[Falco]: and the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and or parties with the right and or requirement to participate. I'm sorry, 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 personal attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time 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 Media website, an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. So you have the motion of Councilor Morell to suspend the rule, seconded by? Vice President Caraviello, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: suspend council bears yes vice president care of yellow yes council night Councilor Marks yes council Morell yes councillor scarpelli President Falco.
[Falco]: Yes, 70 affirmative, zero in the negative. The rules are suspended.
[Morell]: Councilor Morell. Motion to take paper 20-672 out of order. I know Anne-Marie with the Medford Streets program is only able to be on for the earlier part of the meeting.
[Falco]: I'm sorry, 20-672? Yes. This is communications from the mayor. December 1st, 2020, to President John Falco and honorable members of the Medford City Council, from Rianna Lungo-Koehn mayor, regarding licensing of food trucks. Dear President Falco and members of the Medford City Council, I respectfully request that the City Council approve the following list of food trucks for events. that are scheduled for the coming months due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the city's temporary policies, limiting events and gatherings, the attached application includes some unique considerations, which have been reviewed and approved by my office, as well as the Board of Health. Method streets updated request. Location dates to be determined by resident request, seeking up to five locations between November and March, requesting one lunch, and or dinner in one dessert truck per location and or date. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. It's my understanding that Annemarie Aigner is on the call. She's behind this program. I think she can speak more specifically into what they're seeking.
[Knight]: Mr. President.
[Falco]: Councilor, Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Yeah, I do believe this paper was before the council previously and the council said we have no problem with entertaining the idea provided that they provide us with the dates and locations as to when these food trucks are going to be operating in our community.
[Falco]: Okay. Thank you. Council Knight, I believe you are correct in that. Um, did you say, I'm sorry, Councilor Morell, did you say someone was on the call that?
[Morell]: Yeah, it's Anne-Marie Aigner, A-I-G-N-E-R. And I think it's just that their request has been updated.
[Falco]: And the mayor has her hand up. So let's see.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Mayor, you want to go first? Thank you. I don't know if Anne-Marie is on the call, but I know Jackie Peeks, our communications director is on the call as well as myself. And this is something that I believe was approved by the city council. Months ago, thank you very much. It wasn't taken advantage of, so we're asking for the extension of the up to five dates per resident requests. And we ask for your approval of that tonight.
[Falco]: OK, thank you. I don't recall voting in favor of this.
[Knight]: I don't recall voting in favor of this. Councilor Knight. I don't recall voting in favor of this paper, Mr. President, previously.
[Falco]: I don't know.
[Knight]: It was contingent upon them submitting the dates to us for further review to dates and locations for further review. But it wasn't something that we said, yeah, okay, do it. Just go five locations anytime you want. We still wanted to know the dates and times and locations.
[Falco]: Okay. And this paper tonight doesn't provide that either. Um, and I should have a Jackie peaks. Do you want, would you like to speak on this issue? Jackie. Jackie looks like she might be having some technical issues. Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I remember this coming up before and I thought we voted in favor, but I wasn't sure, but I don't have any problem voting for this. I'm a little confused. Who comes out to food trucks between November and March? I mean, I want it to be successful, but who's gonna be standing out in January outside freezing with a food truck? That's my only question. I wanna see the thing be successful, but how successful are you gonna be between the coldest months of the year? Standing in someone's driveway, parking, standing in the snow with a food truck. That's really my only question. I mean, you know.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I did speak with Anne Marie and I know a few just food trucks are operating this way and that they're taking all orders ahead of time. So it's really people placing orders ahead of time online. People come out to the food truck. It's a, you know, a contactless handoff to get their meals, social distancing, waiting. I think it's really just another way to kind of get get take-out in these times.
[Falco]: We just lost the audio connection. I'm not here for a meeting.
[Knight]: I'm not here for a TV show.
[Falco]: I know. So he's working on that. Please continue.
[Knight]: So, Mr. President, ultimately, I believe the food truck licensing process was established as a pilot program, if I'm not mistaken, well before my time on the council. And I guess my question is, has this application process change now? I mean, are we doing things differently than we were previously based upon the nature of the applications? And if so, maybe that's something we need to talk about because the council has prioritized the food truck ordinance as something that we want to look at moving forward on through the ordinance subcommittee, Mr. President. So if there's any changes to the application process that's going on, it might be nice for us to know about that as well so that as we further discussions on the food truck ordinance, we can have some of the input that the administration's had based upon the applications and the nature of requests that they've seen over the course of the last year or so.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilman Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I think that I, for beginning, I think this is moving forward to initiate the involvement in food trucks in our community. I think that it's important. I think that you're seeing that as a positive trend. And I think it's important to add this aspect to our community. But again, my biggest concern, especially with the with the dire issues with our brick and mortar buildings right now, approving five dates without certainty. I think it falls into the confusion that I have is taking business away from those organizations that are drowning right now. So these are the questions that we have. That's why I believe it was in committee with the ordinance so we could talk about this and vet it out properly because I Like I said, I'm not against the food trucks, I think it's important. I would love to see someday an area where we line 20 food trucks down in a certain area like they do in other communities and followings come out to that area. But when you're talking about what's happening, even right now with the governor's order of restaurants and the limitations of people at a table. putting a food truck on a busy weekend day next to a establishment in Medford Square. And instead of people doing takeout out of that area to keep them going, and bringing in a food truck that might not even be part of, even registered in Medford. I find that a problem right now. So I can't, I wouldn't support this right now. I think it's important that we establish what we wanted to do. If there's a date, if there are events that the mayor is asking for, that's what we've done in the past. Until we finalize this, until we get through this pandemic, until brick and mortar establishments are on solid ground again. I apologize, but I just, as much as I like it, I just, there's too many variables right now that I get weighing against my decision to vote in favor of anything tonight. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. We have Jackie Peeks. Jackie, I'm going to try to unmute. Oh, there you go. Hi, is that working?
[Peeks]: Yes. Okay, sorry, for some reason there was sound issues with Zoom initially, so I couldn't hear what you were saying at the very beginning and I apologize. Ann Marie is here and can provide much more detail on the application. And I again, apologize, I don't know what the initial questions were, but just to provide some context for the initial application that came through, I believe it was in June or July. And this is again, just an extension of that. What the streets program is seeking to do is by resident request, they would bring a truck to a residential area. We'd worked with them on their application and sort of specified working in residential neighborhoods as much as possible. And per the council's request, initially, we had heard some questions to come back and clarify the specific dates. And based on what the program is designed to do, it's by resident request, which they may not have at this moment in time. So what we've asked Anne Marie and her team to do is if there is a resident request, they would come back to us. We would alert the council as to the proposed date and location. and that's how that would be if the council would agree to that. And I think, you know, this is, again, I would defer to Ann Marie for details of the program. I would also just like to mention that more recently, the street team has been reaching out to schools and PTAs and sort of working with schools to provide additional support where, you know, families may need fundraising and things like that. So they are willing to, you know, they would like to work with the community and support the community in various ways as well. But again, I would defer to Ann Marie on details.
