arrange home visits for vaccines.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. I suppose, Mr. President, if I can make a motion that the flu vaccine clinics be sent out via a 911 call so that people are notified when they are and where they are. I see in light of many doctors' offices still being closed. Yes, please.
[Hurtubise]: I've got it, yeah.
[Falco]: A motion offered by Vice President Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: That's a B paper, correct?
[Falco]: You are correct.
[Hurtubise]: On the B paper, Councilor Bears?
[Bears]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight?
[Bears]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Falco.
[Falco]: Yes. Seven the affirmative, zero the negative, the motion passes. Vice President Caballero, any other questions? Okay, we will now go to Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. Ms. O'Connor, based upon the statements that you've made tonight, what is the position of the administration on sending our children back to school, number one, and what role has your office played in determining safe air quality standards in our public school buildings?
[O'Connor]: So I've been working with the school administration, school committee, looking at metrics and what would be safe as far as metrics are concerned for whether they continue with hybrid, whether they don't. It's really as far as the building safety that has been pretty much the school administration If my opinion is asked, I certainly give it. But this EPA guidelines, this DPH guidelines, this DESE guidelines that the school administration has really been following closely as far as air quality goes. And there's this AFER guidelines as well. I think that is really important that they've been looking at. that I have not been included in those discussions with all those guidelines that they need to follow.
[Knight]: They're well aware of them. Are you aware if the school department is using the recommendations of any medical professional in terms of their moving forward with the air quality examinations and the determination of safe standards?
[O'Connor]: Medical professionals, I'm not sure. I think they're really using the HA. PPA, AFTRA, all of those guidelines, DESE, DPH, all of the guidelines, CDC, that have been put out there. As far as the equality goes, I don't know that they've considered or consulted with a medical professional.
[Knight]: And what is the position of the administration relative to returning our students back to school?
[O'Connor]: So I believe that the hybrid model has been pretty much put out there. And as long as the buildings are safe there. So we're looking at both metrics and building safety metrics as well, which includes the air quality guidelines. But those were really, that's probably better off certified as being the school administration, although I've been involved in creating those metrics and helping them with those. I think that all that they are doing so much, I think they're better served at talking to you about everything that they're doing.
[Knight]: In your professional opinion, do you feel as though the school will be held in an in-person fashion at all this year, or do you think it will be hybrid and remote?
[O'Connor]: It's a latency. And I know people hate that answer. It depends. But I think the remote progress that we're making so far is really great.
[Knight]: You obviously don't have a child at home.
[O'Connor]: And we'll continue. But really, the case counts and the metrics and where we're at will determine whether we go forward or backward.
[Knight]: All right. So as of right now, we really don't know.
[O'Connor]: It's waiting to see. But right now, it's planned. It's going forward. So I think that's good.
[Knight]: And Mr. President, I'd like to also offer a C paper because Councilor Caraviello beat me to the punch on the B paper. But this C paper would be an ordinance, Mr. President, an emergency ordinance that would say that any school department or city employee who is required to quarantine due to occupational exposure to COVID-19 be placed on paid administrative leave. as opposed to having to use their sick time or their vacation time or their recruiting time, Mr. President. It's an occupational exposure. It's something that's happened because they're trying to perform the duties of their job. And if that case happens, I don't think it's fair that these individuals should be punished by having to use their sick or vacation time in order to quarantine during these periods of time. So I'd ask that that C paper be forwarded to the city solicitor for her to draft up.
[Falco]: Okay, so on the seat paper offered by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, Clerk Hurtubise, do you have the language of that paper?
[Hurtubise]: Mr. President, here's what I have. It's a seat paper, it's an emergency ordinance that any school employee or municipal employee who has to quarantine because of COVID be placed on paid administrative leave rather than on sick time.
[Knight]: No. Any school department or city employee required to quarantine due to occupational exposure to COVID-19? Okay, hang on.
[O'Connor]: I believe that's our position as a city. I don't know what we're speaking about, so I'm sorry, but I believe that's the way we're handling it now.
[Falco]: Okay, we have Dave Rodriguez, the Chief of Staff, has got his hand up. Dave, could you please weigh in on that?
[Dave Rodriguez]: Sure thing. That's been the policy administration since the beginning of COVID. And it's something that we've engaged with the collective bargaining units on the city side from almost minute one from this, that there is a presumption that if an individual is tested positive, that we presume that it is an occupational hazard, it is an occupational contagion. for the city side. I can't speak for the school board, I can speak to them about it. It's a little bit different because of the employee, how the employees have been in attendance since March, but I can certainly speak with them and see what their policy is.
[Knight]: Seems like it's a public policy initiative that's generally accepted by the administration, Mr. President, so I see no harm in memorializing that by way of an emergency ordinance.
[Falco]: Clerk Carter, did you have the wording of Councilor Knight's resolution?
[Hurtubise]: Yeah, let me let me read it back one more time. Just make sure any school so that it's an emergency ordinance that any school employee or municipal employee who has to quarantine because of occupational exposure to covid be placed on paid administrative leave rather than sick time.
[Knight]: Just administrative leave doesn't have to be rather than anything else. Okay.
[Falco]: Okay, on that, so that is a C paper offered by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarborough.
[Knight]: Mr. President, I'd like that to go to the city solicit of a legal review and drafting, you know.
[Falco]: Okay, do you have that, Clerk Hurtubise? Yep. Okay. On that motion, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Favella.
[Falco]: Yes. Senator the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Councilor Knight, did you have any further questions?
[Knight]: That does it for me, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Okay, are there any other further questions? Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Marianne for her commitment to this city over the last seven months. It's been very trying, and she's been a leader in this community. I appreciate that. Marianne, have you had any involvement with the outside rentals of our school buildings?
[O'Connor]: Yes, I have. Most of them, or all of them. present their plans to my department, to me, and then in conjunction with the schools, as far as follow up, as far as cleaning and disinfecting of areas after use, and all of those plans are submitted to me for approval.
[Marks]: Okay, so what type of contact tracing is being done by the city or what systems are in place to monitor the size of the groups and the purpose of which they're using our buildings? Is that being done by your office or is that being done, it is?
[O'Connor]: Yes, yes. So again, including in their plans would have to be how they are have to keep up with that. But whatever the occupancy rates are that are allowed, their plans have to be submitted to me. How they're going to monitor that, how they're going to pre-register people and register people so we know who's actually there, because that's really important when it comes, if anything happens to contact tracing, we need to know who was present in the facility. So they're all required to do registration forms, sign up forms with names, addresses, and phone numbers. So we can contact trace if need be. And then again, the follow up on this facility part as to how the cleaning and disinfecting is gonna take place after use.
[Marks]: Okay. Is there any actual testing COVID testing being required?
[O'Connor]: No.
[Marks]: So we don't know if we're welcoming anyone from an outside group into our buildings that may be infected.
[O'Connor]: Yeah, you can't do that. I mean, we don't do that for any public facility, right? So, you know, the hairdressers or the barbershop or whatever, nobody's gonna come contact our tested prior to entry. But yes, no, that's not a requirement. That's not in the guidelines. That's not in the state guidelines that they require a COVID test prior to entering the facility.
[Marks]: Right. What about a temperature test? taking someone's temperature.
[O'Connor]: That's, you know, some places do do that, but that's really not looked at as a good measure or a good, you know, a real measure, I should say, not a good measure, a real measure of
[Marks]: So as the health director, and I don't mean to put you on the spot, and if you don't want to answer, you don't have to, but what's your personal thought about entertaining activities in a building we're trying to lock down for safety reasons, inviting people from the public into these buildings? What's your personal thought on that?
[O'Connor]: Well, as long as the guidelines are followed, as long as the protocols are followed, and as long as, certainly, I know there are strict restrictions as far as they are not allowed to go anywhere else in the building. If this is where they're going, there are staffs jamming in to make sure that they do not go anywhere else in the building or use any other rooms in the building. So as long as the guidelines and protocols are being followed, and then the cleaning and disinfecting takes place afterwards.
[Falco]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[Caraviello]: Point of information, Vice President Caraviello. Thank you. Marianne, who's monitoring, who's monitoring that at the high school, at the schools?
[O'Connor]: Security personnel and our custodian.
[Caraviello]: Okay, so they're there every time there's another group there? They're there on site?
[O'Connor]: Yes. Monitoring and making sure that no other part of the building is used, that they don't go any further. and that they're fully responsible for cleaning and disinfecting after every use prior to anybody else walking in.
[Caraviello]: How many security personnel are there when they're in there?
[O'Connor]: I don't know. I can't tell you that. I don't know. But I don't see the custodial or whatever they use for the security personnel. But they are there to restrict access anywhere else in the building.
[Marks]: Thank you. So Mary, just so I understand, and I don't want to beat a dead horse, but if we had an issue of a student contracting COVID that we know was, or a teacher, or faculty, whoever it might be, that was in the Marsha Karen Little Theater. And the previous day, there was, or the day after, there was 75 people from an outside organization using the Marsha Karen Theater. contact every person that we have on record that was in that particular part of the building.
[O'Connor]: So you have to be a contact of that person. So just because you're in the building where someone tested positive.
[Marks]: Well, what about in a particular area?
[O'Connor]: You have to be within six feet of a confirmed case. for 15 minutes or longer. So if you're in the same room that someone was in the day before and that room's been disinfected, that doesn't make you a contact. The only way you're a contact is if you are directly with someone who becomes a known confirmed case within six feet for 15 minutes or longer. So that's where the room situation isn't really so much of a factor. Does that make sense?
[Marks]: I appreciate that. So that doesn't make you eligible for contact tracing, although it could make you eligible for getting the COVID virus, correct?
[O'Connor]: But so if someone was at that church service that was in that room, and they became positive, And we found out they were in that room, and they became positive at that church service. What we would be most concerned about is who was within six feet of that person for longer than 15 minutes. But I'm concerned about the entire room. We're only concerned about people who have been around that person within six feet for 15 minutes or longer.
[Marks]: So you wouldn't be concerned the following day that students may be using that exact room?
[O'Connor]: Not at all. Not at all? Not at all.
[Scarpelli]: Point of information if I can.
[Falco]: Point of information, Councilor Scott. Go ahead.
[Scarpelli]: Mary Ann, I know that when we do our programs and we have the same situations where we bring in large crowds and so are you telling me that it's the custodian? I'm assuming that anybody that comes into our buildings for contact tracing, we have a log for everybody that comes in through that entrance. So we have a name, a phone number, and an email address, correct? Correct. All right. So do we have those logs?
[O'Connor]: Yes. If they're using that building, they're required to have all that information for anyone who was in attendance that day. Thank you for your registration, actually.
[Scarpelli]: So our custodians have those locks? Who has them?
[O'Connor]: No, no, no. The actual church people have those locks. So if I need to call them back and say, who's in there at that time, they can provide me with that information.
[Scarpelli]: That frightens me, because we do that with our Board of Health next door. You know how private and shaky some of these organizations are, that they sort of protect each other. I find it amazing that we don't have, as they walk through the doors, It's a simple check-in where we have clean pens, and then we have pens that are put into a separate area to be disinfected. And everybody comes in and signs that, and we hold on to that information. And if anything comes back from that church organization, that we know that we're contacting those people. I find it hard to believe that we trust outside organizations that want to keep that position in our facilities for future programming, that we would allow them to do that. I hope we consider that, because that's frightening to me. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: I don't know if Councilmax is done.
[Falco]: Councilmax, you're at the floor, so I'm not sure if you had any further questions.
[Marks]: Just one last follow up to Mary Ann. Maybe if Mary Ann can provide us over the next week or so, Mr. President, just the number of organizations, what building they're using, the capacity of the numbers that they have. And I don't need to see names, but I would like to see how many people use in the buildings. And I would like to see what the protocol is for these groups, Mr. President, regarding the contact tracing, the availability of information. And as I stated in the past, Mr. President, during COVID, to me, doesn't make any sense at all to invite people that would never typically be in that building. into a building that we're trying to secure for our faculty and our teachers and our students, that we're trying to safeguard and secure, Mr. President. It makes no sense why you would want to invite that at that particular time, Mr. President. I realize it's a revenue generator, but safety should come first, as the Board of Health Director mentioned, and that doesn't seem like safety first to me. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you.
[Scarpelli]: Mr. President.
[Falco]: Councilor Scott Miller.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you. I'm hearing it again. I, again, I don't, I hope you don't take this. I'm not, I appreciate.
[O'Connor]: I just, I appreciate everything you're doing, but I, I,
[Scarpelli]: And don't take this the wrong way, but it seems like there's a double standard. We met the other day, and you were so adamantly against opening up these chambers because of the fear of overcrowding. But at the same time, what you just said with these outside organizations, as passive as, as long as they keep six feet apart for 15 minutes, that's acceptable. So-.
[O'Connor]: So you're confusing, maybe I'm confusing you, I'm sorry. But there are specific guidelines and protocols if they're going to use these facilities. There are occupancy rates, there are specific guidelines and protocols and things that they must submit to this office and that we do follow up on and make sure they are adhering to. So the six feet 15, that's for contact tracing. So please do not think that we are allowing anybody and anyone to walk into these buildings and use these facilities that we know our students are going into. We are very adamant about what safety plans are in place and how we are monitoring them. And then we know that their registration process is in place and that if we need to contact Tracy, we will. So please do not misconstrue or maybe I'm confusing the two jobs.
[Scarpelli]: Yeah, maybe you are, but I'm just, as I'm moving forward, because I'm trying to put two pieces together. You asked me to put a plan in place to find a way to open these chambers. So I'm trying to figure out, because I asked help from our office, because I'm not in a public health background. So I asked for just bullet points that can help me with that, and I hope you can maybe sometime during this week. But what I'm trying to get at is just, if I present with the president, the rest of the council, a plan in place that has these new guidelines that this now new phase is brought in with what I can Google the partners that we have and that are using our facilities that got approval. I don't mean to sound as trivial as it's going to sound, but if it's that easy, then It sounds that easy. I'm not being disrespectful in a way just to let other organizations in and then limit this.
[O'Connor]: So public health guidelines are one thing, right? That's fine. We can do that. And again, Kim was on the meeting because of the open meeting. I'm not a lawyer. That's a different. We can certainly, yeah, with the guidelines and stuff.
[Scarpelli]: Sure.
[O'Connor]: You can go to Chevalier and have 250 people there, right? But the open meeting law is the open meeting law, and that's not my ballot.
[Scarpelli]: That's not the issue. No, but that's great.
[O'Connor]: So we can do public health safety protocols, but those other groups aren't subject to the open meeting law.
[Scarpelli]: No, that's great. And I'll get to that later on in the meeting today, but that's a great answer. That's all. No, that's great, that's a great answer because I think that that piece of the public health side to open this chamber, that's one of the two components we had a crossroads with last week. So thank you for enlightening me, and like I said, I'll go forward with Councilor Scanlon with the open meetings issues and concerns that we have. Okay, thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor. Scarpelli, are there any other questions from the council? Okay, we have a few people that wanna speak of us. Let's see, we have Shalene Douglas. Name and address for the record, please. I'm trying to, oh, there you go.
[Douglas]: Hi, Shalene Douglas, president of the Method Teacher Association, 414 High Street, Method Mass. So thank you, Maryann, for answering a lot of the questions tonight, and it was quite informative. And thank you to the council for clearing up some concerns that we have as teachers. and staff at the public schools. So one of the things that you stated tonight, Mary Ann, and I just wanted to clarify, I have two questions for you. One of the questions, one of the things you stated tonight was the mandatory testing that would be taking place at the high school. I just want to go on record and state that the only people that are being mandated that have an agreement are the teachers, the MTA teacher staff, and the are the only people that I am aware of. I know that the other unions have not agreed. So I think we need to make sure that everyone understands that. And then my other question to you is this. So when someone, and also we just received an email that we do have another positive test at the high school that is traced back to what has happened, okay? So I don't know if you know that, but we just received an email to that event. So my other question to you is, so when these people who have tested positive, and when they are due to come back after their 10-day quarantine or whenever they're due, when they are due to come back, are they required to show a negative test so that we know that they are safe to come back into the building?
[O'Connor]: So actually, I know it sounds contradictory, but no. They are not because. Once you test positive, so the valid is after 10 days, your infectious period is minimal. All right, that's what the science has shown us. If you retest, you are going to have RNA, protein, whatever, still hanging around your body. It doesn't mean you're infectious. But you could test positive again for weeks, all right? But you're not infectious. So that's why they went away from that to go back to work. We needed a negative test to go back, because that was found to be not helpful. So the science is, after four days, And you are able to return. You will not probably get a negative test for quite a while. So I guess I'm like dead viral.
[Douglas]: So my concern is, you know, and for the students, you know, people in there, I'm just really, really concerned. It blows my mind. I'm just, I'm very, very concerned. And I just think that we need to, I don't know if that's the, that's the rules and that's the rules, but I am really concerned that we will be having people return and we don't know some sort of, you know, safety measures. I think that's, and that's a concern. I have a genuine concern, and I think I can even see that you're agreeing with me on that.
[O'Connor]: Yeah, absolutely. But, you know, part of the contact tracing is before anyone returns back to work, we interview them again, you know, make sure that their symptoms have improved, if not resolved, and make sure that they've been fever free. And again, the CDC, the science is telling us that. that 10-day mark, as long as, you know, if they were hospitalized, that's a totally different story, right? We're talking about people who have had mild or moderate symptoms. So after that 10-day mark, if they have improved and they're fever-free for 24 hours, they are no longer infectious.
[Douglas]: So I guess my question is, how do we know they're fever-free? How do we know that they've improved? Do we just have to trust them? Is that what we're saying?
[O'Connor]: Unfortunately, yeah, we do. But you know what? I've had one teacher who came out of the first test who's called me every day since and has been very honest and very diligent. And we kept him out a few days extra, because he was like, yeah, I'm still not feeling all that great. I haven't had a fever, but I'm just, you know, filled. It's felt like, don't go back. Don't go back. So I think for the most part, people are going to do better.
[Douglas]: I have to trust them. I agree. We do have to trust people with that. Okay. And then I have a question regarding the rentals. You know, there was a lot of great points brought up tonight. And I guess one of the main concerns I have is A, that I have never seen these rental protocols. I would love to have those voted to me as the union president. I have asked for that, so if I could get that, that would be wonderful. And then I also- Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information.
[Knight]: The thing that's taking place- The information that the speaker is requesting is not under our scope and purview, so we don't have the ability to provide that. The information that the speaker is requesting is not under the scope and purview of the council. That information is under the scope and purview of the school department. And I know that the teachers union has a lot of concerns and a lot of questions. And maybe it would be more appropriate for the union to meet with the director of health in a side meeting on this, because I think- So Adam, I hear what you're saying.
[Douglas]: I guess I just want to make sure that we have the cleaning laws and that's it. So those are my questions. Those are my concerns. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Charlene.
[Knight]: Councilman, are you all done? That was it, Mr. President. I just thought we were kind of going off a little away from a council meeting and a little bit more into negotiation at that point in time.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody from the public with their hand up?
[Hurtubise]: Not that I can see, Mr. President.
[Caraviello]: Let me just check here.
[Knight]: Motion to receive and place on file. Second. Actually, Mr. President, I'm sorry. Motion to report the questions out, receive the paper, and place on file. Still second.
[Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor Knight. Seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: I have a second.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Bears seconds it.
[Hurtubise]: OK. To report the questions out, receive the paper, and place on file. Councilor Bears?
[Bears]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight?
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks?
[SPEAKER_24]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes.
[Caraviello]: Is President Falco absent? At the moment.
[Hurtubise]: OK. Vice President Caraviello?
[Caraviello]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. Motion passes.
[Bears]: Mr. President, while we're under suspension, motion to take 20-541.
[Caraviello]: I'm sorry, Councilor Bears?
[Bears]: While we're under suspension, motion to take paper 20-541. 20-541.
[Caraviello]: Reports of committees. Oh, sorry. On the motion of Councilor Bears, while we're under suspension. 20-541. September 21, Committee of the Whole. Report to follow. That would be?
[Bears]: It's the one under communications from the mayor. It's the historic district.
[Caraviello]: Hold on, let me get that paper.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hold on.
[Caraviello]: Hold on, hold on. Page 11. Communications from the Mayor, here we go. I'll start reading it up until the President comes back. To the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council, City of Medford, proposed ordinance, Historic District, dear Mr. President and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your Honorable body approve the following amendments to the City of Medford revised ordinance entitled, Historic District Commission Article 3, Section 48-51, as described below. These amendments clarify the ordinance to delineate the previous approved districts, and at the request of the Medford Historic District Commission, create a new single parcel historic district at 16 Foster Court. By way of background, section 48, that's 51A, under the authority of Master General Law, section chapter 40, section 3, there is hereby established a Hillside Avenue On the motion by Councilor Naito, waive the reading, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Miz.
[Falco]: Okay, so if I may, This was tabled previously, so this is, and I apologize, I just came back. Is it open and taken to take this from the table? It has, okay. Okay, thank you. Okay. Okay, so on the roll to take this from the table, did someone make a motion to take this?
[Bears]: To waive the reading.
[Falco]: Okay, but did someone make a motion to take it from the table? It was on the, this was tabled previously.
[Hurtubise]: It was tabled to a date certain, Mr. President, so it was back on the agenda.
[Falco]: Perfect, okay. I just want to make sure we're doing everything right.
[Hurtubise]: There was no vote on Council Bears' motion to take it out of order, but it is properly on the agenda.
[Falco]: Okay, perfect. Okay, so there was a motion to waive the reading, if I'm correct? Okay, so on the motion to waive the reading by Councilor Knight. We have the reading and to take the paper up. On the motion of Council and I seconded by Councilor Scott Peli, Clerk Hernebies, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello?
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes, 7 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative. The paper is now before us. Are there any questions? Councilor Bears?
[Bears]: I'd like to make a motion to sever the First Amendment 1 and the Second Amendment 2.
[Falco]: OK, so Amendment 1. So Amendment 1, Section 48, Dish 51 of the Revised Ordinance of the Amendment for Messages. So I'll read amendment number one, okay? Just so we're all on the same page here. Amendment one, section 48-51A of the revised ordinances of the city of Manfred, Massachusetts is hereby amended to read as follows. Under the authority of MGLA, chapter 40C, section three, the following historic districts founded respectively in which are on file in the city clerk's office are made a part of this article by reference are hereby established. Hillside Avenue Historic District, number one, and number two, Mom Simmons Historic District. Amendment two, section 48-51A, the revised ordinances of the city of Medford, Massachusetts, as amended in section one, is hereby further amended to read as follows. Under the authority of MGLAC chapter 40C, Section three, the following historic districts by the respectively in which are on file in the City Clerk's office and made a part of this article by reference are hereby established. One Hillside Avenue Historic District, two Marm Simmons Historic District, and three, uh, 16 Foster Court Historic District. So the motion is by Councilor Bears to sever these?
[Bears]: Yes, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Okay. Does this motion have a second?
[Bears]: Are we voting on each one of these separately?
[Falco]: Are you looking to vote on each of these separately?
[Knight]: Yes. Mr. President, can I ask the petitioner, the council that made the motion to explain the reasoning for the reason to sever?
[Bears]: I think the first amendment updates the language in the ordinance. The second amendment would add a historic district. Regardless of the vote on the specific historic district, I think it is worth updating the language in the ordinance. So that's why I would have them be two separate votes.
[Knight]: I'm looking at Chapter 48, Section 51 right now, and it looks to read the same to me under Amendment 1.
[Bears]: I don't have a copy of that in front of me, but I'd be happy to take a look at it.
[Knight]: We want to table the issue so the gentleman can take a look at the legislation, Mr. President? The current zoning ordinance?
[Falco]: Do I take a brief recess to read this over?
[Knight]: Is that necessary? I mean, you made the motion. I'm comfortable with the motion as is.
[Falco]: Okay. So there's a motion on the floor. That motion is to sever, uh, uh, the amendment one and amendment two. And that is because, um, this was to correct console bears. This is to clarify.
[Bears]: Well, it's, I don't want to speak to the intent of the mayor and proposing this, but there's two separate amendments dealing with two separate issues. And I think we should vote on them separately.
[Marks]: Mr. Marks. If I'm not mistaken, the first amendment shows the exact ordinance that states the two different historic districts, Hillside Ave and Myram Simmons Historic District. And the amendment two, which we would be voting on, is the addition of foster court. So I'm not quite sure why you would sever it. I don't think it matters, to be quite honest with you. I don't think it has any bearing on the discussion. I'd rather, Mr. President, hear about the meeting that was held last night and find out the great news about moving forward on the proposal that we put forward, Mr. President, with the owner of the property and the historical district commission regarding an agreement, Mr. President.
[Bears]: Mr. President. I'm looking at the ordinance now the 4851 a Amendment one would alter the structure To make it clear. I think to the reader what? 4851 a is saying so that's why I would stand by my motion to sever.
[Falco]: Thank you So there's a motion on the floor to sever
[Knight]: It looks to me, Mr. President, like actually- It looks to me like it actually takes away the mapping requirements as outlined in the establishment of the district under 4851A. This is only an amendment to- Bounded as respectively shown on the map entitled versus under the authority of 40C, the following districts bounded respectively in which are on file in the city clerk's office. and made part of this article reference to hereby established. It takes away the mapped district.
[Bears]: I don't think it necessarily does that.
[Knight]: It takes out the word map entitled. I'd be happy to re-insert them. So you want to re-insert the same language that's in the existing ordinance to separate? I don't have a problem with that. So we're going to strike Amendment 1 and replace it with the existing language in 48-51a. Is that the motion?
[Bears]: No, I think we're going to change bounded respectively to bounded as respectively shown on the map entitled or the map. Yeah.
[Knight]: And the map entitled the hillside historic Avenue district and the mom Simmons historic district.
[Bears]: Let's say the map reflecting the titles of the historic districts listed below.
[Falco]: I'm not sure if the clerk is following this, but I want to make sure that we have this correct.
[Bears]: Sure, it seems like there's a slight discrepancy in the length. Basically, amendment one adjusts the paragraph formatting of section 4851 subsection A to better reflect the number of historic districts and show it in a clear list. It seems that the language bounded as respectively shown on the map is not translated over to this amendment. So I would instead amend the language to say, instead of bounded respectively, to say bounded as respectively shown on the maps for the districts listed below.
[Marks]: For point of information, Mr. President.
[Falco]: One second, Councilor Marks. One minute, please. Clerk Hervey, do you have the language on that?
[Hurtubise]: I'm still working on that, Mr. President. I'm having trouble following the debate right now in terms of what Councilor Bears wants as an amendment, or wants as a change.
[Bears]: I believe Councilor Knight is the one who had an issue with the language.
[Knight]: It's because I didn't understand it. I didn't understand why we needed the motion to sever the two. However, Mr. President, I'll rest my case. I'll just vote no.
[Hurtubise]: Okay, so Mr. Rodriguez is available to speak on this as well, Mr. President.
[Knight]: I don't think he's the city solicitor, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Mr. President, if I could. We have Council Marks, first time we have Council Morales, so Council Marks.
[Marks]: Just past practice, Mr. President, any paper that has been submitted by any mayor previously, we never had the authority to amend or change, Mr. President. So I'm not sure why this would be any different. So I don't think we have the authority to change a paper submitted from the administration.
[Falco]: And I believe you are correct, because that came up actually.
[Marks]: On countless issues, whether it's monetary or not, Mr. President, we've never had the ability to change the mayor's papers.
[Falco]: Okay, so that is correct. So we have consular morale. Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I know, I think the clerk just referenced it. If just someone from the administration could just speak to the, just out of clarity, just the intent of Amendment 1.
[Falco]: Okay, so you have, Dave, do you want to speak to Councilor Morell's question, the intent of, I'm trying to unmute you. There you go.
[Dave Rodriguez]: Sure thing. I apologize, but the energy efficiency in my office just shut the lights out. I don't usually sit in the dark. The point of Amendment 1 was just a technical correction. It was meant to reflect the actual writing of the ordinance as it currently exists, with the presumption that additional historic districts could be created in the future, and that it would be easy to add them. That was the sole purpose of Amendment 1. Amendment 2 just clarifies that it added the 16 foster core at the request of the mayor and at the request of the historical It was written here in the mayor's office, it was prepared by the city solicitor's office. She could speak to that if she so chooses. And if there's a language discrepancy, we're happy to address that.
[Falco]: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Morales. Your amendment?
[Bears]: I've withdrawn the motion.
[Falco]: Okay, Councilor Bears has withdrawn his motion. Okay, let's see. Did anyone have any questions regarding this?
[Marks]: Mr. President, do we have any of the property owner or the- We do, we do. Members of the Historical District Commission on it?
[Falco]: We have a number of people. So we have Ari Goldschneider here, we have Christopher Bader here. Do you want to hear from anyone in particular? First, Councilor Marks?
[Marks]: Whichever way you choose, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Okay, let's hear from Ari Goldschneider. Name and address for the record, please.
[Goldschneider]: Thank you, Mr. President. Ari Goldschneider, 1287 Bay Road, Sharon, Massachusetts. I just like to recap the Committee of the Whole discussion that we had at the property and then talk about the process that we went through to incorporate their feedback. As many of the people here know, there was a Committee of the Whole to walk through 16 Foster Court roughly two weeks ago. During that walk through the building, it was quite clear to the city council members, and they can speak about how they felt themselves, it was quite clear that the existing structure could not be reused. And we pivoted to try to find a middle ground with the historic commission and the historic district commission at their request to incorporate certain front-facing architectural features, namely the four windows and the front door, as well as the ridgeline of the existing structure, or replica, if you will, because the existing structure cannot be reused, into the new building. So that was the arrangement, the agreement in principle that we had at that committee of the whole roughly two weeks ago. It was a compromise brokered by Council Marks. And with that feedback, I enlisted my architect, Adam Glassman, who's here, to come up with plans that incorporate what we had discussed, the four windows, the front door, and the ridge line into the proposed structure. That's what we did, based on the feedback. We shared those plans with the historic commission and historic district commission, as well as Mr. Herdbeast to send along to the city council members on Friday, this past Friday. There was a historic district commission meeting yesterday, Monday, at which point they basically rejected the drawings. like how the building looked and they sought to move forward with the local historic district so that they'd have design review over the new building, which... Mr. Goldschneider, one minute, please.
[Knight]: Can I just ask them to repeat that? They want what? Over the building?
[Goldschneider]: And that's why. here. here. Yeah, I'll open it up to questions, or Adam, if you want to walk through how we came up with the design, maybe that would be helpful.
[Bears]: Mr. President.
[Falco]: Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Could we hear from Mr. Bader?
[Falco]: Yes, okay, so Mr. Goldstein, if we may, let's hear from Mr. Bader, okay, from the Historical Commission. Chris Bader, name and address of the record, please.
[Bader]: Yes, this is Chris Bader. I am the chair of the Historic District Commission and I live at 298 High Street, Inman. So my understanding is that Mr. Goldschlatter agreed to compromise. He sent us a design for the compromise. No one on the commission And no architect that we consulted found a compromise satisfactory. It's just, I think disappointing is the word we came up with. And we would like to continue the negotiations in good faith. We are actually willing to go into negotiations with no preconditions whatsoever. But we can't really negotiate unless the local historic kitchen is created.
[Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President, just if I could. Yes, Mr. Bader, one minute. Point of information, Councilor Larkins. Not to interrupt, Mr. President, but I really want to understand this because the way I understood it was we were looking at saving the facade of the structure. And there was some discussion whether or not it was going to be to the roof line or not. And the renderings that I saw gave two different versions, one to the roof ridge and the other one just below the roof ridge. And so I'm kind of not sure what Mr. Bader is talking about, unless he can give me some more information about why it wasn't acceptable. Because we were all there at the meeting. And we thought we were moving forward on an issue. And now to hear that it's not acceptable is a little troubling, Mr. President.
[Bader]: I don't think that we understood exactly what was going to be proposed. And when we did see it, we were very disappointed. I'm not an architect myself, but we have four architects together.
[Marks]: So Mr. President, based on the discussions that we had, the initial discussions, I was wondering if Mr. Bader can get into more detail from what we spoke about originally as an agreement to what the disapproval is now. And I understand he's saying it's based on architects and other people, but Did the petitioner not present in those renderings? If I could just finish. If I could just finish. Mr. Bader, Mr. Bader, one minute, Councilor Locke has the floor. If I could just finish, Mr. Bader. No, that's all right, thank you. I just want to understand this because we put a lot of time and effort into coming to what I thought was an agreement to save a piece of historical property and also, Mr. President, move forward. on creating what I would consider additional housing in the area, which was a win-win situation. So I am extremely disappointed to hear if that doesn't come to fruition tonight, Mr. President. But I would like to hear more about why the two renderings that were presented, which to me address the exact issue that we were talking about. I remember Mr. Hayward at the meeting, I asked him point blank, about the windows on either side of the roof line. I asked him about the chimney, and at the point, he said they didn't have, and I won't speak for him, but there was no real historical significance, and he didn't even see a reason to save the chimney and the two windows on either side. So I really would like to know a little more why this is not acceptable, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Mr. Bader, please continue.
[Bader]: Yes, I think, is Ryan available?
[Falco]: Ryan Hayward? Ryan, I'm going to unmute you. Ryan Hayward?
[Bader]: I think Ryan can address the question better than I can.
[Falco]: Point of information, Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Is it the role of the Historic Commission or the Historic District Commission to establish historic districts?
[Bader]: It's the historic district commission.
[Knight]: So why would Mr. Haywood be the expert on these questions?
[Bader]: Because he was the one who was present when the tentative proposal was discussed. Yes, I was there. I recall that. We take his recommendations very seriously. Or I can have, we actually have another architect who actually is on the district commission, Fred Sewell. Maybe he can address these questions.
[Falco]: And if I may, if someone could please mute the background music.
[Bader]: Oh, I'm sorry, that's me.
[Falco]: The audio is tough on this end, so every little bit helps. I'm trying to unmute Ryan, I'm having a tough time.
[Bader]: Well, if you want to point to somebody on the district commission itself, Fred, I believe, is available. Fred Rick Soul, HTC.
[Falco]: Okay, Fred, I'm trying to unmute you as well. Okay, Fred, you've been unmuted. All right.