[Falco]: Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: I certainly appreciate their willingness and desire to want to work with the community. We have a number of great establishments in Medford, like Roswell's Restaurant, for example, does great work here in the community. This councilor just recognized Richie for the work he does in his philanthropy here in the community. So, you know, we have a number of businesses that want to do good things for the people that live here that are based here in this community as well. I did hear that the way this is is they want a blanket permit and then they want to come back to the council to tell us when they're coming. Well, that's pretty much the way it works right now. If you want to come, you just tell us what the date is and the time is and you come before the council with your application and we'll hear it. So, I'm a little confused as to why we're changing the process when the processes seem to work pretty well in the past and if, you know, it's like not like they're going to come. If they don't know, there are people here that are going to buy it. It sounds like it's pretty much just, does your neighborhood want to do delivery from this pizza place today? Because this pizza place will come to your neighborhood with the truck and bring you the food. So with that being said, Mr. President, I'm looking at this and I'm kind of saying, we're changing the process now. It seems like the process that we've had in place previously is a process that would work just fine. They have a date, a time, and a location. If they want to go to a neighborhood, come before us, petition us, and we'll vote on it. But a blanket permit and the changing of the, material application of the food truck pilot program, which shouldn't be called the pilot program anymore because it's been in place for like nine years, you know, is ultimately problematic to me. And this is a paper that, you know, I don't think we need to deviate from the way we've been doing things, Mr. President. I don't think this makes it any better for the community, any more protections for our business community? Just based upon what I'm hearing right now, maybe my mind can be changed and I can be swayed. But I just kind of, I'm starting to get the feeling that it's like. It doesn't matter what the rules say. We're just doing anything, however we feel like doing it right now. And then when anybody says anything about it, it's coronavirus. So I'm a little confused by the way the application process has changed and the way that the criteria has changed. With that being said, I'm not opposed to food trucks in our community. I think we should have an ordinance, and I think we should allow them. But I think it needs to be tightened up a little bit more than what we have here presently. The proposed ordinance is far more restrictive than what's been outlined. this document right here, for example, the proposed ordinance would say that if you are going to be located within 200 yards of a brick and mortar establishment, you have to get their permission to locate them. So there are some things I think that, you know what I mean, safeguards that we can put into the community, and that's what we've been working on through the ordinance. So, you know, when I look at this, it's not something that I'm comfortable supporting this evening right now, I'll tell you that.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knights. We have Anne Marie with us. Anne Marie, can we have your name and address for the record? I'm going to unmute you right now.
[CEBUcuE3cuo_SPEAKER_08]: There you go. Yes. Hi. Thank you. And thank you, councilor. And thank you, councilors. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Jackie, for your weighing in. Bottom line, we're not trying to replace anybody at all. We're trying to offer your neighbors and your residents and your much quarantined, and beleaguered residents another dining opportunity. That's all. We support the restaurants. We don't want to be instead of the restaurants. We don't, you're correct, these are small businesses. You're right, they don't pay taxes, but their delivery is at this point, and neither does Amazon, neither does Uber Eats, neither do some of the other delivery services, but regardless, they try to support the residents. It's starting with the neighbors and that's why it's called neighborhood streets. We go where we're invited and I believe we've been invited at least since April to neighborhoods that are just looking for another dining option. That's all. And while also supporting small businesses. In addition, we are now reaching out to PTOs and PTAs recognizing that they have very limited fundraising opportunities. And just today, we raised several hundred dollars for a PTA in Belmont. And we wanted to do that in Medford. We respect the rules. We understand we are simply another option, neighborhood option for residents. And that's all we were meant to be. And I think there are many people who will go to a restaurant, many people who will cook at home. Many people who will order a pizza and many people who might say, wouldn't it be nice to have a way to safely order, pre-order a meal, come pick it up and go home and eat it. And it's cooked. And that's how we were meant to be. I don't know if anybody has any questions for me.
[Falco]: Thank you, Anne Marie. And if I may, Anne Marie, just as a administrative matter, we just need your name and address. The clerk needs your name.
[CEBUcuE3cuo_SPEAKER_08]: Oh, I apologize for that. My name is Anne Marie Eigner, 66 Ralph Street, Watertown, 02472. And I represent Food Truck Ventures and the Neighborhood Streets Program and the Streets for Schools Program.
[Falco]: Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I don't think anyone behind this reel thinks this is a bad idea. I think what I'm hearing from my colleagues is that in the past when we approved food trucks, we always got date and location. And I would feel more comfortable that we revisit this when there's an actual date and location of an actual truck that would like to come into the community. And we'll take them as we've done in the past, Mr. President, each one on its own merit and move forward. But as this prepares tonight, just an open-ended, you know, list of potential, you know, food trucks, I couldn't support this tonight either, Mr. President. So I would ask that the administration come back when they do have a full-fledged request.
[Falco]: Thank you. Councilor Marks. Okay, we have a couple of hands up here. We have John from the Chamber of Commerce. Name and address for the record, John.
[9W26eEllQ8Y_SPEAKER_00]: John Costas, 56 Hayne Street, business in Medford Square. This is the first I've heard about this. And I really think that that's, it's kind of a disservice to all small businesses. They're getting hit really, really hard now. And they just got reduced in capacity. They lost their outside dining. Their only source of revenue now is takeout or in dining services. And to put food trucks and remote, you know, food right in the neighborhood, obviously people are going to like this because it's convenient. It's down the street. They can just order what they want and they walk down and pick it up. But food trucks should stay like it's been doing by special permit at events. You need a food truck at your event, you get food trucks at your event. But I think to make it policy that food trucks can come and go in neighborhoods, it's just wrong. It's really shows a lack of support. I mean, small, modern, pop little restaurants here. You know, our restaurants need help. And right now it's getting worse. It's not getting better. And now that winter's here. So this is for myself personally. I'm not speaking for the Chamber of Commerce on this, because the Chamber of Commerce, wasn't aware this was coming up, so we did not have a discussion on it. But as myself, a business owner in Method Square for 40 years, I really have a problem with food trucks in residential neighborhoods. And I agree it should be reconsidered at some future date, but don't, don't hurt our, you know, brick and mortar stores at this time during this COVID period. It's just a disservice. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you very much. Would anybody else like to speak on this issue that's on the Zoom call here? Okay, I don't see any hands up. Any of the councilors want to speak on this? Okay. Chair awaits a motion.
[Marks]: Motion received and placed on file, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Okay, on the motion of Councilor Naito to receive and place on file, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Clark-Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? No. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight?
[Knight]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[Morell]: No.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. 7 in the affirmative, 2 in the negative.
[Hurtubise]: 5 and 2.
[Falco]: I'm sorry, 5 in the affirmative, 2 in the negative. The paper is received in place.
[Bears]: Mr. President, while we're under suspension. Mr. President, while we're under suspension, Mr. President. 20-656.
[Falco]: One at a time. Vice President Cabral.
[Caraviello]: Mr. President, while we're under suspension, if we could take a paper 20-656. 20-656.
[Bears]: All on the same page.
[Falco]: Is it page 16? It's literally the same page as well.
[Marks]: Got it.
[Falco]: Okay, 20656.
[Caraviello]: Page 16, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Page 16, thank you. Communications from the mayor. November 25th, 2020, to the honorable president and members of the Medford City Council, City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. Dear Mr. President and city councilors, I respectfully request and recommend The city council authorized me as mayor on behalf of the city of Medford to enter into a tax increment financing, TIF, T-I-F, agreement with Monogram Gourmet Foods LLC in accordance with the Massachusetts Economic Development Incentive Program. and Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 23A, Chapter 40, Section 59, and Chapter 59. I'll be present at the meeting with members of the administration, Chief Assessor Ellen Bordeaux, Jeffrey Monica from Monogram Gourmet Foods, and Maria DeStefano from the Massachusetts Office of Business Development to discuss the agreement as well as Monogram Gourmet Foods' plan for their proposed operation in the city of Medford. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Liana Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm glad we're taking this back up again this evening. For the past six years, this whole community has been screaming, no more houses, no more apartments. We want commercial development. We want commercial development. Last week, we got probably the largest commercial development in the history of this community of $40 million. That's come forward to us. And again. I know there were some questions last week, and I would hope that we'd be able to work this out this evening, and hopefully vote favorably on this tonight, Mr. President. So I await comments from my other Councilors and members of the administration, and the people from Monogram Gourmet Foods also this evening. So I'll await further discussion, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. We have Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't know who's here to answer questions right now. I have some questions, I don't know. Are all the same people present on this to address questions? Yeah, you can ask questions now if you like. Okay. I have a question. I know, I apologize, I didn't print out the tip. I just have it on my phone, the actual proposed agreement. But I know there's the option that if the, there's the opportunity and process to decertify the TIF. Is there a process for through the state or I guess other measures for clawbacks if the terms of this weren't met and it were decertified? I don't know who's on the phone.
[Lungo-Koehn]: We have, Mr. President, thank you. We have Maria DeStefano from the state. I think she'd probably be best to answer this question for you.
[Falco]: OK, we have Maria Giuseppina. I just need to unmute her. Yeah, I'm trying to. I'll try again. Adam, do you want to try to unmute? We're going to have the clerk see if he can unmute her. I'm not having any luck. was a question about clawbacks.