[Soll]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, I'm Frederick Soll from the Historic District Commission, 35 7th Street here in Medford. And thank you for your attention tonight. We did meet last night with Harry and his team, and we did discuss this in some detail. He presented drawings with an option A and an option B for this thing. And all the members of the commission were sort of disappointed, as Chris has noted. I wasn't available, and I wasn't involved in the site walkthrough with the council. I apologize for that. I really didn't understand that there was horse training going to happen at that meeting. And I guess if you made some unwritten promises or, you know, sort of unwritten expectations for a compromise on that. We weren't aware of that. None of us in the Historic District Commission were privy to that conversation. So I went to, at Mr. Goldschneider's request, went there this morning, and he was very generous and gave us the combination to the lockbox. Ryan Hayward and I visited this morning and walked through the property. And part of what we're discussing is whether it's total demolition or whether it's a rebuild, and I believe Adam and Harry and the team feel that the building can't be saved and that the drawing before us, the rendering they showed us last night, was sort of a reproduction of this property up to the ridgeline. And they really were insistent that we approve that the building had no value and couldn't be salvaged and should be demolished. And based on my walkthrough today, I'm unwilling to commit to that, that the building is beyond salvage. Point of information, Mr. President?
[Falco]: Point of information, Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Is the gentleman a structural engineer?
[Falco]: Mr. Sewell, are you a structural engineer?
[Soll]: I'm not a structural engineer. I'm a registered architect in Massachusetts. And I'm a preservation architect as well.
[Knight]: And the architects have the... professional knowledge and expertise to determine whether or not a structure is salvageable based on the building code and the like?
[Soll]: Yes, we do have that authority. I mean, you generally consult with a structural engineer, and if we wanted to, we could do it with an independent structural engineer. I'm not actually believing an engineer hired by the developer here, myself, but that could be fine. The building needs a tremendous amount of work. I agree with that, and as Chris has noted, we at the Historic District have the authority to authorize a demolition of this building. We can do that. That's within our parameters. We're not saying it has to be saved, but I'm not, Mr. Goldstein had asked us to point blank say the building could not be salvaged. We were unwilling to do that, all members of the commission. But that doesn't mean we aren't willing to, as Chris has noted, willing to consider that in our negotiations what's the next steps. The renderings that were shown just took the building that had previously been designed and put this sort of appendage on the front of it. And we all found it, from a preservation standpoint, not very persuasive and sort of not a very good design, I guess. And we are a design review board. That's our authority as a historic district commission. The historical commission is not a design review board. The historic district commission is. Our job is to look at what people are proposing in our districts and approve them, or modify them, or whatever. And we're open to all these suggestions of what people have done. And we have worked with developers in a particular building in Hillside Avenue, historic district, that's been converted to condos and things. And none of us are always happy with the outcome. We all have a robust discussion about it. We take our votes. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sort of thing. We would have no authority over this property if it's not a historic district commission. I know Mr. Goldschneider has said they'll negotiate in good faith. We're willing to negotiate in good faith. But the only authority we have as your representative here in the city to protect buildings in the historic district is if they're in a local historic district. Then the building department cannot issue a building permit for exterior changes without our saying that accepted changes are are okay with us, and that's what we do every day, day, month in, month out, whether the commission and the council knows we do this work or do. And I went there today, and Ryan went there today. We thought there were other alternatives, good alternatives. Maybe it gets demolished, maybe it doesn't get demolished. None of us are opposed to a large three-story apartment building in behind there. We talked with Mr. Gulschneider and his architect, Adam, about a modern design, you know, something that's completely different from historic district. None of us are wedded to the design. They asked for examples of similar projects. We gave them a couple of examples. And, you know, we just thought the design that was presented was very, they only had 10 days to put it together. We acknowledged that and it just, it could be a lot better. But we, because of our time constraints, voted last night as a commission, four votes to zero. to go ahead and ask the city council and the mayor to approve this as a local historic district. And that's where we are right now.
[Knight]: So, Mr. President, so- Counts on eight. Mr. Haywood was present at the walkthrough as the chairman of the Medford Historic Commission. The issue that was before us was whether or not October or something was going to come and go and a demolition permit was going to be issued. From what I understand, based upon the history that we've all discussed ad nauseum at this point concerning this project, was that he applied for a demolition permit. He got his property deemed preferentially preserved. He had his engineer come and say the place can't be salvaged. Where in the process does this design review come into play for the historic commission? And if the gentleman said, hey, look it, my engineers say the place can't be salvaged. Why did the historic commission wait 17 months to send this to historic district commission? And then Mr. Haywood from the historic commission is the one that made a representation that I believe if we look at the committee report that this shouldn't be deemed a historic district and the compromise would be satisfactory and that would be the direction that they would move it. Now, last night, they go before the historic district commission to have the plans looked at. I'm totally confused by this process, Mr. President. It's an absolute mess. It's an absolute mess, in my opinion. So I'm a little confused as to The historic district commission doesn't have any design review authority until it becomes a historic district. And by statute, the historic commission has no design review authority. And we discussed that at the committee of the whole and the chairman of the committee, the commission acknowledged that they don't have design review. They're not enabled, those powers on the ordinance that they're operating under. So I'm very confused as to how this is working. It seems to me like it's somewhat being weaponized against the developer or against the builder because he didn't agree that the building could be saved and present plans for them to look at during a 17 month period where there's no real statutory authority for them to have design review.
[Soll]: Yes, I would agree, Mr. Knight, that this is a convoluted process. We, as a historical district commission, we want to do this better. We want to make things and incorporate more properties within historic districts of Medford. That's our purview. It takes a lot of work to do these things. We have to follow state guidelines of exactly how historic district commissions and historic districts are established. It's a very consuming and convoluted process. It's very laid out by the state of Massachusetts. We're trying to follow those guidelines here. As we pointed out last night, the clock is running. The demolition delay is set to expire. We were asked to move on this vote for design force. We were then in our power to say, no, we don't accept the design. You may or may not like that decision, but that was a decision we as a board came up with. And that's where we are. We're trying to work with Mr. Goldschneider and his team. But so far, what we're seeing is not happening.
[Knight]: The part that's confusing me is why is it before your board if it's not a historic district commission yet? Why is it at the Medford Historic District Commission? Why is he going to a meeting there presenting plans when it's not a historic district commission? And the negotiations took place between the historic commission, not the historic district commission.
[Soll]: So last night, to answer that question, last night we were meeting to approve the mayor's revised language and the historic district submittal before you tonight. So that was our main issue for gathering last night and voting on that, which we passed unanimously.
[Marks]: Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart,
[Soll]: It did come to the council, we approved it, but my understanding is last night there was a slightly revised version that we needed to vote on to move this forward. There was some slight language adjustments made to it.
[Knight]: Is the administration going to offer that paper to the council? Because the paper that's before us is the paper that the mayor gave us on September 3rd.
[Soll]: I'd have to look at what the one we voted on last night was. My understanding was that wasn't going to be the revised one submitted.
[Knight]: Paper 20541 is the paper before us offered by Mayor Lungo-Curran to the Medford City Council September 3rd, 2020. Correct. 33 days ago.
[Soll]: I can't speak to that. I'd have to look through and find out. Maybe Chris, if you could add to that. I don't know the answer to that one.
[Bader]: I'm happy to add to that. Basically, we, the cities, we're talking about the same, we're not talking about different papers. The paper that was read earlier, about 15 minutes ago, is exactly the same paper that we considered last night. So there's no issue there.
[Marks]: So why the vote last night then?
[Bader]: Because the city solicitor explicitly requested clarification. And we, when the city solicitor tells us to do something, we do it.
[Marks]: So was there a previous vote on this back in September to create this historic? There was. There was? There was.
[Bears]: Point of information.
[Marks]: What was the vote at that point?
[Bader]: The vote was three to zero to create the local historic district.
[Bears]: And so that was when this was first voted on the first time. That's what you're referring to as the 3, 0.
[Falco]: There was another point of information council night.
[Knight]: So I'm confused by this. So the historic commission sent their paperwork to the historic district commission to establish a single home historic district at 16 Foster court and August 28th. The historic district commission took a vote at that August 28th meeting that passed three to zero to move forward with the creation of the district. Correct?
[Bader]: Just a moment. I'm trying to recall. Actually, the one actually happened in the August meeting. I'm sorry. I misspoke. Because the September meeting was devoted to other business that we had to pass over. Sorry for my lapse in memory there. Yes. The vote was taken in August.
[Knight]: Okay, so then the mayor sends to us this language on September 3rd? Yes.
[Bader]: I don't know when it was September 3rd.
[Knight]: You guys only passed it August 28th, that's pretty good if you ask me. You guys passed it August 28th, the mayor sent it to us September 3rd. I don't think that's too bad, five days. Now, the language that the mayor sent us is the language that you guys never looked at. Is that what I'm understanding? So you voted for the principle, but you didn't vote for the language.
[Bader]: When we took the vote, we did not know exactly what language the city solicitor had in mind. She wanted the clarification that was discussed earlier at this meeting, the city council meeting just now. And so we voted again on it last night. So we took the initial vote. To create the district. To create a local district. specifically mentioning that it was including the house and the entire property and the city solicitor requested clarification. We provided that as a further clarification last night.
[Knight]: As to what it is that you seek? Okay.
[Bader]: Yes.
[Knight]: But until this 16 foster court is deemed a local historic single home district, what authority does the Medford Historical District Commission have over it?
[Bader]: We can simply recommend to you to create a local historic district, and then we'll have the power to administer it per section 44. you make to the bylaws. For example, the antennas in pink color.
[Knight]: In theory, then, Mr. Goldschneider had no obligation whatsoever to appear before the Historic District Commission.
[Bader]: Not at all. He did so in good faith, and I appreciate that, and I want to continue our negotiations.
[Knight]: Where he really should have been would be before the Medford Historic Commission, because that's where the rub lies, right? I mean, that's what it sounds to me.
[Bader]: Well, you know, we are I can't speak for the Historical Commission. The Historic District Commission has to deal with the facts on the ground, and we are very, very open to negotiating really anything. There would have been no preconditions if this had been brought to the Historic District Commission earlier.
[Knight]: So, I mean, absent... So for 17 months, the applicant sat saying, you know, my engineers say it's a total teardown. My structural engineer says that, you know, there's nothing I can do. I have to rip it up. I have to pull it down. My structural engineer, my expert, who I hired and has paid the money, told me that this is what's going on. So he has an expert opinion.
[SPEAKER_24]: Yes.
[Knight]: OK. So at that point in time, when he notified the historic commission of that. Don't you think it would have made sense that maybe then you moved it forward to the historic district commission instead of dragging it out for 17 months?
[Bader]: I can certainly see why you would think that. I don't want to second guess the historic commission. They do great work. But certainly that is a reasonable view.
[Knight]: Right. I mean, I feel like it's being weaponized. Do what we say or else we're going to cost you a ton of money.
[Bader]: And there are 4 members of There are five. Five members. Ms. Blum, Ms. Annette Blum is the most recent member to join. Her husband is in the hospital, so she couldn't make it to last night's meeting.
[Knight]: Sorry to hear that. Can you just tell me what the terms of service are for all the members?
[Bader]: Three years.
[Knight]: No, in terms of how long they've served. I'm you. I know that your term is three years, but you've probably been on there for 12.
[Bader]: I was reappointed by Mayor and Burke, just a portion of the leftovers.
[Knight]: So how many years have you served on the commission?
[Bader]: Approximately 18.
[Knight]: 18. All right, how many years has the next most senior member served?
[Soll]: I don't, I frankly don't know. Dino's been on there longer than Chris, and I've been on the board for 11 years.
[Knight]: You're 11?
[Soll]: Charlotte Spadari has been on the board for, I'm going to say, 10 years at least, maybe nine. So we're a longstanding board. Almost all of us have more than a decade on this commission.
[Knight]: because that raises some concern, too, when the representative from the historic commission says, well, no one has been paying attention to this for 20 years. And then we look at the terms of service of the members that are on the board, and we look at the council resolution from 2014, which asked that single home historic districts be sought after and be proactively identified prior to the request for a demolition permit. And that was something that...
[Bader]: I frankly was not aware of this request.
[Knight]: It happened at the budget when you were there asking for money.
[Bader]: We were not asking for money in 2014. They just gave us a certain amount.
[Knight]: So we were given the money. So that was six years ago. Can you tell me how many single home historic districts you've identified in the past six years, absent the demolition permit or a request from the MCD?
[Bader]: Yes, 21 Truelow is the only single house historic district we have identified. And that was with the consent of the owner and also at the extreme approval of the neighborhood
[Knight]: So in 6 years there's been one. Well, this wasn't proactively identified. This was as a result of a demolition permit being pulled and then well, that was this was.
[Bader]: This was identified by community activists.
[Knight]: By what?
[Bader]: My community activists. They were people who learned about tops plan to sell the building. without telling anyone. And someone found out, they notified us, and we began to hold three hearings.
[Knight]: I know it's hard to sell a building if nobody knows about it. All right, thank you.
[Bader]: I'll rest my case, Mr. President. No one tells us. I mean, Tufts had a position, and Tufts, by the way, also owned Grandfather's House, and also sold that without telling us.
[Knight]: They own it, aren't they allowed to?
[Bader]: We are allowed to do that, yes. I don't think that is correct, but I think, you know, going forward we need some changes to this whole procedure. Obviously the whole thing needs some changes. And every member of the Historical Commission, and I assume the Historical Commission as well, is willing to work with the City Council to come up with a better, more rational approach to creating historic districts.
[Knight]: I think that's something we'd all appreciate, Mr. President, through you to Mr. Bader. Mr. President, I do have a last question, and I'll rest my case at this. At the council meeting when this issue was brought up and at the subsequent subcommittee meeting, I did ask a question to the city solicitor as to whether or not the criteria the circumstances of this particular property could constitute a regulatory taking, opening up the city of Medford to financial or other liabilities. And I'm wondering if you've received a response, or the city clerk maybe has received a response relative to that question of law that we asked the city solicitor.
[Falco]: I have not received a response. I knew she was working on one, but I have not received a response yet.
[Bader]: Yes. I'm not aware, but my understanding is I do read the Massachusetts historical list, which is followed by every historic district in Massachusetts. And the uniform consensus is this is not taking. This is simply like the zoning change.
[Knight]: The consensus by the four members of the Historical District Commission, the consensus of a land court judge, the consensus of whom?
[Bader]: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.
[Knight]: You said it was the consensus that this is not a regulatory taking.
[Bader]: It is not just the consensus of our commission. It is the consensus of the Massachusetts State Historical Commission and of historic districts all over the state.
[Knight]: So the district commission conducted a three-prong test to determine whether or not it was a taking?
[Bader]: It is taken for granted. And as I say, I'm not a lawyer, but it is taken for granted that this is just like zoning, and it is not a taking. I believe this has been adjudicated, and I do not know the details.
[Knight]: Thank you. So I think that opinion might be important, Mr. President. Thank you very much.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I mean, one other expert opinion we consulted was the building commissioner, Mr. Moki, and he did not mandate that the building be demolished. So I just think we need to consider the variety of opinions that we've heard. You know, I think it seems everyone's in agreement that a process needs to be developed or modified in the future around historic districts and demolition delay. That's not the paper before us tonight. It's not anything we do on that is not going to address what we've gotten up to this point on this specific issue. It seems to me that when we were at our Committee of the Whole meeting a couple weeks ago, that we felt okay about a kind of tentative compromise that was put in place that would lead to members of, well, at that point, I guess, members of our Historical Commission and members of our Historical District Commission Negotiating in faith with the property owner to come to a reasonable agreement around some element of preservation of this property or on this property that would allow the property owner to develop the type of structure that they want to develop while maintaining the some element of the historical significance of that property. That's what we're debating tonight. That's what we're discussing tonight. It seems to me that we have not yet reached the good faith compromise we wanted to. I think one of those reasons, again, is the timeline. The 17 meetings where this was on an agenda for the historical commission. That was not, you know.
[Knight]: I think I believe that the last meeting I asked for a copy of the letters that was sent to Mr. Goldschneider, inviting him to these 17 consecutive meetings that had him on the agenda that said we're asking you to come and present. Because the way that I see their agenda is that everything that they have going on, they just throw on the agenda and put it out every week and whatever comes up, comes up. So although it might have been on the agenda for 17 months, I don't believe that the gentleman was invited to appear to any of these meetings over that period of time but for one or two.
[Bears]: Mr. President, thank you. I mean, I would expect someone making a multi-hundred thousand dollar investment with the potential of a multi-million dollar profit would be paying attention to things like that.
[Knight]: Can the gentleman please provide me with the information that he just received and what expert provided it to him? A multi-million dollar contract, a multi-million dollar project, a multi-million dollar property? I think that that's not what I said.