[Morell]: Yes. Yeah. The question is just if, you know, if the process to decertify happens because the terms of this agreement aren't met, is there an opportunity or mechanism through the state for clawbacks or is that something that the city would have to pursue otherwise? Or have you seen other cities do this again? Not that I don't want this to happen, but I'm just trying to understand what that process might look like.
[Falco]: She's been unmuted. Maria, you have the floor.
[SPEAKER_34]: there because it is you could certainly pursue that. I have not seen that happen. I haven't seen that happen very often. Typically the company is really wanting to be in that in a specific location and that municipality really wants them there. So there's always some type of an agreement. Have I seen sometimes I haven't seen municipalities act in a way that they would want to decertify that project. It would need, you know, I've seen them do it within reason, but I, you know, when something perhaps is egregious, but not in a, typically I see municipalities and companies working together to try to resolve whatever is happening. So the answer is yes, you could, you could certainly decertify them. It would really be on the city to initiate that. It's a fairly easy process. You send a letter to me and we get it to the EACC and we start the process and they vote on it at a policy meeting or another EACC meeting.
[Morell]: I'm just trying to understand what that would look like. Okay. And but there's nothing prohibiting clawbacks. If that were something that were to happen again. I don't want this to happen. I'm not speaking this, but I'm just trying to understand what that would look like.
[SPEAKER_34]: So that would be initiated in the city.
[Morell]: Okay. And then I just have one more question specifically about the tip. I believe it says. And again, I So the hiring would occur over those five years to get to the total of 250. Let's see.
[SPEAKER_20]: Yeah. Yeah, this is I'm sorry. This is Jeff Monica, vice president of Monogram Gourmet Foods. and based in Medford, Tennessee. Yes, mayor and Councilors, yes. Our commitment is to employ an additional 200, well, 250 new employees to our company in the city of Medford. And the period of the, is through, I think it's fiscal 2026, if I'm not mistaken.
[Morell]: And then I believe the chief of staff said last week, then that the terms of the TIF are so that those jobs are held at least until the end of the TIF in 2030 or I guess 2031. Correct? Or that's how I understood it?
[SPEAKER_20]: Yes.
[Morell]: OK.
[SPEAKER_20]: All right, thank you. Councilor, I would just advise you that we will probably hire those employees within 12 months of opening the facility, which we anticipate, if the TIF is granted, could be this coming summer. We're trying to target an August 1st start. If we don't have the jobs and the people hired, we're not gonna be in business. We gotta move quickly to hire the employees. So we're hopeful that that'll happen in the first 12 to 24 months maximum.
[Morell]: OK, thank you. Yeah, that was my original question. I was just trying to reflect the language I see in the actual proposed agreement. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you, Councilor Morell.
[Falco]: We have Councilor Bears and Councilor Knight. Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to echo Vice President Caraviello's statement. I think it's great that we're having commercial investment in the community. And I have my general concerns about TIPS as a development strategy. But I think in this case, after review and after the questions, that have been asked and answered, it seems like a good move for this specific case and this specific project. One thing I do want to add, I think 250 jobs is a great benefit to our community. I think that that would be an even stronger benefit if many of those were union jobs. As we know, unionized jobs pay a higher prevailing wage. And that's something that we really need in this community, considering the cost of living. So I would like to motion that the council would send the following language to the city administration for potential inclusion in this agreement pending review by legal counsel and whatever the administration deems necessary. And I can read the language when the clerk is ready. The language will just be monogram foods will not contest any efforts by workers at this facility to unionize using card check or any other legally authorized mechanism to establish a collective bargaining unit. And again, sending that language over to the city administration for their review and discussion for potential inclusion in the agreement. I was encouraged to hear from Mr. Modica that some of the facilities that Monogram operates are unionized, so I would hope that this would be more of a formality than needing to be enforced if workers were to unionize, but I do think it's important that we try to make sure that as many jobs in our community as possible are good union jobs, where workers get the benefits of being in a collective bargaining unit. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Peers. So on the motion of Councilor Peers... Would you like to amend that, Mr. President? Okay, so... Is that an amendment?
[Bears]: It's a motion to send language to the city administration for potential inclusion in the agreement.
[Falco]: It's a B paper.
[Knight]: So on that B paper, seconded by... I have a couple of concerns about it, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Seconded by Councilor Morell, Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: I think it needs to be reviewed by legal counsel. And the reason I think that, Mr. President, is because we can't request that an entity or an organization waive their rights under federal law as a condition of permitting, right? So I think that that's something that might need legal review from Solicitor Scanlon. But I would like to offer a C paper, Mr. President, requesting that Monogram Foods and the administration meet with Boston Building Trades. to discuss the potential for a project-specific labor agreement at this house, at this location for the build-out. And that gentleman would be Francis X. Callahan. He's the Chairman of the Building Trades at this point in time. I'd offer that as a C paper, Mr. President, if this is approved and moving forward.
[Falco]: So we have a C paper offered by Council on 8.
[Bears]: Second.
[Falco]: Second by Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: And Mr. President, if I may.
[SPEAKER_13]: Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Just to clarify on the B paper, absolutely pending legal council review or any other it would be at the administration's discretion to ask Solicitor Scanlon about the language. So that's my intent in this motion. Second, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you.
[Morell]: Councilor Morell. Thank you, Mr. President. I do have one more question regarding if there is any update from the administration as far as findings regarding to the applicability of the soldier ordinance to this project and what that might look like.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Morell, that was to Alicia Hunt.
[Hunt]: I'm sorry, I wasn't available earlier to respond to this, but I am meeting with Mr. Modica from Monogram Foods on Thursday to review our solar ordinance and the requirements for it and to see how it fits with their project. I do believe that it's going to be applicable. I don't see it being a huge burden on their company, but we'll be talking about it in more detail on Thursday. And I think he has something to add.
[SPEAKER_20]: Yeah. I'm sorry. I'll wait. Yeah. Since last week's meeting, we have engaged with our engineering team to begin looking at this pending the approval of the TIF. The building roof has got some sloped portion and there is quite a bit of refrigeration equipment, which contains ammonia. Um, so we'll have to look at how that would interface. And that caused me to schedule a meeting and work with work through Dave Rodriguez of economic development and the mayor staff. And we're got the team together. I've got my engineers available tomorrow, pending the outcome tonight to meet with Alicia. Uh, I would just tell you two other things. We have our meat snack plant in Chandler, Minnesota is 100% supplied electricity from 13 solar gardens that we have in the state of Minnesota. and that's a program through XL Energy. So we are very, if it will work and we can, structure will have supported, we will go forward and take a look at that to the best of our ability. Remember, this is a lease building and the owner Medford Bakery Realty LLC is the actual owner of the facility. We are a tenant. So they will have to be brought in once we determine applicability with working with Alicia and her team. That's the update since last Tuesday's meeting.
[SPEAKER_13]: Okay, great. Thank you both.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Rao.
[Marks]: Councilor Layton.
[Falco]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank...
[Marks]: This council last week tabled this request in order to notify residents of the Wellington and Haines Square area. And in particular, I want to thank the city administration. They sent out a great robocall, in my opinion, alerting residents of this particular meeting how to participate, Mr. President. And also, if they had any questions or concerns regarding this TIF And this new establishment, a Middlesex Ave. So I want to thank the administration and thank this council for including residents in their input. It's very important during this process. Mr. President, I think it was about four years ago this council voted for the only TIF that I can recall with Bianco Sausage. And at the time, Mr. President, their commitment to this city was to add 20 new full-time jobs. And now we're looking at a commitment of 250 jobs. So I see this as a real job growth and economic recovery. revitalizer, which I think will be good for the area. And I agree with my colleagues regarding living wages and so forth. And I'm sure we could probably work towards that, Mr. President. The questions that I raised last week, I still have this week, Mr. President, and I'm going to propose them again. And I'm not sure if we've had any time to work on some of this, but I really would like to try to pin down the potential trucking routes to this establishment, Mr. President. I know we're talking about increasing business there from what currently exists. And I think it's important for those of us that actually surround this, there are neighborhoods around this facility. I realize this is a commercial area. But it's embedded in a residential neighborhood, both the Haines Square and the Wellington neighborhood with many residents. So I would like to find out from maybe Mr. Moniker if he's had the ability to respond to the question that I asked last week of what potential truck routes they will be looking at, knowing that two of the major roads that exist around this area don't allow major trucking. So in my opinion, that would disperse trucks on some of the secondary roads, and I have a concern. So that would be my first question, Mr. President, regarding the truck routes. And if Mr. Monica has had the opportunity to look into it, if not, I think it's something that still requires a response, Mr. President, to this council.
[Falco]: Thank you, council. Mr. Monica.
[SPEAKER_20]: Yes, thank you council for the question. We have had a discussion. I have actually have a representative. One of my peers is in Boston area tonight. They'll be touring the facility tomorrow. We did look at basic traffic ingress and egress from trucks. It'll all be contained to Middlesex. Is that Middlesex street or Middlesex road? I'm not sure the right name. And the truck traffic and employee traffic will be entering on and off of Middlesex. The only question that was raised is how difficult will it be to make a left turn out of the property onto Middlesex? And just coincidentally, I was talking with Mr. Rodriguez the other day and the chief of police was in his office. So I had the unique opportunity of inquiring, are there any restrictions with what type of traffic? do we see there, he said, you should have no problem in going in and out and Middlesex. And I also inquired about weight restrictions and he said, you should have no problems using Middlesex and an accessing is that highway 28, I think will be the main artery we would take. to get out of the area. So I don't anticipate a problem, Councilor. Obviously we have to comply with all traffic and local weight ordinances. That's common practice for any business. So I don't anticipate that to be a problem. And if left turns are a problem coming out of there, we will generate a right turn only process and route our trucks down Middlesex and loop back around to 28th. So that's the research we've done since your question last Tuesday night.
[Marks]: Okay, I appreciate you looking into that and I thank you for your response. The other question I had was, you mentioned originally that Monogram was going to open as two shifts with the potential of a third shift. I know at this point you probably can't commit, but I have a concern about a potential third shift. And I was wondering if a third shift would require the extended hours for any business, and would that be a vote of the council? This, I don't think, is a question for Mr. Modica, but I don't know who else we have on the call. Do we have Commissioner Moki or anyone else on the call?
[Lungo-Koehn]: Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Mr. President, yes, we don't have Commissioner Moki on the call. We have Ms. Hunt, Mr. Rodriguez. We have our traffic engineer, Todd Blake. But we do not have Commissioner Mulkey. My apologies. Point of information, Mr. President.
[Knight]: Point of information, Councilor Layton. I'm going to tap it on my zoning book here. Section 94-145, hours of operation of retail or wholesale store, factory, or manufacturing plant. A, no retail or wholesale store, factory, or manufacturing plant shall conduct business or operate in a single family general residence, apartment, commercial, or industrial zone between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. A special permit to extend those hours of operation between 11 and 7 may be granted by the council provided in section 9481. So it appears that the extended hours permit would be applicable in this instance.
[Marks]: Mr. President, I want to thank Councilor Knight for bringing that up. That was helpful. So Mr. President, knowing that this would require a special permit of the council, I think eases some of the concern I have regarding a third shift. I'm not saying I'm opposed to a third shift. I realize that the previous business, I believe, did have a third shift, an active third shift there. But that eases some of my concerns of residents that I spoke to regarding potential trucking at 1, 2, 3 in the morning. And we all know when 18 wheelers go by your house and hit the many potholes we have on our roads and the many divots we have, that it shakes homes and so forth, Mr. President. So that's comforting to know. My third point, Mr. President, and I brought this up last week, and it's a major concern, Mr. President. Middlesex Ave, and I don't have to tell anyone behind this reel, is a disgrace. The sidewalk, the road, the lighting, everything on that road is a complete and utter disgrace. There hasn't been any attention, I've been in the area for almost 30 years now, and there hasn't been any attention to that road since I've been here. And that's no lie. And I realize it's a state road, and I'm hoping with this partnership through an act of state legislation, which is the TIF agreement, that we could get a commitment similar to what we received just recently from the Department of Transportation regarding the corner of Main Street and South Street, Mr. President, that the city administration, Todd Blake, the city engineer, sit and meet with the State Department of Transportation, Mr. President, and put together a full-fledged plan. We're talking about $40 million in renovation, and equipment, and a new establishment, and yet we're talking $0 about infrastructure. I mean, I think it speaks volume about what we need to address. And it is that road, Mr. President. And I would just like to put that out there. I believe the mayor said that we had the traffic engineer, Todd Blake, on tonight. I went through this about a month and a half ago with the BJ's gas station. One of the major concerns was the exiting from BJ's location. And again, it was stated, I believe Todd Blake was on the calls, that they would look at the exiting of that particular parking lot. This is no different, this is a door down. This is no different, Mr. President. And I think if we're going to talk about $40 million in this commitment, It should go hand in hand with improvements to that road. So I'd like to hear from the traffic engineer and the city engineer regarding what the next steps are and potentially how the state. I'm sorry, is it DeStefano, the woman from the state? Yes. May be able to get involved on an infrastructure type if indeed they do get involved in moving this forward where she is from the state, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Councilor Matz, who would you like to hear from first? Either one, Mr. President. Okay, so Mr. Stefano is right in front of me here, so I will unmute. I'll try to unmute you. There we go, okay.
[SPEAKER_34]: Thank you, Council President. Thank you, Councilor. Certainly, I am happy to sit down with, well, whether it's in person or via email. I'm happy to sit down with the mayor, with Mr. Rodriguez, with Alicia, whomever I can. And we can talk about, there's several, there's an infrastructure program for the state. We can also make connections with MassDOT. I'm happy to help in whatever way I can.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Maybe if we can hear from the city.
[Falco]: Yes, absolutely. I think Todd, I thought I saw Todd Blake on the line. I got him, Mr. President.
[Dave Rodrigues]: He's on mute.
[Todd Blake]: Hi, how are you doing, everyone? Todd Blake, Traffic Engineer for City Manager. So council members, thank you for your comments on good points, and I think there'll be other opportunities as we move forward through that permit process you referenced to address these things, but it's a good point to point out to us to get in touch with the state and talk about possible improvements, whether it's related to this or otherwise.
[Marks]: So, Todd, while we have you, I know you were involved with the BJ's gas station as part of the conversation. Can you shed some light on what improvements, if any, are going to take place due to the recent approval of the BJ's gas station?
[Todd Blake]: Yeah, no problem. So for the BJ's gas station project, we requested that, as part of the permit process, we recommended and requested that they improve pedestrian and bicycle access to that facility, because it was built so long ago, it was very car-centric. So they were upgrading the sidewalk, I believe, along the frontage of their establishment, and also from Middlesex to their front door. And they were also adding bike lanes and bike sharrows, subject to state approval on the state road. Just to clarify for folks, because it's a gas station, the mitigation for the ped bike was to try to offset the possible additional car traffic, vehicle traffic, by switching the short existing trips to BJ's from car to pedestrian bike that might be shorter trips to potentially offset. That's how, because it's counterintuitive to some people, it's a gas station wide pedestrian bicycles, but it's in the hope to have a mode shift of existing short trips to BJ's to offset potentially additional car traffic.
[Marks]: Right. So Todd, just to fill me in. So is that commitment based on a commitment between BJ's and the Department of Transportation? How does that work?
[Todd Blake]: So whatever's on the site, Well, it was all permitted through the permit process, but whatever's on the site is through the city permit. Whatever's on the state road is subject to their approval as well. So it's approved locally, but then it also has to get approved by the state. Similar to local stream improvements related to development over there, where we recommend improvements on local street, but also at the intersection that the state owns. So we approved it local, or the boards approved it locally, and then it's subject to the state approval as well.
[Marks]: Okay, so any commitment that's on Middlesex Ave would be a commitment of DOT, correct?
[Todd Blake]: No, in the BJ's case, if that's what you're asking, the BJ's would be, if they get approved by the state, and another example is the Logan Street example, if the permit process included something in those permits, those examples, they constructed the improvements on state property with states.
[Marks]: So what you're telling me is then eventually Monogram is going to have to go through the approval process. And during that process, a similar agreement that was made with BJ's regarding the licensing and so forth will most likely take place with Monogram in the city regarding any safety concerns on Middlesex Ave.
[Todd Blake]: And I would imagine there would be opportunity to revisit that during that process. I wouldn't want to say what exactly that process is at this point. I'd defer to Paul and Alicia.