[Bears]: That's not what I said, so I think anyone in the city knows. how much this building was purchased for as it's public information. And anyone knows that if we're building multiple units for sale on that property, that it would also be worth millions of dollars. I think that's reflective of the market conditions. In any case, what we're voting on is the specific historic nature of this district. And I think we're all in agreement that there's a good faith compromise that needs to come out of this. The timeline has been shrunk, and people can point fingers wherever they want. The timeline is what it is. 10 days to produce a rendering clearly wasn't sufficient to produce a rendering that people feel comfortable with. I think we need to vote for this tonight and allow the discussions and compromise to continue. That's what needs to happen. Otherwise, here we are, October 6, demo delays in two days, building gets knocked down, and then where are we? Maybe we don't even get a plank and a bench. I hope we do. We don't have so many tools in our toolbox. This has been waited out for 18 months with one of the tools. The other tool of the historic district is what's left. I think we should make sure that we continue to have the power to make sure that this compromise happens. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I do want to thank the Historic District Commission and Mr. Goldschneider for their work they've put into this. The crux of it for me is what was raised before is that there is, unless we pass this Historic District Commission, there's really no authority to ensure that that compromise happens. There's no guarantee that that will ever happen if we do not pass this Historic District Commission. So that's where it hinges on for me. I've heard from countless members of the community who are in favor of this commission. I'm sorry of this district and the only people I've heard who are against it are those who stand to profit off of it. So I'm in favor of this district. It has my support and I I just look forward to actually voting on this. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Morell. Vice President Caraviello. And then we'll have Councilor Matz. Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think Mr. President, Mr. Bailey mentioned it's a procedure. And I think the whole thing here is because of the procedure. The historical group was tasked five years ago to go out and identify historical pieces of property. And currently, the procedure is, you buy the property for us, and then we'll tell you if it's historical. That's- I mean, this is not the procedure that you should have. Point of information. Point of information, Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Do we know that a letter was ever sent to the historic district commission about this issue, that they were notified that they should be embarking on this apparent journey to identify single district properties? Point of information, the chairman was present at the meeting. Point of information.
[Falco]: Point of information council appears.
[Knight]: Could the clerk provide a record of such communication? Adopted by the city council in the form of minutes and forwarded to the proper authorities, Mr. President.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you.
[Knight]: Did it happen? That's obviously not.
[SPEAKER_00]: Okay.
[Caraviello]: Vice President Caraviello, please continue. Again, it's a procedure. That's the problem. It's not whether the district is good or bad, it's a procedure. This property was purchased 18 months ago. They didn't get around to it until month 16. So now the burden is on us, because everyone sat on it for a year and a half, all this time, and now the burden is on this group to do a last minute decision. Where were you the last 16 months negotiating with this guy? Did nothing happen during the 16 months that you had to wait until August 28th, the end of the August meeting, to decide that you wanted to make this a historical news? Why couldn't you have decided that in February of 19, when this was put in? So I don't think it's fair to this group to put us in this position that wasn't created by us.
[Soll]: As we noted, there's guidelines from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on how to establish districts. It has to go to Mass Historical Commission. We have to write up a Form B. We have to take a public vote. We have to have a public hearing. You had 16 months. And it's tricky for an 18-month demo delay. And we have a hard time getting our agenda done every month as it is. And I'm sorry you're in this position. I agree that it's a difficult spot for you. We're in a difficult position as well that we had to vote on this last night. So I don't disagree that this is a difficult position for us. We'd like to be in a better place. And we're willing to work with the council and the city as well. streamline and get a better understanding of the historic nature of so many properties here in our city.
[Caraviello]: Well, if there's so many properties, why aren't you identifying them?
[Soll]: We are. Where are they?
[Caraviello]: Where's the list? I haven't seen a list. I don't think anybody in this group has seen a list of properties that have been identified.
[Soll]: Well, we're working on a district now, so we hope to be able to present that to you.
[Caraviello]: Again, until you guys come up with a procedure, this is going to happen every time somebody buys a property.
[Soll]: I don't think that's true. But as I say, we're bound by the rules of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We're very specific on how to do this. And they're time-consuming. It's not easy to create a local historic district. It's meant to be a difficult hurdle.
[Caraviello]: Again, 16 months has gone by, 17 months has gone by, and now we're here at the 18th hour with the panic being put on us.
[Soll]: I don't disagree with that.
[Caraviello]: Okay, thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. We have Councilor Markston, Councilor Bears, Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: From what I recall, Mr. President, as part of the discussions that took place at the site, in addition, Mr. President, to agreeing that the owner of the property would come back with a couple of schematics of potential designs to save the front facade. It was also mentioned at that meeting, Mr. President, that there would be no pursuit of the creation of a local historic district. And that was part of the discussion. Now, I know Ryan Haywood is on the phone, and I know he doesn't speak for the Historical District Commission, but I think the Historic District Commission should realize what was proposed at that particular meeting. And it wasn't horse trading that took place, Mr. President. This was an open public meeting that anyone was welcome to attend. And I'm really surprised that some members of the Historical District Commission only found their way to this particular property within the last few days after this being around for 18 months, Mr. President. And that's even more alarming to me. Secondly, Mr. President, from what we heard tonight, the Historical District Commission has no say, Mr. President, in whether or not they like the rendering or not. They have no say in that, Mr. President. That's what we heard tonight. So the vote that they took Monday night, I'm confused. Was that a vote against the rendering or was that a vote to accept the mayor's revised ordinance? I'm a little confused, Mr. President. Chris, could you please clarify for Councilor Marks?
[Falco]: One second.
[Bader]: Okay, yes, I can clarify that. Basically, we, my understanding was that we agreed to negotiate in good faith. We saw, we did not agree to anything specifically because no member of the historic district commission was there. And we were not, we simply want a negotiation to continue. We will negotiate in good faith, and I think Mr. Goldschneider will do the same.
[Marks]: So, Chris, just so I understand, what was the actual vote last night then?
[Bader]: The actual vote last night was to request that the council create this local historic district so that negotiation could continue and so that we could
[Marks]: Okay, so I was under the impression that there was a vote taken not to accept the two renderings from the petitioner. So, at this particular point, Mr. President, I'd like to hear from Ryan Haywood from the historic commission, and then also hear from the petitioner once again, Mr. President, because I know he had additional information to present.
[Falco]: That's fine. I am going to try to unmute Ryan Haywood. I had issues before. Let's see. There you go, Ryan. Ryan? Okay. What can I do for you, Chairman? Did you have a specific question you had for Ryan Haywood?
[Marks]: My question was, Ryan was present during this entire process. And I didn't know if he had any interaction the day after that we spoke about this. Did he have any interactions with any members of the Historical District Commission in regards to what was presented and somewhat agreed upon at the time? I know he had no authority to agree on behalf of another group, but I'd like to know a little more, Mr. President, about what took place on this, Mr. President.
[Hayward]: The committee of the whole was that I did not speak on behalf of both commissions, but that I agree that they would both see the proposed design that we discussed. And of course, I delivered on delivering that rendering to both boards, which I sent to to review and in both cases, it seems that we all agree that the design needed work. That's the easiest thing to say. I mean, I think that a resolution could be reached, but we will have no standing after two days from now. And, you know, I think that I and Chris and others have done an excellent job clarifying how this whole process has gone through and perhaps gone a bit screwy. I don't think I need to reiterate for the general public all of the, you know, all of those same points again over. I think Chris did a good job. And, you know, I think that we're just here now just, you know, continuing with the process. I'm happy to answer other questions if you have specific things.
[Marks]: Ryan, if I could, was there not mentioned at the Committee of the Whole site review that if the renderings were acceptable, that there wouldn't be a pursuit of the creation of a local historic district?
[Hayward]: I didn't hear that if that was discussed. I mean, I seem to understand that maybe if a revolution were reached between the developer and the historical staff and the stakeholders, that maybe we wouldn't have to do that. My understanding was that once the commission would review it, we would provide feedback, and Ari would react to that, and maybe we would not move forward or move forward. But I was not clear on that after the Committee of the Whole.
[Marks]: OK. Now, did you just say Historic Commission?
[Hayward]: Ryan? I mean, the Historical Commission and Historic District Committee reviewed the drawings. I mean, both of them are people that are in this process.
[Marks]: So when did the Historic Commission meet to review the drawings?
[Hayward]: We did not meet. Individual comments were passed to me both of the architects responded with information on what they felt the design was lacking. And the other commissioners just sent small statements saying that the design needs work and that the dialogue needs to continue.
[Marks]: And that was the opinion of the historic commission, correct?
[Hayward]: Correct.
[Marks]: OK.
[Knight]: Point of information, Councilor Knight. That sounds an awful lot like deliberation to me, Mr. President, absent a public meeting notice. And I think that that's something that we better be very careful of. Individual members of a board of commission passing private notes to the chairman of the commission to be passed on to another board of commission that reflects their opinion, that's done behind closed doors, not in the open sunset of day, I think is a problem, Mr. President. And I think that that might rise to the level of violation. And as public employees, we need to be very careful in that regard.
[Soll]: We at the Historic District Commission, we're not privy to any of the comments from the Historical Commission. I have no idea what the other architects on the Historical Commission said. We on the District Commission did meet in public meeting and reviewed them.
[Knight]: Did anybody from the Historical Commission appear before the Historic District Commission and give an opinion as to what they felt?
[Soll]: No.
[Knight]: Was that opinion reflective of the board or the individual?
[Hayward]: My individual. And I'd just like to clarify that I'm not the chair of the Historical Commission at this given time.
[Knight]: A member, a chair, same thing. There's deliberation that's going on behind closed doors, Mr. President, that's a problem.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Marks, you have the floor.
[Marks]: Mr. President, if we could hear from the petitioner and whatever he'd like to present as well. Okay.
[Falco]: Ari, I just unmuted you.
[Goldschneider]: Yeah, thank you, President. So two points regarding timeline, and then I'd like to kicking it over to Adam Glassman. Oh, two points on the timeline, and then I'd like to touch on site plan review, and then if we could actually look at the drawings, I think that would be helpful. So two points on timeline. The historic district commission and historic district, the historic commission and historic district commission on July 17, 2019 jointly prepared a preliminary study I was not notified that this is going on. I was not notified. being done. behind the scenes here. why saving the building was not possible multiple times, documented times. And they basically said, yeah, there's no reason to add it to the agenda if you're not, if your plan doesn't involve reuse. this discussion, you know, To the extent this project is more than five units, it goes forward. It's under the purview of the site plan review, where the community has input, where the historic district commission members and the local historic district commission members have input. They're in contact with the community development team. They work alongside the community development team. My goal here was to negotiate with the site plan review board within community development. And that would be the board that would basically approve the design. It makes me a bit uncomfortable having a local historic district created here from the members of the local historic district commission that this building cannot be reused when clearly, based on the walkthrough, based on discussions with the building commissioner, based on the report, I commissioned, I paid for, here. here. at the meeting two weeks ago.
[Falco]: Thank you, Mr. Goldschneider. We have a point of information, Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Just a couple quick questions. Were you aware, Mr. Goldschneider, that this property was subject to review by the Historical Commission around demolition delay in July 2019?
[Goldschneider]: Yeah, that's why I put forward plans to discuss with them.
[Bears]: Yeah, and this effort to work on the local historic district that you brought up from July 2019, was that on public meeting minutes that the public had access to? I don't know. Well, I mean, the answer is yes. Were you checking the minutes of the commission because you knew that your property was under their review?
[Goldschneider]: just said it was. We can't put you on the agenda, there's nothing to talk about.
[Bears]: First off, what you heard and what they said might be two different things, but you just said.
[Goldschneider]: I have emails of that.
[Bears]: You just said, Mr. Goldschneider, you just said that you knew it was subject to their review. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Pierce. Let's see, we have, was it Mr. Glassman? Point of information, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Ken, the petitioner again. You're saying you have these emails? I can't hear you. I'm sorry. You're saying you have these emails?
[Goldschneider]: Yeah, the quote was in the 16 Foster Court timeline of events saying, once you have a plan that involves re-use of the building, we'll discuss getting you on the agenda.
[Scarpelli]: So you have that. Do you have any other emails saying that you were on an agenda?
[Goldschneider]: That I was on an agenda? No, I have no emails from them saying that I was on an agenda. And that's why I didn't think I was.
[Scarpelli]: And then if I can, to our commission, are you familiar with this email that he's talking about? Because to me, this is a big issue. I think this is very important.
[Falco]: Let's see, Chris Bader, do you want to answer that?
[Bader]: Sure, I never sent such an email. This came from the historical commission. And I would never send such an email. Everything is negotiable. I mean, as long as we have jurisdiction over the property, everything's negotiable.
[Scarpelli]: Right, so, and your idea that it was never construed that unless demolition is off the table, you're not welcome at a meeting?
[Bader]: No, no. We will only consider demolition.
[Scarpelli]: Okay, I'd like to see that email. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Okay, so let's see, I think Adam Glassman was going to speak next. Mr. Glassman.
[Glassman]: proposed designs unless we were showing how we would preserve the building. Between then and now, the tune has changed. Now they're saying, I'll entertain not preserving the building once they have jurisdiction over the design review. show up for whatever reason. Based on that, I explained at that site meeting that it would be dwarfed by whatever three-story structure we put behind it. In the concept plans we put together, we actually presented a three-story structure that was fairly historical in its detailing and its roof lines, its proportions. And it's exactly what we said would be at that site meeting. Now that they don't like the way it looks in front of a three-story building, they're offering to entertain a proposal that doesn't include it at all, if they like the design. The goal posts have been moving around a lot. And Ari's done everything he can to engage the commission. I think that's my piece.
[Goldschneider]: Does it make sense to walk through the drawings here? Is that at all helpful?
[Glassman]: I mean, we're not really discussing the proposed five-unit structure. Everyone's seen the renderings. We produced what was asked for, which was to show us what it looks like to take the front part of the cape and integrate it into a design in some way. And the understanding was this pursuit of a one site historic district wouldn't continue.
[Falco]: Thank you, Mr. Glosser. Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Just a few questions. Is this the end all be all? Is this proposed design that you've rendered and we've seen? Is that the final design?
[Bears]: Yeah, no, I understand that. I'm saying, you know, you're saying it's not a final, that the rendering is not final. There could be changes or adjustments to it, potentially. Got it, okay. And I guess my next question would be, you know, if the single house historic district is not approved tonight, are you planning to, when would demolition commence?
[Glassman]: I can't answer that, I don't know.
[Goldschneider]: To be determined.
[Bears]: TBD. So I mean, I'm just saying, you know, we're all talking about the timeline here. clearly more discussions need to be had for all parties involved. So we have kind of a tentative, a non-legally binding agreement out there. Could part of fulfilling that be not demolishing it on Friday? I can't speak for Ari on that, but I just
[Glassman]: the.
[Bears]: Well, it's a community process. But again, Ari, my question stands. I know Adam can't answer it. I'm wondering if you can. The question is, you know, there's a tentative agreement out there. It's not a legally binding agreement. Could part of that be we won't demolish it on Friday, or we'll give another 10 days for further discussion before we demolish the structure?
[Goldschneider]: So my understanding is that there's a community development and site plan review process. So there would be oversight here where the historic commission can provide input on that project. So it was my understanding that would be the governing body here, because they provide feedback to the zoning board.
[Bears]: Right. Just my question is, does TBD mean that the building, the structure may be demolished before the community development board meetings or the site plan review process?
[Goldschneider]: Well, we all understand that the building can't be reused. So I'm not sure what we're... The building can't be reused, so how does knocking the building down change what we end up designing there.
[Bears]: Well, it seems here that the stakeholders involved are concerned that if you knock down the building prior to having some sort of agreement on what the future is around preservation on the property, then there may not be an agreement at all.
[Goldschneider]: I don't understand.
[Bears]: What's, you know, the leverage here is that, you know, you can't knock down your property until we come to an agreement. If that leverage disappears, then you could knock down the property and not come to an agreement, correct?
[Goldschneider]: Well, I have to come to agreement with the Community Development Board.
[Bears]: Yeah.
[Goldschneider]: Right, or else I won't be able to build the building.
[Knight]: OK. Mr. President, with all due respect to the councilor, the gentleman's going to have to seek legal advice if he's willing to make that type of commitment. All right, that's fine.
[Bears]: I was just wondering if we could, you know, there's a lot of gentleman's agreements going on. I feel like, you know, it doesn't really preclude anything or hasn't up to this point. I'm fine. Mr. President, I move approval on this paper.
[Falco]: Okay. On the motion of council, on the motion of council of bears to approve, uh, the paper, which is the established to establish a, uh, single, uh, I'm sorry to, uh, to, uh, approve a single parcel historic district. And that is seconded by seconded by councilor Morell. Councilor Knight, did you have a question?
[Knight]: I did, Mr. President. Is Mr. Moki available?
[Falco]: He is not available.
[Knight]: He's not available. Is the city solicitor available?
[Falco]: She could not attend tonight, but would be accessible, I think, if we reached out to her.
[Knight]: All right. So I guess my question's to this. Number one, say that a rendering, say the rendering that we looked at tonight was suitable to both commissions. And they said, move forward and do what you got to do. The gentleman would still be subject to site plan review. through our office of community development, which is an open notorious process. During that site plan review process, because his parcel is an apartment two zone district, and there's a single family home there right now, or a two family home right there right now, it's being underutilized land use, number one. Number two, because it's a site plan review project, he's gonna be responsible to pay linkage, Mr. President, on top of going through the site plan review. He's also gonna have to pay linkage to the community. So we're looking at a parcel that's being underutilized, all right? If an apartment building gets built there, which is it's zoned use, The tax revenues are going to increase, we're going to be able to get linkage, and we still have two more processes in the review of the design that the city has the ability to take a bite at the apple on. I think that the gentleman has, taken a lot of wax in terms of this whole entire process. And he's maintained his cool a lot better than I would have been able to with the level of frustration that I think he's met. But ultimately, Mr. President, I don't think any of us behind this rail got in the business to hurt people. And the gentleman's being hurt by the process. The gentleman's being hurt by the process. And regardless of whether or not the process is what it is, it's not a good process. It needs to be fixed. All right? We took a bad vote when we changed the demolition delay from six months to 18 months, in my opinion. I think it was a bad vote. I really do. I also think it was a bad vote when we changed it to any building that was built in the last 75 years. I think it was a bad vote, Mr. President, because I feel like what we're doing is not really looking at historic preservation, but what we're looking at doing is a board that's trying to flex its muscles right now. All right, we see a board that's trying to increase its level of influence and power in the community because the corner office, we don't have the strongest leader right now. So I think, Mr. President, looking at this, you know what I mean, and the way that it's going, there's two more opportunities for design review. The parcel's a strange shaped parcel. It's going to have to go before the zoning board. It's already been noted in the meetings and noted in the discussions, and based upon the plan that's been presented, it's been determined. So this is nothing more, I think, than a power play at this point, Mr. President. And I certainly thank the Council if I'm moving it to a vote, and I'll be happy to vote against it this evening.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Mr. President.