[Marks]: So I guess what I'm trying to do, and I don't feel warm and fuzzy from your response, I'm trying to figure out whose responsibility is it to make sure that Middlesex Ave gets the needed improvements during this approval of a $40 million project. As we heard from Vice President Caraviello, it's probably one of the larger endeavors that this city has seen, and I don't hear any infrastructure mentions. And I find that hard to believe that we're not discussing infrastructure improvements during such a large project.
[Todd Blake]: Is that for me as well?
[Marks]: Anyone from the administration that would like to handle that? I just would like to hear some more concrete information on what potentially negotiations will exist, what meetings are going to be called, what's going to happen to that roadway. Has anyone walked down that roadway? Am I the only one that's ever walked down Middlesex Ave? It's a complete nightmare. It really is. It's a complete nightmare.
[Todd Blake]: Walk down. We have a scheduled meeting with MassDOT District 4 on another matter that everyone's interested in, Maine itself. So whenever we meet with them, we'll take the opportunity to discuss possible improvements on any state roads. We work all the time with MassDOT and DCR to get improvements wherever we can, whenever we can. You know, recent examples with DCR on Felsway West, Bump House, and that neighborhood. you know, so we will have the opportunity very soon to talk with Matthew and touch base upon, you know, the condition of Middlesex Avenue and our request.
[Falco]: If I may, Council Members, I think may have a longer hand up.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, I know. I think Ms. Hunt has something to add, but I just want to just reassure you with Maria's help and our we're not looking for improvements for monogram, but as I think you have more department heads on here than I announced earlier, many more, but we will work together to try to get some much-needed improvements to Middlesex Avenue.
[Knight]: Point of information, Mr. President? Point of information, Councilman Knight. It appears that this project would be subject to linkage fees. Would the administration be willing to dedicate the linkage fees that are generated through this project for improvements to Middlesex Avenue for partnering with the state in making those improvements?
[Falco]: May I long occur?
[Lungo-Koehn]: I'm miss hunt. If you want to help me with this, but with regards to linkage fees and then I can.
[Hunt]: I would be happy to speak to the linkage fees question. So I would have to examine whether or not linkage fees are going to be levied on this. But what I can tell you is that linkage fees, the linkage funds that we have do not, um, have to be spent directly at that moment. So we actually have a linkage account that can be used. The difficulty here is that it's a state road. We've been developing very excellent relationships with MassDOT over the past 11 months, and we feel very confident that we can have a conversation with them about improvements to Middlesex Ave and who would be paying for such improvements. And in fact, as part of the BJ's commitment through the site plan review process that was being required of them through the community development board, is that they will be paying for the bike lane improvements, all and restriping of Middlesex Ave, inclusive of the area in front of this development. as part of their approval, pending approval with MassDOT. We don't think it'll be hard to get the improvement for MassDOT to have the private company pay for this striping. We haven't worked our way through the entire conversation with them, but we feel that that will go forward. We can also have a conversation with MassDOT about the application of linkage funds that we have for this area and for improving that road if that would be of assistance in getting MassDOT to approve the improvements, as you're saying, to this area. We'll also be working with- So you have no question, Mr. President.
[Knight]: Yes, linkage fees apply, and yes, we'll be willing to do it, and no, we won't. You know what I mean? That's as simple as I'm looking at you, Mr. President.
[Hunt]: So if they apply, yes, we would absolutely bring them to this location.
[Knight]: Okay, why would linkage fees not apply at this location?
[Hunt]: So linkage fees apply for new development. And this is a renovation. And so it is unclear to me.
[Knight]: Renovation over a certain size. Right. A substantial reservation in excess of 50% of the structure that's 10,000 square feet, which is what this project is, I believe, based upon what was presented.
[Hunt]: So Paul Mopey and I need to be having a conversation about exactly what is going to be applying to this location. But regardless of that, we can use money in the linkage account for for repair for improvements at this location. Depending on whether we can use any linkage on a state road. That is something that we're going to have to clarify because it is not clear to me that we could use any municipal funds on a state road regardless of their source. And we actually cannot require a company, a business of any kind to do improvements to a state road without the state agreeing to it.
[Knight]: Right. But we can't partner with the state, just like we've seen neighbors in Malden do, for example, when they partially funded a study for the reconfiguration of the Highland Avenue-Fells Way intersection there. And the city put up some money to do the traffic study. And once the traffic study was complete, the state kicked up the money to do the repairs.
[Hunt]: So- And that, yes, absolutely. And that was a MassDCR partnership. And this is a MassDOT road. So the MassDCR partnership program won't work here. We'll have to talk to MassDOT and see what they're open to.
[SPEAKER_20]: If I might add, we have a precedent. We have worked on similar projects in other cities. We have paid to move a curb cut because of that local city traffic engineer said, let's move that curb cut 50 feet to the west or to the east. So we will be cooperative. Obviously we have to fund our part, which is on our property that we're leasing, but we're going to be smart about that. We do not want a conflict with traffic with the neighboring property, BJ's or any of the residential. So we will be supportive of whatever Alicia and the state would like us to do within reason.
[Marks]: Councilor Marks, you had the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I know my colleagues have other questions, too, so I'll be brief. I just want to make sure, Mr. President, and it sounds like the city has given this some consideration on looking at some of the infrastructure that exists, in particular, Middlesex Ave. So I do feel comfortable, Mr. President. As a community, we can no longer sit back and state that, oh, I'm sorry, this is a state road. We can't do anything. Because it's difficult to tell a taxpayer when they're paying $8,000 in taxes that, sorry, we can't touch your tree, we can't trim your tree, we can't do your sidewalk, and we have nothing to do with your road. That's very difficult, Mr. President, and I think these conversations have to be had when we have the opportunity. And a $40 million renovation, in my opinion, is the time to do it. And I hope the city keeps us informed regarding what the next steps are on state road improvements, in particular Middlesex Ave. Regarding the TIF agreement itself, Mr. President, and this may be a question for Chief of Staff Rodriguez, is there language in there that would state that there's a 90 day notice of any corporate decision to change the nature or the character of their business operations to notify the city? Is there any language that speaks to that?
[Dave Rodrigues]: We're taking a quick review right now, but I don't recall that being as part of it. I think Maria can weigh in on that sort of structural change to a TIF agreement after it's approved by the EACC. They're generally made with the entity itself. I don't think there's a change in purpose language that's in there, but Maria can expand on whether she's seen that language included before that process worked out.
[Marks]: So Mr. President, I had the opportunity to look at a few recent TIF agreements, and they had language that stated just that. So I thought it would be helpful that when and if and when we put this agreement together, and I would just state this as a motion, that the administration add a 90-day notice of any corporate decision to change the nature and or character of their business operations that they notified the city of Medford. And naturally, if the attorney has to put that, that's just language that I jotted down quickly. So I would offer that in the form of a motion, Mr. President. Also that if there's not already currently that exist, and again, this would be a question for Mr. Rodriguez, that annual reports on job creation, retention of Method residents be provided to us. as the city of Medford, and I'm not sure if that language currently exists or something similar. It doesn't have to be the exact. Yeah, it's in section 70 of the agreement. Okay, so we can eliminate that, Mr. President. And then I think as Councilor Morell mentioned, there should be language in there within the TIF agreement. Failure to comply will result in decertification. Somewhere that should be listed within the TIF agreement itself. Mr. President, and I'm not sure if that's currently in there now, but I would recommend if it's not, that that be a motion as well, Mr. President.
[Dave Rodrigues]: It is also included, Councilor.
[Marks]: That's off. So it would be just- Thank you, Mr. Chief of Staff. So it would be just that one motion, Mr. President, that the 90 day notice, if there's any change in their business nature or character of their business, that they notify the city, Mr. President. And that's it for now. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. So that will be a D paper on the motion of Councilor Marks and the D paper seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. So we have a number of councils that want to speak. Next up is Councilor Knight, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Bears, Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. And Mr. Monica, I want to thank you for your patience in going through this process. I know it's quite an initiation to the Medford City Council that you've taken over the past couple of weeks. And I as one council want to say, number one, it's great to see that your company wants to invest here. Ultimately, there is zero jobs at this location now. And with the approval of this TIF, we have the ability to bring 250 jobs to our community, plus the construction jobs that are going to be related to it, plus we're going to be able to redevelop an underutilized site. And from my discussions with the city assessor, If nothing happens at this property, then we don't lose anything, right? I mean, right now, it is what it is based upon the way the tip is structured. In order for us to move forward on this, we're going to be in a much better place than we are today. So why is one councilor uncomfortable supporting this? I think we've raised a lot of issues, A paper, B paper, C paper, D paper at this point, Mr. President, and they're all valid, valid concerns. more focused, not necessarily on the merits of the organization or the business that's going to be done, but the application in the seamless transition. to a renovation of a site that's located in the neighborhood and our ability to make sure that those that are responsible and accountable to make sure that certain aspects of this job go right do. So when we talk about linkage and we talk about the solar ordinance, we're talking about items that we want the applicant to know about and know what they're getting into. So with that being said, Mr. President, This evening, I'm very comfortable voting to support this TIF. I think we've done a good job vetting it. We've taken the opportunity to open our eyes and our ears to the neighborhood and the neighbor's concerns, while also examining the economic benefits that it's going to bring to the city. So I, as one councilor, will be supporting this paper this evening, and I would move forward for approval.
[Marks]: Board of Information, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. So on the motion to approve the paper, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I appreciate that comment. However, we did notify thousands of Method residents of this meeting, and we have yet to hear. I know we started off with the council, so I look eager to hear from residents and maybe some of the concerns that may exist out there, Mr. President, as well.
[Falco]: And everyone will have an opportunity to ask their questions, make their comments. I have a couple more councilors that would like to speak on this issue. We have Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Bears. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate Councilor Marksx for bringing that point up. I think that's the last piece that, as we go through this process, that I want to applaud because I think that the word was, distributed to that area. I think that the administration did their due diligence. I think this council did their due diligence. I think that we are moving forward in a position where bringing jobs, especially possible unionized jobs, to our community. I think we've We have hit every target that we were put in this place to do. So I appreciate Mr. Moniker and his team for choosing Medford. I think that everything seems to be in a positive outlook. I think the administration has done a great job following through with this process. As my fellow colleagues have already mentioned, I will be supporting this unless I hear something really drastic from our neighbors. But I think that Council Marks really hit a nerve when he talks about Middlesex Ave and a forgotten road by our state. And what other way to do it as an elected official with probably one of the major issues and development growth areas that we'll see there for years. So using that as some leverage to make sure the state and our city administration understands there is a viable neighborhood that really needs some attention. So again, I thank Mr. Moniker and I look forward to seeing the jobs and the possible you know, money going through our businesses in that area as well. So thank you so much. And again, I look forward to the residents discussion.
[Falco]: Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I actually do have a couple of questions on Middlesex Avenue. The first one is for Director Hunt or Engineer Blake, which is, is Middlesex Avenue on any schedule or list for upgrades or repair by MassDOT already?
[Hunt]: I, Todd, do you know? I don't have any list from MassDOT. Maybe you have it?
[Todd Blake]: We have Tim McGiver with us. Besides the Wellington Circle study, I'm not aware of others.
[Falco]: City Engineer, Tim McGiver.
[McGivern]: Hi, good evening, Council. So there is some improvements that are slated by MassDOT on Middlesex Avenue. I don't have them right in front of me, but I believe it's second, third, 4th and 5th Avenue. I might have got that wrong, but there's four to five intersections that they'll be doing pedestrian upgrades. I thought it was actually going to happen this season, but it looks like it's going to happen next season.
[Bears]: Would that include resurfacing, Tim?
[McGivern]: No, I think the project is very focused on ADA compliance and improving the pedestrian ramps at those four intersections. Again, I can follow up the exact list of intersections, but it's along that stretch.
[Bears]: That would be helpful. Thanks, Tim. And then this general question for all three of you as well. And we just haven't brought it up, but the MBTA right-of-way, there's a train right-of-way that runs right next to this property, actually between BJ's and this property. It's very old. It's the old Medford Branch Railway that used to come down into Medford Square. If you go on Park Street, there's a bridge, and there's a bridge over the Fellsway. It's just kind of a pet interest of mine. Is there any discussion about use or reuse of that right-of-way that's been mentioned to any city department, as far as you know?
[McGivern]: There is, and Alicia can speak more to the detail of it, there was an exploration of using that for a pedestrian crossover to get out of the Wellington neighborhood, basically, and more of a direct pedestrian connection to the Wellington station. But I believe that is not going to be happening because the owners of that bridge that goes across the tracks don't want that to happen. And Alicia can speak more details of that particular finding. Is that, sorry, just quick clarification. Is that the bridge on the Felsway or? The bridge that goes over the tracks, over the orange lines. It's actually not a bridge. It's the orange line dips down underneath the spur. Yeah, it connects to the orange line.
[Bears]: Got it. Thank you. And thanks, Alicia, in advance.
[Hunt]: Right, we have, so, Mr. Councilor, we have been looking at that for quite a while, that spur, and we've talked to some groups, including Bikes to the Sea, and Walk Medford, and the Bike Commission, about looking at a project to turn that spur into a pedestrian and bicycle path. We thought that we could actually cross the orange line there at First Street, But it turns out that there is, in fact, still use of an old train line on top of that that runs above the Orange Line underpass. And it's an active use, about twice a day. So we can't cross right there, but we're still looking at whether that spur would be something that we can make into a bike and pedestrian path. I know that the residential developer there behind the property next to BJ's, it's building condominium buildings, is actually interested in working with us to turn that into a shared use path. and potentially a walking path under 28 if we can figure out if that's gonna be possible at the other end, on the opposite end of that property. But it is something that is on our list of potential future projects. We just haven't had the, frankly, the manpower to invest in developing that further over the past year or so.
[Bears]: I appreciate you indulging me and asking these questions. And my last one, is there any non-bike or pedestrian or any light rail or heavy rail potential for that right-of-way that's been mentioned or discussed?
[Hunt]: It seems very unlikely.
[Bears]: Got it. Thank you very much.
[Falco]: Okay. Thank you, Councilor Bears. Any other questions from the council before we open it up to the public? Okay. Let's see, would anyone like to speak on this issue? We'll start off with John. Can I mute you? Trying to unmute you now.
[9W26eEllQ8Y_SPEAKER_00]: John, you have two minutes. Okay. Well, John, president of the Medford Chamber of Commerce, and I think that the 40 years I've been in Medford Square doing business, I think this opportunity is fantastic, and it's not something that comes around very frequently. The Chamber of Commerce supports it, and I'd like to read a letter into the record. To the Honorable City Council, the Medford Chamber of Commerce supports the mayor's proposal for a TIF in favor of Monogamy and Gourmet Food to take over the old Venom Circus location on Middlesex Ave. This building has been vacant for at least two years. And having a well-respected company invest $40 million in this building for the next 50 years is a win for Medford, which includes the residents of the area, since the company will only be operating limited shifts rather than 24-7, as was the case with Bread and Circus. The number of job opportunities Monogram Gourmet Food would generate is valuable, especially under the current COVID conditions. and having them favoring Medford residents is a plus. Opportunities like this do not come around every day and not to support this proposal would be a disservice to the community. The community would gain much more than tax breaks and is very little to ask for considering the great return on the city's investment. To reiterate, we would like very much for the Medford City Council to support this proposal. It was exciting when I heard about it last week, and it's still exciting today. So please consider the proposal. Thank you.
[Falco]: John, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Anyone else? Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this matter? So while we're looking for people, we have Mayalongo Kern.
[Lungo-Koehn]: If nobody else has any comments, I just want to Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank the for all your due diligence this past week. I know a lot of you have been working with us on the robocall as well as in and out of the office to ask questions and to lend your support. We thank Mister Monica for coming to the city of invest $40 million into our community and create 250 jobs where Medford's unemployment rate is up over 8% is invaluable. And we look forward to getting started on this project. I will be present during the state meeting on Friday. I look forward to it. And I want to thank the team, the entire team, our city assessor. our chief financial officer, city engineer, office of community development, my chief of staff, Dave Rodriguez, Jackie Peeks, Maria DeStefano from the state. This is a great example of collaboration among the city, the state, and the city council, and I thank you for that, and welcome, Mr. Modica, hopefully. It sounds very positive that you'll be a partner here in Medford, and we appreciate that.