[Falco]: Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: I mean, again, process, process, process. We're hearing about process. I agree we need to update and create a new process around the issue of historic preservation. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Question before us tonight is does 16 Foster Court deserve historic status? I believe the answer is yes. We can say it's about something else. We can say it's about the corner office. We can say it's about boards and commissions. That's not the question. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. Okay, so on the motion of Councilor Bears, seconded by Councilor Morell, to create a single parcel historic district at 16 Foster Court. In order to do that, it requires five votes to create a historic district. So it requires five. A yes vote is to establish the single parcel historic district. Okay, yes vote is to create. On the motion of Councilor Bears, seconded by Councilor Morell, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears?
[SPEAKER_24]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello? No. Councilor Knight? No.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? No. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Four in the negative, three in favor. The motion fails. The historic district is not approved.
[Bears]: Motion to revert to the regular order of business. Second.
[Falco]: Can the motion to revert to the regular order of business by Councilor Knights, seconded by Councilor Bears. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears?
[Bader]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Councilor Marks?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. I didn't hear Councilor Scarpelli. Sorry, yes. Thank you. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. 70 affirmatives, zero in the negative. We will now revert to the regular order of business. 20-571 offered by Councilor Marks, be it resolved that the city administration provide the council with a list of unsettled union contracts. Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I know contracts and negotiations between the administration and the unions. I would just ask if we can get an update on any current outstanding unsettled contracts within the city of Medford.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, if I could just offer an amendment to that paper, a re-paper to that amendment, that the administration provide us with a list of whether or not these contracts are being negotiated by internal counsel or external counsel, and the amount of money that they've spent on external counsel, if they have to do such.
[Falco]: So do you have, Counsel, I'm sorry, Clerk Hurtubise, do you have the... I'm working on it, hang on, I'll be right back.
[Hurtubise]: All right, the B paper that I have, and I'm gonna read this back from Councilor Knight, is to have the administration provide a list of these contracts and whether these contracts are being negotiated by external counsel or internal counsel, and if external, the amount of money being spent on external counsel for these negotiations. Correct.
[Knight]: Okay. And that can be in the form of a B paper. Is that correct? It can be in the form of a B paper or an amendment based upon the preference of the sponsor or the person.
[Falco]: Councilor Marks, do you prefer a beat paper? I don't have a preference. OK, we'll call it a... There you go. That is an amendment by Councilor Knight. So on the motion of... Are there any questions before I call the roll here? On the motion of Councilor Marks, as amended by Councilor Knight, seconded by... Second. Vice President Caraviello, Clerk Urbiz, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice President Caraviello.
[O'Reilly]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven affirmative, zero negative. The motion passes. 20-572 offered by Councilor Marks and Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the city repave the street in front of 69 to 77 Winslow Lab in the interest of public safety. Councilor Marks?
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli for co-sponsoring this. We actually both offered this, it was probably a little over a year ago. DPW was kind enough to go up to Winslow Ave and fill some of the many, many potholes that are lined in that stretch between 69 and 77 Winslow. However, Mr. President, I think we're at a time where we probably could use some curb-to-curb paving, even though one side of the street I don't believe has curbing. I would say, Mr. President, at this particular point, it's a small stretch. It's near Carpac. It's a very heavy traveled area, as you know, Mr. President. So I would ask in the interest of public safety that that area be ground down between 69 and 77 Winslow Ave and repave curb-to-curb in the interest of public safety.
[Falco]: Second. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Scott-Pelley.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. Council President, and thank you, Councilor Marks, for co-sponsoring this resolution. I think those residents do a great job with their curb appeal. They do the best they can. Every time I drive by, they're out there with their push brooms, knocking all the debris away from their front doors. And they're very patient, and we know that our DPWs try valiantly to try to keep up with those potholes and they fill them on a, I think it's a weekly basis, but I think Councilor Mock said it perfectly. It's just, it's too far gone. It's not a huge stretch, but it does affect those homeowners. And truly in a negative way, especially with the way they live their lives, which is very orderly and very neat. So I hope that we could find a remedy for them and get that completely done. And again, like I said, it's not a big area. It's something we could just move in and move out. So I thank you so much.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And the motion of, Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Mr. President, if Councilor Marks and Scott wouldn't mind if I amended the paper to having the DPW repave the driveway at 9 Canal Street, which is right beside the Bedford Housing Authority, where a woman fell off a wheelchair today and was seriously injured. Because of the sidewalk and the driveway is deteriorated from the cars running over it. If we could offer that in the form of a B paper, it would be appreciated.
[Falco]: That's at 9 Canal? 9 Canal Street. 9 canals to it. So that's a B paper offered by Vice President Caraviello.
[Falco]: On the B paper offered by Vice President Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight, Clerk Urnavis, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Marks?
[O'Reilly]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell?
[O'Reilly]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. motion passes.
[Falco]: Be it ordained by the Medford City Council that the revised ordinances of the city of Medford, as most recently amended, is hereby further amended by changing the language of chapter 74. Streets, sidewalks, and other public places, article three, sidewalks, section 74-114, entitled Removal of Snow and Ice. said section presently states section 74-114, removal of snow and ice. A, whenever the sidewalk or any part of the sidewalk adjoining any building or a lot of land of any street is encumbered with ice and snow, it shall be the duty of the tenant or occupant and in case there should be no tenant or occupant of the whole of such building a lot of land, it shall be the duty of the owner with a person having care of the sidewalk or to cause such sidewalk to have been made safe, convenient for public use or travel by removing the ice or snow or by covering the area with sand or some other suitable substance. In case such tenant, occupant, owner, or other person shall neglect to do so for the space of six hours during the daytime, he shall forfeit and pay the sum of $25 for the first events 50 for each successive date that the sidewalk shall continue to be encumbered. B, any person shall not throw or put or cause to be thrown or put any snow or ice into any street in the city. The fine for violation of this section shall be for the first offense $50, for the second offense and subsequent offenses $100. The language of said section 74-14 shall hereby be amended to read as follows. Section 74-114, removal of snow and ice. A, whenever snow or ice accumulates on a sidewalk, the owner of any land or building abutting a sidewalk or walking path shall remove the snow and ice to permit safe passage for pedestrians on the sidewalk abutting the owner's property and the entrance to the pedestrian crossing abutting the sidewalk. The owner shall also remove snow at a fire hydrant within or abutting the sidewalk that abuts the owner's property sufficient to allow fire department access to the hydrant. The owner shall remove the snow or ice or treat the sidewalk with sand or any other suitable material to permit safe passage to pedestrians. The owner shall remove snow and ice within six daylight hours after the snow stops falling and the city may extend the deadline set forth above in its discretion. The city's code enforcement officer or his designee or the police department shall notify the owner of the failure to comply and allow the owner 24 hours to comply. For residential properties, if the owner does not comply within 24 hours of receiving notice, the city may in its discretion remove. removal as a lien on the owner's property tax to fine the owner $50 per day until the owner complies. For such subsequent offense within 12 months, the fine or charge shall double. For commercial properties, if the owner does not comply within 24 hours of the receiving notice, the city may, in its discretion, remove the snow or ice and charge the owner for the removal as a lien on the owner's property tax bill will fine the owner $100 per day until the owner complies. For each subsequent offense within 12 months, the fine or charge shall double. B, a person shall not throw or put or cause to be thrown or put any snow or ice into any street in the city. The fine for violation of this section shall be, for residential property owners, $50 for the first offense, $100 for the second offense and subsequent offenses. The fine for commercial property owners, $100 for the first offense and $200 for the second offense and subsequent offenses.
[SPEAKER_00]: Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for reading that whole thing. Snow shoveling is a perennial issue. It's a seasonal issue. I'm going to try to avoid bad wordplay and puns from here on out. But it's a major accessibility issue in our community for people with disabilities and for folks who, I mean, we just heard from Councilor, Vice President Caraviello, you know, people who might be in a mobility assistance device. who already are having trouble getting around our city when there's not snow and ice everywhere, right? So, you know, we have a current ordinance around snow shoveling and maintenance of our sidewalks. I think it's been a discussion of this council in the past and of the previous city administrations that that ordinance should be updated. It's insufficient in certain places. One example is that it's the occupant or tenant of a property who will be responsible for removal of snow. City doesn't necessarily have a record. We have a very good record of who owns property in this community, not necessarily occupants and tenants. And I think Councilor Marks actually noted that several hours ago now in our committee of the whole on the donation bin ordinance, right? We know who's on the property. We might not know every person who's putting up a bin in the same way. at least at this point. There's definitely a few issues with the, you know, both of the existing ordinance that the existing ordinance doesn't address and that I'm hoping we can iron out in a future subcommittee meeting on the proposed ordinance. One is the issue of corners and the city plow ends where the city may, you know, put some snow on a sidewalk or on a corridor or a private plow operator may do the same thing. Looking at some sort of exemption or alternate plan for the elderly and people with disabilities who may be property owners but may also not be able to remove snow and ice on their own or may not have access to the resources to pay someone to do it. And someone emailed me after this was on the agenda that the plows, the faster the plows go, the more snow gets thrown back onto the sidewalk after they have been So there's even issues like that. And the question of sand and maybe replacing that word. So the goal is to have this discussion soon in the Public Works Subcommittee to discuss any issues, improve the existing ordinance. And I would move to refer this item to the Public Works Subcommittee.
[Falco]: Okay, on the motion of Council, we ask to refer this to the Public Works Subcommittee, seconded by Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Bears for bringing this forward. I think I appreciate you bringing this forward before it starts snowing as well. I think we talk often about how difficult it can be to cross certain streets in this city when you add snow. When you add those super high barriers of snow on the corners, you're now dodging traffic and having to hurdle over a snow mound. So I really think this is a conversation we need to have. I appreciate the wording and the attention to who should be responsible as this paper is written. I do have either an amendment or a B paper I'd like to offer. I know the city of Somerville references how wide a clearing should be, as Councilor Bears did reference. This is really an accessibility issue, whether you're with a walker, a stroller, a wheelchair. you know, a narrow path isn't going to do it. I know there's some, some strange stuff with the profound number of private ways we have in Medford where there's a lot of non-conforming sidewalks in the first place. So I do wonder if there could be language, um, just to talk about the width of a safe passage for consideration for mobility and accessibility issues, um, in the form of a B paper or an amendment.
[Bears]: I would be happy to entertain that as an amendment for further discussion in subcommittee. And my button is now stuck, so I'm going to try my best.
[Falco]: So this is going to, was it Public Works? Councilor Bears? Public Works subcommittee, yep. I don't have my sheet in front of me yet.
[Scarpelli]: I have it in front of me. Public Works. I'm the chair, I believe. It is Max Caraviellole.
[Falco]: OK. So that would be. Mr. President, is that Public Works? Public Works, yes. So that would be. Mr. President? Yes, Clerk Hurtubise.
[Hurtubise]: I'm unclear on Council Morell's amendment.
[Morell]: Sure. Could we add, I guess, the amendment would be to add to this discussion, focusing on the width of safe passage for consideration for wheelchairs, walkers, strollers, and anyone with mobility issues. Do you have that, Clerk Irvings?
[Hurtubise]: I'll work on it. I'm just going to make sure I have this correct, Councilor.
[Falco]: Yeah, that works.
[Falco]: Mr. President. Yes. OK. So we have a motion by Councilor Bears, seconded by Councilor Morell, as amended by Councilor Morell, Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank Councilor Bears for bringing this up. There are many good aspects to this particular ordinance. With that being said, there are very many aspects of this ordinance that need to be revamped, Mr. President. And I just would like to bring up a few because I think we all are concerned about public safety. But we also don't want to be punitive in regards to getting something accomplished as well. This particular ordinance would differ from the current ordinance because right now homeowners wouldn't be responsible for clearing out pedestrian crossings. So if you happen to live at an intersection or if you live at a corner house, you would be responsible for shoveling the pedestrian pathway leading across the street. So you'd be responsible for clearing out the corner. Those of us who own homes and have shoveled for decades in this community realize that the city, and I hope this doesn't reflect poorly, but the city does a poor job cleaning corners up. And there is no snow removal, there's only snow piling on city corners and intersections. And I can just attest, Mr. President, moving five to six feet of packed snow from a snow plow would be an insurmountable task for residents to go through. And especially if you have, like we did a few years ago, snowstorm after snowstorm after snowstorm. So that would be the first concern I have, Mr. President. I believe it's important to create the connectivity for pedestrian paths. I'm not quite sure that this alleviates that by making homeowners responsible for that, Mr. President. Also, this ordinance states, failure to comply within 24 hours of receiving a notice, the city may remove the snow and ice and charge the owner for the removal as a lien on the owner's property. That currently does not exist right now. So this is saying if you don't remove it within 24 hours, the city has the ability to come in and put a lien on your tax bill. I'm not sure if that's legally binding, Mr. President. And I guess when we get subcommittee, we can have that discussion. Also, Mr. President, it doesn't state at what expense. So if I happen to be, just say I'm a snowbird and I'm in Florida for three or four days, and I realize that's my property and I'm responsible. But if I don't attend to a particular storm, Mr. President, the city may hire someone. There's no set fee in this. And you can bet your bottom dollar the city doesn't have the resources to go out and shovel. So they would be hiring someone. That could be at a great expense to residents, to hire someone for $300, $400, $500 to shovel, depending on the amount and so forth, and to put sand and salt down. So this doesn't make any mention about the cost to homeowners if the city does opt to go out at their homeowner's expense. So that's a concern I have, Mr. President, because I'm very mindful regarding people in our community, in particular seniors that are struggling on fixed incomes. And every little increase, Mr. President, as we know, is a matter of if someone can stay in their home or not. And I would hate to create an ordinance that may put someone in jeopardy of losing their home, Mr. President. The escalating fines. The current ordinance doesn't call for escalating fines. So the first offense for noncompliance is a $50 a day fine. And then for each subsequent offense, within 12 months, so that covers the full snow time, within 12 months, the fine or charge shall double. That's not in the existing ordinance to double fines. So let's take an example. Let's look at the first offense, $50 a day, you go out there and shovel immediately so you only get charged for one day. The second time it happens, which could be the next day, the following day, the following week within a snow period, who knows, Mr. President. That fine then goes, if you don't shovel, to $100 a day. Say you're that unfortunate that it happened to you three times. Just say you were in the hospital, Mr. President. And the third time, the fine is $200 a day for homeowners. And if you were really unfortunate, the next subsequent fine would be $400 a day. So if you didn't get out there for five days, the homeowner would get a $2,000 bill, according to this ordinance, because they didn't shovel. Excessive? I would say so, Mr. President. So that's another concern I have with these subsequent offenses and the doubling of fines, Mr. President. We all want to keep our sidewalks clear, but I think there's a way to do it, Mr. President, when we're not putting a stranglehold on residents. There are no provisions, as Councilor Bears mentioned, to, and I'm glad he did, to assist seniors or disabled. I have a senior mother that lives alone. I can tell you firsthand, Mr. President, over the last several years, and I try to be a good son, but I can't get out there all the time, it is next to impossible to find someone to come out and shovel. The days of people like we used to do when we were younger, going out, knocking the door, you don't find that anymore, Mr. President. It doesn't happen, Mr. President. So it's not as readily available. I know the senior center has a list of people, and I tapped into that list, and it just wasn't consistent enough, to be quite frank with you. It was great they offered, but it wasn't enough in the case for my mother. And I know there's a lot of my mothers out there in this community, and there's a lot of disabled people, Mr. President, that would have to rely on this as well. The ordinance also states, and this is both ordinances, the old and the new, whenever snow or ice accumulates on the sidewalk. No mention the amount of ice. How many times, Mr. President, do you look outside and say, is that an inch? Is that a half an inch? Do I need to go out there and shovel? Do I not need to shovel? How many times does that happen? Should I put down ice? Should I not? How many times does that happen? No mention at all, Mr. President. So it's very possible you could be debating with your wife whether you should be out there shoveling or not. There's no mention what the accumulation is, and the city defines it as, you know what, we believe you should have shoveled. It doesn't say one inch, two inch, three inch, like I believe it should say, Mr. President. And then you may get a fine based on that. So that's another issue in here, Mr. President, that needs to be addressed. About a year ago, Mr. President, I asked the previous administration. I did a lot of research into this. And other states, I didn't find many communities around here, but I'm sure it's done, create what they call a priority street sidewalk listing. And they put funds aside, and many of them have to hire private contractors. But they put funds aside for every snowstorm greater than three inches. The city sits down with the DPW and residents and stakeholders and say, this is our ten miles of priority sidewalk in the community. And most of the time, it's the major federal fears. And what that does is create a connection, a linkage, In the community, Mr. President. So you would go down High Street would be done, Main Street would be done, Salem Street would be done, Fulton Street would be done. All riverside out. The major areas, Mr. President, I throw ten miles out there because that's probably reasonable. It may take more, it may take less. But I asked the administration back a year ago to look at that. Because if we really want to provide safety in this community, for kids that are walking to school, right now there may not be many kids walking to school. But for seniors, for people with disabilities, for anyone in general, Mr. President, what better to know and be reassured that every fall of snow that's greater than a certain amount, whether it's two or three inches, that those priority sidewalks will be done by a bombardier. And if the city can't handle it, which I don't think we have the ability to right now, we would subcontract for it, Mr. President. Some of the figures I looked at in some communities were upwards of $160,000, $170,000. But if we're going to prioritize the importance, Mr. President, of doing the shoveling, opening up our sidewalks, making sure they're safe, making sure people don't walk in the streets, that's a small price to pay, Mr. President. So I would ask that in the form of a motion once again, because it fell on deaf ears in the last administration. It's a great concept. I didn't create this. This is being done in a lot of communities around the country. The second thing, Mr. President, would be on the lines of Councilor Bears, to have more of a full-fledged program where we deal with seniors and people with disability. That way, Mr. President, we're not leaving this up to chance. We're not leaving it up to whether or not someone can afford it. Because this is an affordability issue too, Mr. President. And I would ask in the form of a motion that the city also create, and I'm not sure if we could do it by ordinance or policy, create a program where we assist. If we're going to implement ordinances that create escalating fines and doubling fines and shoving corners and so forth, that we assist the neediest in our community. which are the seniors in our disabled population. Also, Mr. President, I would also ask that if we're going to make it the responsibility of residents to clean corners, clean hydrants out, the fire department has a great program. They have a volunteer program, if you go on the firefighters website, where they go on and ask if people want to assist in clearing out hydrants. And the firefighters do a tremendous job, let me tell you. They're out there in every snowstorm cleaning out hydrants. This ordinance requires residents to do it. I'm not opposed to that, Mr. President. But what I'm saying is, if we're going to require residents now to be responsible for a public sidewalk, A public sidewalk, you don't own that sidewalk. You can't do any alterations to that sidewalk. And now we're requesting that you keep it a certain distance wide open. We're requesting during certain hours of daylight that you have to shovel. If not, you get fined. I think at the very least, Mr. President, the city should have some responsibility for cutting away snow at intersections and corners of streets where they intersect. The complaints I receive constantly, more than complaints of someone just not shoveling, are the ability for people to cross from street to street. That seems to be the major concern. And we have to create some systematic approach in the community where we don't just pile, we remove. And that's going to be a large endeavor with seven square miles. This is a big city, this. I would venture to say thousands of corners. But we have to have a better way of addressing this than saying, sorry homeowner, you're responsible for every pedestrian crossing and every intersection of streets and every corner. Now you're responsible. Sounds good in theory? It doesn't work, Mr. President. And if we truly want to put something together, that addresses the issue, those are the discussions we have to have. And I'm willing to have them, Mr. President. I like the fact that this makes homeowners responsible and not tenants. I agree, chasing after a tenant, many days now you have two, three, four, five people living in there. No one's going to claim responsibility. They're all paying a certain amount. It would be a nightmare. So I agree with aspects of this, Mr. President. But I also want to make sure we put something that makes sense. And something that's not punitive, Mr. President, to homeowners. And some of this in here, I believe, is punitive. And I think we can address it, but I want to make sure, whatever discussions I had, that these three items, and I offer them in the form of a motion, that the city expand, the last one, the city expand their plowing to include snow and ice removal on all pedestrian crossings along with corners and intersections.
[Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Falco]: Clerk, are there any gender wording on those motions?
[Scarpelli]: I'll second that.
[Hurtubise]: Mr. President, hang on a second. OK.
[Scarpelli]: John. Yeah, Sam. I think I have two of Councilor Marks' three amendments, but I'm trying to. The second one I have is that there needs to be discussion of more
[Hurtubise]: to assist the neediest in our community.
[Marks]: With shoveling services, correct.
[Hurtubise]: With shoveling services. The third one is to request the city expand plowing to include snow and ice removal on all intersections and crosswalks.
[Marks]: All pedestrian crossings, corners, and intersections, correct. Okay?
[Hurtubise]: I need some help with the first one.
[Marks]: Right, so the first one would be the city create a priority sidewalks listing of responsible sidewalks for plowing. And I put of snow greater than three inches, but that could be up for deliberation. That was just for discussion purpose. So the city create a priority sidewalk listing where they shovel, plow all the major sidewalk, dental affairs.
[Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Marks]: Within the community. Okay.
[Falco]: Councilman Marks, do you want these as amendments to the main paper or B paper?
[Marks]: It doesn't matter, whatever.
[Bears]: Happy to take them as amendments.
[Falco]: Amendments, okay. All right.
[Bears]: That's fine with me. Mr. Mr. President, I just can't.
[Falco]: Okay, so that's a mark. You're all set. Yes. Thank you.
[Scarpelli]: Real quick, I know I appreciate Councilor Bears bringing this forward. I think it's important that we do something, especially before the first snow falls. But Councilor Marksby, I think we all bring up good points and I appreciate it. If we could, it's ironic that my neighbor knocked on my door today. And something if we can add that we didn't realize until about seven months ago, the importance of our first responders. She was frantic thinking. If this is the way of the world, she might be gone four days out of a week. And if that happens during a snowstorm, she could be penalized for this. So as you go through the subcommittee, I know I'm not on it, but just point of discussion is really look at that as an option too, because I know it's tough. to distinguish what homeowners are first responders, but I think they'll be negatively impacted with this too. So not to say we don't need it. I know that other communities have great programs. I know the community that I work for, they have four sidewalk trucks and they send those out, like Councilman Mark said, all throughout the city. And they open up every main thoroughway and every park and every school and We're going to have to put our money where our mouth is again, and give our DPW the tools to put this to fruition. Because again, it is the safety of our pedestrians that we're asking for. So, thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Consul Scarpelli. Mr. President. Consulate bears.
[Bears]: I think the clerk can go first.
[Scarpelli]: No, just be discussed. I trust my colleagues to make that a point.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I won't belabor this. I want to say that I agree with basically everything Councilor Mark said and Councilor Scarpelli said. I took the last language that I could find that had gone to the Public Works Subcommittee previously and put it forward. I think You're absolutely right. When I read it, I didn't think it'd be $2,000, but obviously that's not a fine that would be acceptable. So I think a lot of the points that were brought up by me and Council Marks and Councilors Scarpelli will be discussed in the subcommittee and hopefully we can get to a good answer and make a program that works for everybody. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, we have a couple of people that want to speak. God's all night. I didn't see your hand. I apologize.
[Knight]: Mr. President, the snow and ice account is the only account that we can run a deficit in here in the city of Medford and across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We heard Marsha this morning, it feels like this morning, earlier in the evening when we were talking about the Lawrence Mural Hospital and she gave us a figure of 20% of the community residents are senior citizens. I know, I just realized. I'm maybe a little high, but close. You know, the city in the past has had a practice of removing the snow in our business districts. We've had a bombardier that's gone down the street and down the sidewalks and removed the snow in front of St. Joseph's all the way down into Medford Square. And that's a practice that we've Had in the past, and it's a practice that should continue, when we look at the Department of Conservation and Recreation and we see the roadways that are under their control, they have a bombardier that comes out and clears their sidewalks. The Department of Conservation and Recreation, a state agency, Mr. President, goes out and does all of their property. I see no reason why the city of Medford should take steps to hold their citizens to a higher standard than that of their DPW and the contractors that they're hiring to pave the streets. We can either pass an ordinance that's going to require the citizens to perform the DPW's job, or we can focus on the delivery of services here in the community for the residents and the taxpayers. And the way that we do that is by investing in our DPW, Mr. President. And that's an area that we've historically not invested in. We say, buy this piece of equipment because you're not going to have the manpower. We're getting to the point now, Mr. President, where we've got more pieces of equipment than we do people. All right, so we're not going to be able to get anything done if we don't look at what's going on, reallocate funds, and refocus what our priorities are. Because our DPW is failing right now, and they're failing because of one reason, manpower. Manpower, Mr. President, manpower. We can have over 100 police officers, over 100 firefighters, but not even 50% of that is part of our DPW? That's a problem, Mr. President, and I don't think that penalizing residents and homeowners because we're making poor decisions in terms of how we allocate funds is going to be the answer. So moving forward, Mr. President, I think it's very important that we look at the reasoning behind why fines for commercial properties have doubled. When we look at commercial properties, they pay a higher tax rate than residential properties here in the community, as do industrial properties, because we have a bifurcated tax rate. And we have that tax rate for a reason, to keep residential property taxes low. But at the same time, snow removal, snow removal. Why are we punishing a commercial property owner double what we'd be punishing a industrial property owner or a residential property owner? I don't understand what the importance of singling out a commercial property for double fines is, when the commercial properties are the ones that actually bring jobs to this community. They actually allow people to go to work, who live in Medford, can work in Medford, can play in Medford, can spend their ancillary money in the circular floor of our local economy, Mr. President. So I think it's very important we recognize the role that commercial properties play in our community, and we shouldn't be singling them out. Every time we talk about zoning, we talk about the fact that we're losing commercial properties left and right. We're down to 7 or 8% of the total number of parcels in our community is going to be commercial industrial. Well, if we keep doing stuff like this and penalizing properties for being commercial when instances arise, then we're going to be in a situation where we're going to see less and less of that, Mr. President. So I think that the fine should be uniform and across the board. It shouldn't matter what type of parcel you own. The fines should be the same. That coupled with the fact that I really feel as though we should be investing our efforts and our energies in delivering services as a city and as a community, in addressing some of the issues that Councilor Marks brought up about prioritizing our sidewalks and our roadways and ensuring connectivity. But at the same time, not doing it in a punitive fashion so that our residents are being penalized. So with that being said, Mr. President, I do think this needs a lot of work, and the paper remains in the subcommittee. So we could take a vote on this, or we could just say call the subcommittee. I mean, the paper's in the subcommittee already from last term. It is what it is, but I'd move for approval on the paper and the amendments, and I'd like to ask that they be consolidated so that we can vote once.
[Marks]: Just a point of information, what subcommittee is that, Mr. President?
[Falco]: This is Confederate of Santa Clara Public Works.
[Marks]: And we have one in public safety?
[Knight]: I don't know if there's one in public works or public safety. It was in public works.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's in public works?
[Knight]: If this is really a priority, Mr. President, last week we asked the city clerk to post three meetings, second Tuesday in October, November, and December, for the purpose of the city solicitor appearing before us to talk about ordinances in the ordinance subcommittee. This is an ordinance, this is also a venue that we could take it up in. I know Councilor Beals wants to maintain control of it, so he probably wants it in the committee that he chairs. I don't want to speak for him, but you know what I mean, it is what it is. So either way is fine with me, Mr. President, but those meetings are already going to be posted. The clerk's already been directed to do such. So if we want to talk about existing ordinances, then that's a committee that can be referred to as well.
[Marks]: And you have full body of the membership too. Maybe worthwhile.
[Knight]: I don't have a horse in the game, Mr. President, one way or the other. It's going to have to go to a committee of the whole before it comes to the council floor, pursuant to council rules anyway.
[Falco]: You are correct. We have a number of residents that want to speak on this. So at this time, I recognize Martha Andres. Name and address for the record, please.
[Ondras]: Good evening. I'm a resident at 45 Kilgore Avenue in Medford, and I'd like to speak on this on behalf of this ordinance. Thank you, Councilor, for considering it. It's been a long time, as Councilor Knight pointed out, WAC Medford and others have been asking for this ordinance for well over a year, and it's sat in subcommittee for some reason. And I think the idea of, you know, this is intended to help all of us and to be a two-way street. It gives the city, the ordinance gives the city the opportunity to impose a fine if someone isn't cooperating with their neighbors and they're the only house on the block that doesn't shovel. I know I have neighbors like that. Strangely, their own driveways and walks get shoveled and the sidewalk never does. It's a very important thing. I've seen people, elderly people, people with small children walking to school who have to go out into the street because there's a piece of the sidewalk that's not plowed. And it's worrisome to see when you know that the cars are on slippery roads narrowed by snow banks to begin with. I think it's a wonderful idea to combine this with additional resources to the DPW for those areas that homeowners shouldn't be asked to handle. But I encourage you all to get this job done before our winter season starts. Thank you very much.
[Falco]: Thank you. Let's see, Jeff Boxbaum. Name and address for the record, please.
[Buxbaum]: Jeff Buxbaum, 31 Hill Park.
[Knight]: Point of information, Mr. President, just before we start. I'm sorry, point of information, Councilor Knight. It's 20 past 11 at this point in time. We have about 17, 18 other items left on the agenda. This matter is going to subcommittee to be vetted. It's going to go to committee of the whole to be vetted further, and then it's going to come back to the council floor. Yes. We're all going to vote in favor to send this thing to the subcommittee to be discussed. We've already all spoke on it, and we've already all said that. So with that being said, Mr. President, there'll be ample opportunity for individuals to provide public participation on the topic that's before us here. They're going to have a subcommittee meeting or multiple subcommittee meetings, a committee of the whole meeting, and then it's going to come back to the council floor. Right now, the vote we're taking is only to send it to subcommittee. I know there are individuals in the community that support this piece of legislation. But I think in the interest of time, Mr. President, it might make sense for us to say, OK, we're going to send it to subcommittee. The subcommittee is going to be scheduled, and the matter is going to be deliberated. And then it's going to go to the committee of the whole. It's going to be scheduled, deliberated again. Then it's going to be put on the council agenda, and going to move forward again. So everybody's going to have an ample opportunity to speak. We would have been done by now.
[Falco]: Let's do this. Mr. Boxbaum has been waiting for a while. He's on the call. If you could please continue.
[Buxbaum]: I'm going to talk for 20 seconds. Thank you very much. We've been working. What method was formed in 2015 because of the snow of 2015? We've been working on this for years. We are looking forward to this going to the committee. And I'd just like to say it's not either something that happens in an ordinance or something that has to happen through the administration. You guys have to work together on this and work it out. It's not a trivial problem. And I really trust that we have a lot of smart people that can sit in a room together and figure out all these points. It's very important that we get this done. I understand that you're concerned about hurting homeowners that aren't around and all that, but people need to be able to walk on the sidewalk to get around. So our goal is to make it safe to walk in the streets, so let's make that happen.
[Falco]: Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, on the motion of Councilor Piz, seconded by Councilor Morell, as amended by Councilor Morell, and Councilor Marks. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Scarpelli]: Paper 20585 and 28586, please.
[Falco]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to suspend the rules to take papers 20584, 20585, and 20586. On that motion to suspend the rules, seconded by Vice President Caraviello, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight.
[Caraviello]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, 280 Merrimack Street, Methuen, Massachusetts, 01844 for Greater Boston BJ's Donuts, LLC. 278 Middlesex Ave, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. On file, business certificate number 098. Building department, fire department, police traffic impact, health department, letter of compliance, state tax ID, workman's compensation, petition, and treasurer.
[Scarpelli]: make a motion to combine, Mr. President, if we can.
[Falco]: Okay.
[Scarpelli]: And, uh, they're all the same owner.
[Falco]: Okay. So, uh, let's see. Councilor Scarpelli is making a motion that we combine all three of these because they are very similar in nature and it is the same person. So on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by vice president, uh, Caraviello that we combine two zero five eight four two zero five eight five and two zero five eight six. Clerk Herbies, please call the roll council bears. He has stepped out of the room.
[Bears]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. Six in the affirmative. Zero in the negative one absent. These papers are not combined. Uh, two zero five eight five is a kind of rituals license by David. Methuen, Massachusetts, 01844. For Greater Boston, BJ's Donuts, LLC at 430 Salem Street, Methuen, Massachusetts, 02155. And let's see, in 20586 is petition for a common ventures license by David Cafu, 280 Methuen, Massachusetts, 01844. For Greater Boston's BJ Donuts, LLC 620 Felsway, Methuen, Massachusetts. And on file for all of these are the business certificates, building department, fire department, police, traffic impact, health department, letter of compliance, state tax ID, workman's compensation, petition, and treasurer's forms. At this point, I recognize the chairperson on licensing, Councilman Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Is Mr. Kapoor president today?
[Falco]: So it looks like it's Nancy La Rochelle, am I saying that correct? I'm trying to unmute you. I know she's been waiting patiently, so. Nancy, name and address for the record, please.
[LaRochelle]: Nancy La Rochelle for 280 Meramec Street. We're doing for the Dunkin' Donuts.
[Scarpelli]: Okay, I apologize for the delay. or shall I believe, it seems like all of these petitions, everything seems in order and all the paperwork is complete, but just a simple question. Are all these hours of business just transferring over? With the owner, correct? This is a change of ownership? Okay, so everything else stays the same. I know that the hours on Middlesex is 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., then we have Salem Street, 5 a.m. to 11, and then the Felsway site is open 24 hours, correct?