[SPEAKER_20]: We are excited. Thank you for all the, thank you for your consideration and the council as well. We appreciate the opportunity and we think this will be a great partnership for many years to come.
[Falco]: Thank you very much. I'll just check one more time. Would anybody else like to speak on this before we call the roll? Okay, do you see anyone? Okay. Vice President Cabrera. Oh, move the question. Okay. So we have a number of papers before us. Okay. We have a D paper that was offered by Councilor Marks. That was seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Would you like to read the wording to the paper?
[Hurtubise]: Clerk Hurtubise. Councilor Marks' D paper is that the administration add a 90 day notice of any corporation. Hang on, the 90 day notice of if any corporation decides to change the nature or character of its operations and notify the city of any plans to do so.
[Marks]: Any corporate decision. Any corporate decision. Yeah, not corporate, any corporate decision. Corporate decision. To change, yeah.
[Falco]: So on that D paper, offered by Councilor Mark, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: On the D paper, Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice President Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Setting the affirmative, adjourn the negative. The motion passes. On the seat paper offered by Councilor Knights, seconded by Councilor Bears. Clerk Hurtubise, do you want to read the language of the seat paper?
[Dave Rodrigues]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: It's a request that Monogram Food and the administration meet with the Boston Building Trades to discuss a project labor agreement for this project.
[Falco]: On that motion, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice President Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks. Councilor Morell.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Kelly. Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. Seven the affirmative, zero the negative. The motion passes. On the B paper offered by Councilor Bears, seconded by Councilor Morell. Clerk Hurtubise, could you please read the language to the B paper.
[SPEAKER_22]: On that motion, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 70 affirmative agenda. Negative. The motion passes. And on the main paper, uh, by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll. This is for approval of the main paper.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. Yes, seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes.
[Bears]: Motion to revert to the regular order of business.
[Falco]: Thank you everyone on the call. Yes, while we're on to suspension, we have a number of licenses in front of us tonight. Thank you very much. petitions, presentations, and similar papers. 20-670, petition for common vigil is licensed by Ron Yon 6E, 4th Street, Attleboro, Massachusetts, 02703 for Rainbow Rain Incorporated. DBA, Rose's Chinese Restaurant, 321 Boston Ave, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. On file, business certificate 185, building department, fire department, police traffic impact. Health Department, letter of compliance, state ID, tax ID, workman's compensation, petition, and treasurer. Councilor Scarpelli. Chairperson on licensing.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you. Do we have the petitioner here tonight?
[Falco]: I believe I did see him. Oh, yes, we do. I apologize. Is it Mayhew?
[SPEAKER_17]: Yes.
[Falco]: We just need your name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_17]: Oh, I just lost the media. Can you hear us? Yes, I can. For some reason, I lost the video. So yes, my name is Mei-Hui Hu. My client's here, Ron Yang. He's also participating in this video conference. This is a petition by the corporation, Rainbow Rain Corporation. corporation doing business as Rose's Sushi Bar. And we are purchasing, this is a license, this is an application for a common vigilance license. We are planning to take over the existing Rose's Chinese restaurant at the existing 315 Boston Avenue location. There will be no change to the seating capacity and the operating hours remain the same as well. We are actually just presenting the same services to our existing patron. And Mr. Ren Ying is the first time business operator in Medford. So he's looking forward to this opportunity to coming to Medford and contributing his experience in restaurant operating business. And hopefully that this will be a right fit for him.
[Scarpelli]: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Did you say it's, is it Yang or Yang? Is it with a G at the end?
[SPEAKER_17]: Y-A-N, Yan.
[Scarpelli]: Y-A-N, okay, Yan, okay, thank you. We see that we do have everything in order. All the departments have signed off positively with this changeover, I know that. But we do have a question on the time of operations. What time is the previous business? It might be a conflict because depending on what the hours are will depend on a separate visit to the council with hours. So do you have the times that they have?
[SPEAKER_17]: I am reading from their manu from the prior business. It was Monday to, Monday to Saturday, 11 to 11. 11 a.m. to 11 p.m.
[Scarpelli]: Okay, perfect. I see everything in order, Mr. President. Move approval.
[Falco]: Second. Motion by Councilor Scott Felly, seconded by Councilor Knight. Any questions for the Council? No one has a hand up. Okay, on that motion by Councilor Scott Felly, seconded by Councilor Knight, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Councilor Marks?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco, go.
[Falco]: Yes, 70 affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. Congratulations and good luck. Good luck. Thank you very much. Thank you. 2-0-671, petition for convictual license by Robert Trotta, 73 Bow Street, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. Medford, Sons of Italy, 42 Alfred Street, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. On file, business certificate number 212, building department, fire department, police traffic impact, Health Department, letter of compliance, state tax ID, workman's compensation, petition, and treasurer. Chairperson Scarpelli, chairperson of licensing.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Is Mr. Trotta here this evening?
[Falco]: Yes, he is. I will unmute him right now. It looks like we have Francis Carino as his hand up.
[SPEAKER_28]: No, actually, I'm sorry. My name is John DePinto. I'm representing the sons of Italy tonight. I don't know how to do this stuff. I'm on my sister's Zoom.
[Scarpelli]: You're doing a great job. Could you just give us a brief overview of what you're asking us for approval to?
[SPEAKER_28]: Yes. We don't know if we're going to, but we want to be able to open. Right now, we cannot open because we're sons of Italy, and we don't have any food. So per the virus regs now, in order to open, you have to have food. So that we can then have food with alcohol, because right now all we have is alcohol. So.
[Scarpelli]: It's simple, I know we've done this in the past with other clubs, and I know that the sensitivity has been very good to our, in supporting our communities, both on the line and Method Ensemble. I see everything in order, Mr. President. I move approval.
[Falco]: On the motion of Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Caraviello. Any questions from the council? Any questions? No one has a hand up. Okay, on that motion offered by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Caraviello. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knights? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: President Felken?
[Falco]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Thank you, congratulations, good luck. I'll run the suspension, council at eight. 26.639, no. 643. It's a long agenda, there's a lot of pages. Notice of public hearing, 20-639, City of Medford. Notice of a public hearing. A public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council via Zoom on Tuesday evening, December 8th, 2020, a link to be posted no later than Friday, December 4th, 2020 at 7 p.m. Oh, I'm on the wrong one. I apologize. That's page four. That's okay. I went to the middle of page five. Okay, notice of a public hearing 20-643 tax hearing, legal notice, notice of a public hearing, City of Medford. Public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council via Zoom on Tuesday, December 8th, 2020 at 7 p.m. A link to this hearing will be posted no later than Friday, December 4th, 2020. The purpose of the hearing is to hear the board of assessors on the following items for the purpose of allocation of the fiscal year 2021 property tax. Number one, to determine the residential factor to be used for fiscal year 2021. Number two, select an open space discount. Number three, select a residential exemption. Number four, select a small commercial exemption. Call 781-393-2501 for any aids, and or accommodations TDD 781-393-2516. The city of Medford is an EEO-AA-504 employer. For additional information, contact the office of the city clerk at 781-393-2425 by order of the Medford city council. Adam Hurtubise, city clerk, advertised in the Medford transcript November 26th, 2020 and December 3rd, 2020. And we met earlier tonight. in our Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss the tax rate. And we have our chief assessor with us tonight, Ellen Burdell. And Ellen, if you would like to... I'm trying to unmute you right now, Ellen. There we go.
[Ellen Brideau]: Thank you.
[Falco]: Good evening, councilors, President Falco. If I may, really quick. Yes. So I kept doing administrative thing, something first. So at this point I would open this hearing in favor of those, those in favor of the petition. Ellen, would you like to speak on this?
[Ellen Brideau]: Certainly, tonight's, hearing is a requirement of mass general law that the city council determine the tax policy for the city of Medford by either keeping a single tax rate or doing a split tax rate, splitting between residential, commercial, industrial, personal property. In addition, you also need to vote whether or not to adopt a residential exemption and whether or not to adopt a small commercial exemption, as well as an open space exemption.
[Falco]: Thank you very much. So you're speaking in favor of the paper? That's correct. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the paper? Will Nevar, let's see. Mr. President. Can we have your name and address for the record?