[LaRochelle]: Yes, except for 270 Middlesex is closed now and it's not going to reopen, so we don't need to do that one.
[Scarpelli]: Okay, so strike. Middlesex, Mr. President? That's a 24-0. No, that's the one that's 9-8.
[Falco]: That is closed?
[Scarpelli]: It's closed. All right, I find everything in order, Mr. President. I move approval.
[Falco]: Okay, on the motion of- Mr. President. Let's see, the motion approved by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President- If I can, I apologize.
[Scarpelli]: Before I go, I know what I forgot, I thought I had a note. I know that we normally, for new owners, we put just a review, especially for the 24 hours. If Councilor Knight can help me, is it a 60 day review? 90- We usually do a 30 and a 60. 30 and a 60 day review if we can. Those are the only restrictions, if we can, just to revisit as they're new owners to check their standing as we move forward. Thank you, sorry.
[Falco]: So put that down as an amendment.
[Scarpelli]: Should I apologize? Yes, I'm sorry.
[Falco]: No worries. So that will be, I'm sorry, a 30 and a 60 day review?
[Scarpelli]: Right, on the Felsway site.
[Falco]: 30, 60 day review. Councilor, so there's a motion by Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Caraviello. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. In review of the common practice of the council, it's always been that the special permit for extended hours would be granted to the business and not the property. And the business is changing hands, which would require an application for a second An application for a permit for extended hours, if I'm not mistaken. So I guess, can the city clerk clarify or confirm whether or not when this initial permit was issued, it was issued to the property or to the business? And if it was issued to the business, then I believe they'd be required to come back before us for extended hours permit for any operation before 7 a.m. or after 11 p.m., right?
[Hurtubise]: Council, I would need to do the research on the original permit, but I can do that for you.
[Knight]: And I don't want to hold it up, Mr. President, so I have no problem moving for approval, provided that the clerk gives us the information that we're requesting. And if an extended hours permit is necessary, he contacts the business owner prior to their opening and informs them of the process that they need to go through to obtain an extended hours permit.
[Falco]: Can you have that, Clerk Perkins?
[Hurtubise]: Yeah, I got that. Okay.
[Falco]: So on the motion of... Did you... I mean, it's not a motion, it's more that...
[Knight]: It's an operation of government. I mean, if the permit was issued, what they're asking for right now, they can't get if they're not grandfathered in. If they are grandfathered in, they can get it.
[Scarpelli]: So I guess what I'm saying is- Just an information point to the petitioner.
[Knight]: Yeah, let's confirm what's going on. We'll move for approval. The license is going to be, I'm under the impression it's going to be 7 to 11, unless otherwise with the restrictions. And if not, then the clerk will notify them and have them come back before us.
[Scarpelli]: Does the petitioner understand that?
[Falco]: Ms. LaRochelle, do you understand that? Okay, perfect. So on the motion of- Mr. President, can I interrupt for a second? Yes, you can.
[Hurtubise]: So is the council voting tonight on 278 Middlesex Avenue or not? Because I heard that it was closed and not reopening. So is that request been withdrawn? Yes, that's withdrawn. So we're going to strike 20584.
[Knight]: Along with the review, Mr. President, I'd like to ask that the permit go with the business entity and not the address. If in fact we need to address the extended hours permit going forward, whether or not there's a way that we can put a mechanism in place so that it now goes with the business and doesn't stay with the process, whether that requires a rescinding of a vote, previous vote or not, but to protect the neighborhood.
[Falco]: Clerk Herves, let me know when you're ready.
[Hurtubise]: Okay, I got it.
[Falco]: Okay, so on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Caraviello, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli. Clerk Herves, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight?
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks?
[Falco]: Yes. Yes. Yes. So many farmers here in the negative. The motion passes.
[Scarpelli]: Good luck. Thank you. Sorry.
[Falco]: Good luck. And thank you for waiting. Thank you. Have a good night. Okay. Um, on the motion of contest, Scarpelli, seconded by console night to revert it back to the regular order of business.
[Bears]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. I'm a farmer. Is there any negative motions passes? We will now revert to the regular order of business two zero dash five seven four offered by councilor Scarpelli. Be a result of that. The director of the board of health get the input from our partners in the medical field. Dr. Potter, what's in Dr. Menden with suggestions and strategies in their personal opinions on reopening city hall for in person meetings. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a clarification, it's Dr. Menon. That's one of the partners. I might have made a typo there for the clerk. But I went back and I watched a few of the Board of Health meetings and I find it interesting that we do have a consortium of physicians that work with our Board of Health Director. And it would be nice, just like I said, simple as it is, just to get some ideas of what the health professionals that are working with our Board of Health Director in the process as we move forward and putting together a criteria. Something that will help, I believe, The Board of Health Director asked me to put together the plan, so as they move forward, I'd just like their input. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Council. Scarpelli, on the motion of council. Does anybody else want to speak on this? I'm listening. Okay. On the motion of council, Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Caraviello, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Falco]: Yes, 5 in the affirmative, 2 in the negative, the motion passes. 20-575 offered by Councilor Scarapelli, being resolved that the city solicitor gives the city council an opinion dealing with open meeting law violations for overcrowding due to fire department protocol on maximum capacity dealing with city council chamber. Councilor Scarapelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. And again, I'm going to reiterate this council's energy to reopen the council chambers for the residents that have reached out, not to eliminate Zoom, but just to add another avenue for those people that want to be heard and want an opportunity to come to this body. Talking to my sister colleague from Brockton, one of the things that they asked for with their city solicitor was, as we do here in the chambers, we have a limit of capacity through fire codes during our meetings. If we relate it to the COVID crisis and we have a set number and posted such, that would be, from what I've been told, might be the avenue that we need to reopen City Hall and making sure we're not violating any open meeting violations. So I ask this to be sent to the city solicitor to get her opinion and, again, to help me put together this protocol that the Board of Health Director has asked me to do. So thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Caraviello. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears?
[Bears]: No.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight?
[Douglas]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell.
[O'Reilly]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Falco.
[Falco]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, two in the negative. Motion passes. Oh, I'm sorry. I missed that. Six to one. I apologize. Was it six one?
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Councilor Morell voted yes. It was six to one.
[Falco]: You voted yes. Did you vote yes, Councilwoman? She did, yes. Six to one. My apologies there. Six to one. Motion passes. 20576, offered by Councilor Scott, Kelly, Councilor Marks, and Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the City Administration, Traffic Engineer, and Medford Police Department, Traffic Department, install temporary raised crosswalks on both Main Street and South Street intersection for a temporary period of time to evaluate the long-term safety issues dealing with the horribly dangerous intersection. This horribly dangerous intersection Councilor Sky Pelley, did you want to speak first?
[Scarpelli]: Okay, this is something that at one point I reached out to fellow colleagues that put this on the agenda as well. This is very troublesome and I don't want to wait until it's too late. As you, we had another pedestrian death as you saw, not in Medford, but in neighboring communities. And before we get to this horrifying scene, I'm shocked that we haven't been there yet. All I want to see is our, it's a very simple ask, is just put those raised crosswalks out. Slow traffic calming measures that we talked about months ago, and I'll revisit this next week as I ask for a committee meeting. We did get some great news today. As great as it is, I don't trust the speed of this outcome, but I'd like to share with everyone. I know everybody got it. Hi, great news. I got a call today from Mike So-and-so at MassDOT. They have identified the intersection of Main Street and South Street as a priority intersection that they would like to partner with us to move forward. The initial design intersection improvement. They would hire a consultant to do this work. in consultation with the city and would like to know if there are any consultants that have been working with us on this intersection. While we have previously been told that we would have to pay this initial design phase, they are willing to fund this initial because it is on the top 200 dangerous intersections in the state. And because of this nexus with the shared use path, in particular the south method connector, That would intersect Main Street right on the other side, Route 16. Therefore, they see it as an important mass trails connection. Mayor, please let me know, blah, blah, blah, Alicia Hunt. So I want to thank Alicia for doing her due diligence to secure this effort. It's sad that the reasons why aren't safety, it looks like it's connection, but we're looking at a dangerous intersection. I still want to move forward to ask our traffic department and our city administration to put the portable raised crosswalks. on those intersections to slow things down and give some information back to the dot as we proceed with this consultant. And great news, I know Councilor Marks last night spent the evening with the ever source team on the south street project. And they approved speed bumps, I believe in a second. So I wish it was that easy. I wish it was ever source to get. to make something happen that quickly, because this has been monumental to try to get anything done. A sign, paint, raise crosswalk, and I don't know what it has to take. And maybe, sadly enough, maybe it takes a death to make something happen. But this is something that we talked with with the last administration. This is something we talked with the mayor as she was partnered with us here as councils. And now as our leader in our community, I impressed on her to please put these out there, make this happen now, because I would hate to see something happen between now and the end of this consultant's report and changing that intersection. So it's finally been identified as a top 200 dangerous intersection in the state of Massachusetts, but we've all known that. So thank you for all your hard work. I appreciate it. This is great news. But I still move forward to make sure that we can do that, and I open to my colleagues, so. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Marks]: Councilor Marks? Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues for co-sponsoring this. Everyone behind this railing has supported one way or another that particular intersection in improving the pedestrian safety there. This is the first encouraging news since I've been on this council regarding that intersection. So I'm going to take it at face value, Mr. President. If they're adding it to their list, I'm encouraged by that. I look forward to working with DOT in rectifying that whole length of stretch of road to increase safety, Mr. President. As Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, I did sit on a call last night with Eversource, and they discussed the Eversource project on South Street. And Main Street in particular, they discussed that one of their major concerns with doing the excavating and so forth, was that no matter what they tried to do to slow down traffic on South, that they were unable to do so. And it was actually very enlightening to hear, Mr. President, that what we've been talking about for so many years in residents and abutters, we're hearing from a construction company saying, hey, this is a dangerous stretch of road. And indeed, as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, they approached the Chief of Police and the Traffic Commission. And they saw fit to put some temporary speed bumps in order to slow down traffic, which we've been asking for, I can't tell you how long. And we were told, you can't impede the flow of traffic, you can't do this, you can't do that. It's amazing what can take place, Mr. President. But this is tremendous news and I would like to actually maybe as a council through the administration just follow up to make sure we can secure this commitment. And maybe that may be from a motion from this council asking what we can do as a community to get this ball rolling. put that in the form of a motion that the city administration as well as the chief of police and The city engineer and the council send a letter to do. Yep.
[Scarpelli]: Put it as a resolution next week that we call for subcommittee on D O D O T for this exact one, this exact reason. So we can set up a schedule and meet with them, bring them face to face with us and our state delegates and, um, and have that instead of, uh,
[Marks]: Do you want to do it now or? No, that's fine.
[Falco]: Whatever you just said, I'll second whatever Councilor Scott Peller just said.
[Scarpelli]: I amend that we call for a subcommittee with DOT, our state delegates, our traffic department, and our traffic engineer. And Alicia Hunts, I think she was on the forefront of this, to set up a timeline with the DOT to make sure this comes to fruition. And we'll try to do that as soon as we can with the Council of Presidents hope. Transportation. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you. Councilmembers, are you all set?
[Knight]: I am all set, Mr. President. So does this mean they're not going to change the direction of South Street like they were talking about three years ago? We're going to get the speed bumps instead? One phone call, Councilor Marks. Great job. No, Mr. President, you know, I think it's important also that because this is an issue of funding coming from partners in state government that we make sure that Representative Donato's informed every step of the way on what efforts we're making as a council. This money didn't get released or given to us because we're good people and we're a nice community. They got released because we were sending them letters once every two months asking them to look at it. We were bringing our chief of police down there and we were telling them do something. We were looking at statistics. So I think it's very important, Mr. President, that in order to keep the momentum going, that we have our partners in government at the state level involved in this. And Representative Donato's been a champion on this issue. He's been very outspoken in his support for it. So I just ask that any time a correspondence goes out relative to the furtherance of this initiative that Representative Donato's offered. He's in a very powerful position, Mr. President, so I think that it's important that he be involved in these conversations as well. As the assistant majority leader, he's going to have the ability to control some purse strings and get us some money, and he's done a great job of that in the past, and I'm sure he'll continue to do so. So I'd ask that he be involved.
[Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: If we could also add Representative Obama, that is her district, if I'm not mistaken. So if we could add her to that list also. Thank you.
[Falco]: Okay, would anybody else like to speak? Councilor Pierce.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I mean, I think we need to move forward in getting something temporary set up. I don't think, you know, I'm glad that there's progress. I think that's an encouraging sign. I think we know that we're meeting about an initial design study, so that means there's more time coming before we get a permanent solution. And I would just also make sure that we CC Senator Jalen as well, because anything that, anything's going to have to go through both houses. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. On the motion of Councilors Scarpelli, Marx, and Knight, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by?
[Bears]: Second.
[Falco]: Vice President Caraviello, Clerk Urdoviz, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears.
[SPEAKER_24]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello. Yes. Yes. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. 70 affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. 2-0-5-7-7 offered by Vice President Caraviello and Councilor Marks. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council have the administration address the issue of disclosure of potential personal information being disclosed. How many employees were involved and from which departments? Vice President Caraviello?
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I think we've all gotten the calls and the emails that people have received. I'm sorry. I think we've all gotten the emails and the calls from people in regards to the letters they received about their financial information being compromised. I think that maybe we should sit down in executive session with the administration so brought up the speed of what's happened and why it happened, when it happened. And again, I know it's a personal matter, and I think it should be discussed in the executive session, Mr. President. I'd second the motion, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Vice President Caraviello, when we count the votes, you want to speak on this as well?
[Marks]: Please. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Council Vice President Caraviello for co-sponsoring this. I'd like to ask several questions, Mr. President. I know we're going to request a committee of the whole meeting, but I'd like to know what potential disclosure of information was contained and what personal information. I'd like to know why no police report was issued. The city stated they took all available steps to prevent further disclosure and fully investigated this matter. I'd like to know, Mr. President, what steps were taken by the city to prevent further disclosure? And what came out of the investigation? And Mr. President, just as a note, the President of the Teachers Union filed a green sheet which seeks legal advice on the breach of personal information by school employees. So I think that shows you how serious the nature is, Mr. President. And I think it deserves and warrants more than just an email to us saying that the city looked into this and took steps to prevent further disclosure. So I would hope that we get more information, Mr. President, on behalf of city employees in this community to make sure their valuable personal information is not compromised. If I can, Mr. President.
[Scarpelli]: Point of information, if Council March, if you could add one more line to that. I think that the question I've had is what steps is the city doing for our employees that were violated and are having issues with their personal information? What are they doing to support them, if that's okay? Thank you.
[Falco]: Councilor, Vice President Caraviello and Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Knight, as amended by Councilor Marks and Councilor Scarpel.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks.
[Buxbaum]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Rao.
[O'Reilly]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Rao. Thank you.
[Falco]: Be it further resolved, whereas this stretch of road is under the jurisdiction of DCR, that our state delegation assist with traffic calming initiatives along with pedestrian and bike friendly crossings. Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. This is on the border of the Arlington Method Line. And from what I'm being told, it's been a very dangerous intersection for pedestrians, bikers for a number of years. So I would ask in the interest of public safety, where we're looking at snow ordinance for sidewalk and other traffic calming initiatives, that DCR also look at traffic calming initiatives for pedestrian crossings at that intersection. intersection as well as bike-friendly crossings, Mr. President. That's a very difficult road that takes in three or four different avenues and is extremely dangerous for people that are using the Mystic Lakes or walking in the area. and for passive use, and I would ask that we meet with our state delegation or presenters to the state delegation so they can present it to DCR to look for some traffic calming initiatives.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. On the motion of Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Knight, Councilor Morell, then Councilor Piz, Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Marks for bringing this forward. I am often in that area on foot on my bike and you can travel along the beautiful Mystic River and then you're dumped out onto High Street there with really no crosswalk unless you head back towards Giles Cross and you're still crossing multiple streets. I've seen people get trapped there multiple times. And I don't understand when you travel towards Arlington, there's beautiful crosswalks. That rotary is very well handled. But when you get back towards Medford, it's a mess and it's a high traffic area. So I thank the councilor for highlighting this and pushing for action on this.
[Falco]: Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I've been talking to residents about this and I agree with my fellow Councilors. I think it's also not a safe intersection if you're driving. I think this is a win, win, win across the board. I'm not on my bike over there very often, but I am in my car and you can get hit. You could be hitting someone or you could, your car could be hit either way. It's a dangerous area that needs to be addressed. Just one thing for everyone to know that DCR has a study on the whole Mystic Valley Parkway, and technically that intersection is part of the Mystic Valley Parkway, which actually crosses the bridge there from the Arlington side back to the Medford side, and then goes up by the lakes towards the boat club. So there's a whole study in place, but it's just a study to look at what they wanna do. It doesn't have a short-term element that would actually address any of the things that we've been talking about, so I think it's really important that we try to work together. since there is DCR jurisdiction, hopefully they might provide some leeway for some short-term improvements in addition to the study that they have ongoing. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Knight. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears?
[SPEAKER_24]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello?
[SPEAKER_24]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. 2-0-579 offered by Councilor Marks be a result that a moment of silence be held for long time Medford resident Joanne Caputo on a recent passing and that the Medford City Council meeting be dedicated in her memory. Dr. Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Anyone that knew Joanne Caputo, she was a sweetheart of a woman, Mr. President. She was known as the mayor of 99 and 101 Riverside Ave to many of her fellow residents in those two buildings. She was just a spitfire of a person. She was very active in our community. She cared an awful lot for the seniors in those two buildings. And she watched over them, Mr. President, and just had a real guiding effect on many of the seniors in that building. You couldn't go to an event, whether it was the meat bingo or whatever else they were doing in that building. She was always part of what took place, she was always in the center of things, and she was always looking out for the residents of that 99 and 101 Riverside Ave. And I would ask Mr. President that this meeting be dedicated in her memory, Mr. President. She will be sorely missed.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. At this point, I'd ask everyone to please rise for, oh, I'm sorry, Councilor, Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Councilor Marks for bringing this forward. I didn't find out about this until he put this out there and I was shocked by her passing. Again, Councilor Morocco is right. She was the mayor of that little group over there and always had all these senior things and everything that happened over there kind of went through her. So again, her presence will be missed and another loss for our community.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. At this time, I'd ask everyone to please rise for a brief moment of silence. Thank you. And on that motion, Clerk Hurtubise, on the motion of Councilor Marks, seconded by Vice President Caraviello, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears?
[SPEAKER_24]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello?
[SPEAKER_24]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight?
[SPEAKER_24]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco? Yes.
[Falco]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. 20-580, offered by Vice President Caraviello, be it resolved that the Medford City Council ask that the residents of Medford to join us in acknowledging October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Thank you, Mr. President. In the manner as has done in the past, like the dome of City Hall in pink.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, it's an issue that I don't think many people haven't been touched by someone in their family, a loved one with breast cancer. My mother had it twice. So, and again. We shouldn't forget, men are also susceptible to breast cancer. I think people think it's just a woman's disease, but there are many men that get breast cancer, too. So I thank the mayor, I think she's already lit up the dome in pink. And I ask the rest of the city to join us in acknowledging Breast Cancer Month.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. On the motion of Vice President Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes, 7 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative. The motion passes. 2-0-581 offered by Vice President Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council look into creating a safe disposable site for fuel, oil, and other waste. Be it further resolved that the City of Medford join the Lexington Consortium that would allow Medford residents to bring hazard waste to the Lexington facility. Vice President Caraviello?
[Caraviello]: I tell you, Mr. President, this is something I've been called on by residents in the past, and most recently, so and again last week. We've got that old gasoline from the lawn mowers and snow blowers that hang around the house, and oil and things. We don't have anywhere to bring it. Lexington has a facility that allows residents to bring in there, but I guess we're not part of that consortium that allows Medford residents to go there. So I ask the administration to look into joining that consortium. In the meantime, we should also be looking into possibly creating a site here in Medford where our residents are allowed to bring hazardous waste like fuel and oil and things like that.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. Second. Would you like to speak at this conference? Yes, please. Okay. On the motion of Vice President Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Bears. Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Vice President Caraviello. I've spoken to some residents who've been frustrated as well. The issue with Lexington is that prior to COVID, you could go even if you weren't a part of the consortium on certain days. Now with COVID, they've closed basically only if your city or town is part of that consortium can you go at all. So it's also kind of this COVID angle to it. I've spoken to the chief of staff and the DPW director about this. They've had some kind of alternative suggestions and said they'd get back to me on when Lexington allowed people, but I appreciate Vice President Caraviello bringing this forward because I haven't seen the action, the urgent action on this since the conversations I've had. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you. Council appears in the motion of vice president. Copy. I was seconded by council appears. Please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Councilor Caraviello? Yes. President Feldkamp?
[Falco]: Yes, 70 affirmative, zero negative. The motion passes. 20-582 offered by Vice President Caraviello will be a result of the Medford City Council as the Historical Commission or the Building Department to notify residents which have had their building permits reviewed by the Historical Commission within 72 hours after the review has been completed and of decision. Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Over, since this, since we've changed the rules for the Historical Commission to do reviews, I've been getting calls from people saying, geez, I've done my thing a couple of months ago, I haven't heard a decision. And Jennifer Keenan has been very good. Every time I call her, she gives me an answer probably within half an hour. But I said to her, I said, why isn't somebody notifying these residents were either from your departments or the building department that the matter's been resolved. So that's my question is, let's figure out whose responsibility is to notify either the resident or the contractor that the review's been completed and of the decision, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. Councilor Knight, then Councilor Bears.
[Knight]: Again, Mr. President, the way that things have gone down with the Historical Commission in the past, oh, eight, nine months would lead me to believe that I don't want them to do anything other than what they were doing before what they were doing the last eight or nine months ago. So with that being said, I'm opposed to Councilor Caraviello's measure this evening. I feel as though the Historical Commission is exceeding their authority underneath the statute and the efforts and endeavors that they've undertaken in recent months. And for that reason, I will be opposing this this evening.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Pierce.
[Bears]: Mr. President, I'm really glad that the Building Department and the Historical Commission have finally put together a system to streamline this. I think it's improved things and I agree with Vice President Caraviello when I've contacted the Historical Commission. They've been incredibly prompt with me. It'd be my preference that we strike the the words the historical commission from this. I think the building department is the entity responsible for notifying people about building permits. I think that's a question we have an answer to. The question is, why aren't those notifications going out? So that would just be my preference here, if that's fine with Vice President Caraviello as an amendment. Thank you. I've had some experience with this as well. I understand the frustration that property owners are feeling on this. and having to call and kind of get things moving as a Councilor. I don't think that's how, I don't think that should be our role, quite frankly. I think it should just be going smoothly. So I think it also goes back to some other points, which is that I think maybe our building department might need sufficient staffing to get this done as well. But for now, I just ask that we strike the words, the Historical Commission. Thank you. Thank you, Vice President Kirby.
[Knight]: One more information, Mr. President.
[Falco]: I just want to make sure. Cathopia is striking the words Historical Commission?
[Bears]: In the first line, the 10th word.
[Falco]: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Pierce. Let's see, Councilor Knight, I believe you had a comment.
[Knight]: It's problematic, Mr. President, when everybody that you talk to says they're having some sort of problem getting a permit, some sort of problem getting a permit, unless they know somebody. They call a city councilor and then they get, oh yeah, it's no problem, I'll get you in a half an hour. If they don't know somebody, though, they're held up for 17 months. All right, that's a problem, Mr. President. I feel as though that's a very big problem. I also think it's a problem that, you know, there's no guidance from the administration as to how this process is supposed to work. So now Paul Moky's supposed to notify someone or the building commissioner, right? The building department's supposed to notify residents which have had their buildings permit. permits reviewed by the historical commission within 72 hours after the review has been completed of the decision. Nothing prompts the historical commission to notify the building commissioner within a defined period of time when they get the application or after they make their decision to tell the building commissioner when it is that they can pull the trigger on this. This is a flawed process from the start. The changes that have been implemented over the last year, Mr. President, are detrimental to the growth in this community.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you.
[Bears]: Mr. President, I would just want to say, I think comparing this to the situation at 16 foster court is not an apt comparison and I don't think we should be doing that. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you. Can the motion of vice-president Caraviello seconded by seconded by consumer off court.
[Bears]: Please call the roll as amended.
[Falco]: Oh, as amended as I apologize. As amended by council.
[Hurtubise]: You are correct.
[Marks]: So what we're doing is asking that the building department notify residents once they have the review back from the historical commission. That they notify residents within 72 hours, is that how I'm reading this?
[Caraviello]: And they're not notified of it.
[Knight]: I mean, if your application is before a board or a commission and they vote on it, the board of commission should be the one telling you what's going on. You know what I mean?
[Caraviello]: It's craziness. Someone's got to notify the presidents of the decision. I'm not saying they're calling to ask you to expedite it, but when I called, they said, oh, it's the voter.
[Falco]: There needs to be some follow-up.
[Knight]: There needs to be, someone needs to define who's responsible for issuing a building permit in the community. I think that's the building commissioner. It always has been in the past, just like he's always been the person responsible for zoning, right? So I think that although the council feels as though I'm comparing apples to oranges, I don't think that's necessarily the case. I feel as though I'm comparing overstep and overstep based upon the statutory guidelines and the ordinance that's in place. Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Knox, are you all set with your question?
[Marks]: I am, Mr. President.
[Bears]: Again, I think that just goes to the heart of the issue, right, which is the Historical Commission is doing its work promptly, and it's sitting at the building department. Are they all? Yes. Yes, they are. Are they all? They are. 17 months? Yeah.
[Falco]: Wait, Councilman Pierce has the floor.
[Bears]: Yeah, again, could have showed up to any meeting, but that's another issue. It's yeah, the Historical Commission's doing them promptly. It's going to the building department and the notification's not being sent out. I fully agree with the proposal to have the notification sent out within 72 hours because that's what should be happening. So the issue here, permitting authorities, the building department, permitting authorities not providing prompt notification, we should ask them to provide prompt notification. Thank you.
[Knight]: Mr. President, but again, the mechanism is when is the building department getting notified when the determination is being made? And is there a criteria or a timeline for when that determination needs to be made from the ancillary secondary body? So can I get a building permit and go give it to Paul Moki and he says, OK, yeah, this has to go to Historic. He gives it to Historic. Historic has a meeting on it. Neva tells him about it. Or Historic doesn't have a meeting on it. It has a meeting on it in 45 days. Are there any defined parameters or timelines? That's the concern, Mr. President. There's a breakdown.
[Bears]: Mr. President. From what we've seen, all evidence, all matters are being addressed promptly and sent to the building department. If we want to propose some sort of request for a policy change, I'm not opposed to that. I'm just saying right now, we know where the breakdown is.
[Knight]: Point of information, Mr. President, I think it's been made clear by the council is that as long as you know a Councilor and pick up the phone, there is no breakdown. But if you don't know a Councilor and you can't pick up the phone, then there is.
[Bears]: I agree with that. I call the building department. That's where the problem is.
[Falco]: Okay, on the motion of Vice President Caraviello, seconded by? Seconded by? Councilor Morell, I apologize. Seconded by Councilor Morell, as amended by Councilor Bears. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? No. Councilor Marks? No. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. No. President Falco.
[Falco]: Yes, for the affirmative, three in the negative, the motion passes. Reports of committees, 20-541, September 21st, 2020, committee of the whole report. The purpose of the meeting was to conduct a site visit at the proposed single parcel historic district at the Haskell Cutout 16 across the court, back in Massachusetts. We now-.
[Knight]: Motion to receive and place on file. It's a move point, Mr. President. We took the vote.
[Falco]: Okay, I move the motion of council tonight to receive and place on file, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Clerk, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_24]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Falco]: We met with the city solicitor and Director Marian O'Connor to talk about the open meeting law and meeting in city council chambers.
[SPEAKER_24]: Move approval.
[Falco]: I move for approval by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Bears. Clerk Urbis, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Martz?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes. Motion passes to 0-5 6 8 5 6 8 September 23rd 2020 We had a committee the whole meeting the purpose of that meeting Was we met with that? Mr. Bob Roski to review the current zoning ordinance Continuous meetings with them in the future on a second console console a night seconded by consular bears Clark Herbies, please call the roll. I
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Falco]: Sure, thank you, Mr. Thomas.
[Knight]: Is there a committee report?
[Falco]: It's the, yeah, it's a committee report.
[Knight]: Is there one?
[Falco]: Yeah, September 30th, I got it right now.
[Knight]: Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. This committee met. It's myself, Councilor Bears, and Councilor Marks. We had a number of representatives from the administration where we were able to ask questions as far as what the city is currently doing to address systemic racism programs that exist under the umbrella of public health, the Office of Diversity, and beyond. And we heard from a few members of the public and voted to keep papers in committee to keep discussing this as it's not a simple subject to address. and move approval.
[Bears]: Second.
[Falco]: Thank you Councilor Morell. On the motion of Councilor Morell, seconded by... Second. Councilor Bears, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Bears]: Councilor Bears. Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello.
[Falco]: That was a yes.
[Hurtubise]: Okay. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes, 70 affirmative, 0 negative, the motion passes. Clerk Hurtubise, if I'm correct, we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 committee reports that are tabled. I have them right here, if we could- Motion to keep on the table, Mr. President.
[Knight]: Motion to take papers in the hands of the clerk. No, we have two more.
[Falco]: Okay, we have two under suspension. Two under suspension on the motion of council and I, seconded by Vice President Caraviello to take items under suspension. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes, 70 affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Under suspension, 20-588 offered by Councilor Marks, whereas this is the second request of National Grid to report back on the leaning pole, number 4354, located at 41 Mangle Street, being resolved that the head of wires, Steven Rendazzo, reach out directly to National Grid in the interest of public safety. Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. President, this may seem like a trivial issue, but this is the second time I've offered this on the agenda, and neighbors up on Mangels Street are worried enough to bring it to my attention again. I requested that National Grid go up and take a look at it and report back. I'm not a structural engineer, but my eyes don't deceive me. Mr. President. And it's quite dangerous. And this is a poll that carries electrical wires as well. And neighbors are very concerned, Mr. President. So, I, as one member of the council, if I don't get a response, I will not be supporting any issues that come before us with National Grid requests, Mr. President, until they adhere to our request. And that's true with double polls as well. If you go around the city now, you're going to see more and more double polls creeping up around this community. And unless we fight back, they're going to say, you know what? You can get away with it in the city of Medford. And so I would ask, Mr. President, that our head of wires, Steve Rendazzo, who does a tremendous job, reach out to National Grid and get a response immediately regarding pole 4354 on Mangles Street in the interest of public safety.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilman Marks. So the motion of Councilman Marks, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Council Bears. Yes. Vice President Caraviello. Yes. Council Knight. Yes. Council Marks. Yes. Council Morell.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Senator Falco.
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. 20-589, offered by Councilor Marks. Be it resolved that a moment of silence be held for longtime resident, method resident, Louise Musto-Choate on her recent passing. Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. that I bring this up tonight. Louise was a dear, close friend to not only myself, but many, many people in the community. Louise served her distinction with the Method Arts Council. Incorporated for many, many years, many of the projects that you've seen around the city. Louise Musto Cho was very involved, Mr. President. She was a sweetheart of a woman. She was dedicated to her family, her friends, and her arts, Mr. President. If you know Louise, she was a jewelry designer. She did tapestry, canvas prints, artwork. She was a very creative person, Mr. President, and was always looking to put the city first. Over the past few years, I had the opportunity to serve on a citizen-initiated arts center committee, which she was kind enough to let us use her building. a group of people to use their building in the community room to meet and gather and discuss a potential art center for the entire community at the Heckner Center. And the loss of Louise is truly devastating for this community.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. On the motion of Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Knight, Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President, and I just
[Bears]: I won't speak long. I think Councilor Marks did a wonderful job, but it was really sad to see so many people across our community coming to terms with this news, especially our arts community. And my thoughts are with everyone who's hurting right now. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. And if I may, Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I was floored when I found out, when Councilor Marks called me and told me. Louise was one of the starters of the art community in the city of Medford. Again, it was always Medford first with her. Her always concern was people of Medford. And as I say, she's a great innovator for the art community. Again, another icon in our community has passed away. So, sorry for our loss.
[Marks]: Mr. President, if I just could, I omitted, I put Councilor Caraviello's name on the, we had a discussion. I put his name on the email that I sent to the city clerk. I may have spelled his name wrong, but I did put, and I just want to recognize Councilor Caraviello offered that with me as well, Mr. President. So I apologize for the omission.
[Falco]: The clerk can make that change, not a problem. Louise was a really, really nice person, and thoughts and prayers go to her family. She was, as Councilor Mark said, active in all the different arts events and organizations, and you always saw her there, and she was always there participating and helping out in creating art, and she will be missed. So at this point, I'd ask everyone to please rise for a brief moment of silence. Thank you. On that motion of Councilor Marks and Vice President Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight, Clerk Hurtabease, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears?
[Bears]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello?
[Caraviello]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight?
[Knight]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks?
[Marks]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Let's see, we got... Records, we have two sets of records. The records from September 8th were passed to Councilor Marks. Councilor Marks, how did you find those records?
[Marks]: I reviewed the records, find them to be in order, and I do move approval, Mr. President.
[Falco]: A motion of Councilor Marks to approve the records seconded by Councilor Knight. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes.
[Marks]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Falco]: The records of the meeting of September 22nd were passed to Councilor Morell. Councilor Morell, how did you find those records?
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I did reach out to the clerk with an amendment to the record, which I believe was shared with the entire council, so move approval of the records as amended.
[Falco]: Okay, on the motion of Councilor Morell to approve the records as amended, seconded by Councilor Bears. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Marks]: Happy Wednesday.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears?
[Bears]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Council Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks?
[Marks]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell?
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. I move the affirmative, adjourn the negative, the motion passes. Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to adjourn the meeting seconded by Councilor Bears. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears?
[Bears]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello? Tonight yes, counts of March Council Morell yes Yes, I'm a former during the negative the meeting is adjourned.
[Falco]: Thank you. Good night. Be safe
|
total time: 41.36 minutes total words: 6523  |
total time: 13.23 minutes total words: 2087  |
total time: 19.5 minutes total words: 3537  |
total time: 44.7 minutes total words: 6774  |
|
total time: 29.35 minutes total words: 6083  |
total time: 4.07 minutes total words: 837  |
total time: 19.85 minutes total words: 3129  |
|