[Unidentified]: If I may Mr. President.
[Falco]: Actually Will, one minute please. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: I think it might make sense for us to outline what votes we took in the subcommittee meeting earlier in the evening so that the people understand what it is that they are either opposed or against. Right now it's, are you opposed to a paper that would determine a residential factor? I don't think that that's really a very indicative of what exactly on the table. I think it might be better off set if you know, we had a little breakdown as to what each of these four items meant and what the council voted on in the subcommittee meeting so that we could move forward in that regard.
[Falco]: Okay. Ellen, do you want to speak to those points? Certainly.
[Ellen Brideau]: Again, I, I'm sorry, I'm just going back through. So to speak to the first point of a- I may.
[Knight]: I think, I mean, ultimately the council voted in subcommittee to determine that we would adopt the lowest residential factor, right? So the issue before us is whether or not we want to, people are in favor of us adopting the lowest residential factor by having a single tax rate, right? And I mean, I think that's as simple as the explanation goes. I know when we get into the residential exemption and the small commercial exemption, the explanation might be a little bit further than that. But a brief synopsis, I think, would be warranted. We don't need to get into the law books on it.
[Falco]: OK. I'd be like to give a brief synopsis on each of those points.
[Knight]: So maybe we go through the votes that we took, the council voted to do this. That's fine. And then Ellen can explain what that means. OK.
[Ellen Brideau]: I can very quickly and briefly say, city council selecting the minimum residential factor of the 91.2072 will provide a split to the maximum, providing the best benefit for the residential properties in Medford.
[Knight]: Okay.
[Falco]: Councilor Knight, is that good?
[Knight]: Sounds good to me, Mr. President. Okay, thank you very much.
[Falco]: Next point, to select an open space discount, Do you want to talk to that?
[Ellen Brideau]: Certainly. There's basically a new point. There is no properties classified as open space in the city of Medford. So there's no point for the city to adopt an open space exemption. Thank you. Next point is a residential exemption. So the residential exemption is a shift within the residential class from the higher value properties to the lower value properties. The shift occurs within that residential class by giving any owner occupied property, regardless of their value, an exemption. but it shifts, it increases the tax rate. Therefore, there becomes a break-even point. And the break-even point I calculated for fiscal 21 would be any property valued over $727,400. So you are allowed to do a residential shift within, an exemption within the shift, within that category. However, The big caveats to that is it requires an annual application. We have not, the city council has not approved this in the past. It's something that we should be looking at in the springtime so that residents can apply prior to the generation of a third quarter tax bill. And I'm not sure I can clarify that more if that would help city council.
[Knight]: I do believe it was not recommended by the administration to adopt such at this point in time.
[Falco]: That's correct. It is not recommended. Point of information, Councilor Scott-Belle.
[Scarpelli]: I know it's something we did say we will visit in March with Ellen and this administration, this council, to see if it's something as we move forward with the numbers increasing. So I wanted to add that, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Yes. Thank you, Councilor Scott-Belle. And Ellen, thank you for that, your comments on the residential exemption. Did you want to speak to this small commercial exemption?
[Ellen Brideau]: So the small commercial exemption provides an exemption for commercial value properties under a million dollars with 10 employees or less. When I reviewed the database, we had 241 properties that are under the million dollars in the commercial class. the benefit of that doesn't typically help the small business owner, because the small business owner that occupies that space typically isn't the owner of the property. They're just the owner of the business. So again, not many communities in Massachusetts offer this. A city council was very, very generous with adopting a small personal property exemption earlier this year, and that assisted small business owners. So at this point in time, again, a small commercial exemption, it would probably not be the best time to do this. Okay. Thank you very much.
[Falco]: Okay. So let's see, Will. Will Nevaeh, thank you for waiting patiently. You wanted to speak in favor of this? Will?
[Navarre]: Yes, sorry about that. I want to thank Adam Knight for giving me a chance to hear that explanation. That was helpful. William Navarre, 108 Medford Street, apartment 1B. And the residential factor, what I want to say is this. In the past few years, Medford has adopted the lowest residential factor available. It sounds like you're going to do that again this time. Such a policy has the pro that it reduces the tax burden on residential property owners. but has the con that it increases the burden on commercial development. I think if we're worried about lack of commercial development, then we need to look into ways to reduce the tax burden when we do commercial development. I'm of course not suggesting you put the residential factor at one today. That'd clearly be insane because you've got pandemic and that'd be a tax hike for residential owners. But ultimately, this desire for high commercial growth and high commercial taxes is a contradiction that needs to be resolved. It's a tough political and technical question that needs answering. And the owner-occupied exemption It sounds like you're going to keep that at zero. And I think that is good policy. Because an owner-occupied exemption will encourage people who plan to live in a house to offer more money for it. So the benefit goes to the incumbent owners who will sell for higher prices rather than those buying. It'll also increase rental housing costs because renters will have to pay owners more money to dissuade owners selling the apartment to owner occupiers. In other words, that'd be a pro-condo conversion measure. It would encourage condo conversions, I think. The latter aspect raises clear equity concerns because more vulnerable populations tend to rent, and if we sort of push them into buying with this policy, that will, vulnerable populations tend to pay higher interest rates on their mortgages due to, you know, if you make less money, you pay a higher interest rate, and also there's discrimination concerns, et cetera. I think it's important we stick with not doing the residential exemption. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Will. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor, in favor of the proposal?
[Falco]: Okay, I believe this is Andrew Castagnetti. Andrew, we're trying to unmute you right now. Oh, there you go. Andrew, name and address for the record, please.
[Castagnetti]: Good evening, councilors. Can you hear me, please? Yes, we can hear you. Great. I'm Andrew Castagnetti, Method, Massachusetts. It's nice to see you all back in the city hall chambers. Not in O'Heiden, but when can the taxpayers come attend in person, sir? You know? We're trying. Got to get through the COVID. Thank you. Anyways, welcome back to the new admiral. Thank you for your attention. I'll be very brief. I'm here for the 10th year to ask you and the mayor to lower our real estate tax bills for own occupied homeowners. It's not a hard thing to do, but with the people. Simply adopt mass general law, Chapter 59, Section 5C, at the full 35% exemption. This act will lower the average owner-occupied real estate tax bill by $2,000 yearly in O2-155, as it is being done in Chelsea, Everett, Malvern, Cambridge, and even in all of Boston. So why not here? This Massachusetts state law has been applied for over 28 years times an average of, let's say $1,000 a year equals over $28,000 in total loss savings and all the charge by this city's against the average owner occupied homeowner, if they live in their home. So why not here? Furthermore, the city will still receive the full total real estate tax levy that the city demands because the law states that our tax savings is simply shifted and added to all the absentee residential apartment building owners from one unit to 350 unit buildings. It is a commercial business enterprise. Furthermore, these owners mostly don't live or vote in our city. Imagine this. Even our Massachusetts state politicians had a touch of heart to relieve some of our real estate taxpayers when they copied California's Proposition 13 law. So, Why not here? Because after all, we own occupied homeowners have a vested interest and take pride in improving our city, I think. Also, this would help renters to become first time home buyers in Medford with lower real estate tax bills if they live in the home. So please, I ask again, Why not here stop the discrimination and help us adopt the owner-occupied real estate tax exemption under state of Massachusetts law for method homeowners only if they actually live in their house. Of course, it is 28 years long overdue. Thank you for listening.
[Falco]: Thank you, Mr. Cassinetti. Would anyone else like to speak in favor? Seeing and hearing none, I declare this portion of the hearing closed. Would anyone like to speak in opposition? Would anyone like to speak in opposition of the petition? Okay. Seeing and hearing none, I declare this portion of the hearing closed. Councilors have any questions?
[Knight]: Councilor Knight. Motion to adopt the lowest residential factor to be used for FY 2021, Mr. President.
[Falco]: On that motion, by Councilor Knight, seconded by? Second. Mr. President? Councilor Scarpelli? Councilor Marks?
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I appreciate the comments by Mr. Navar that regarding the residential factor. And some of what he mentioned, if not all, is completely on track. that we heard tonight from the city assessor that Method is a desirable community because we have such a low residential tax rate. And therefore, people want to come into the community and buy property because we have such a great low tax rate. And on the flip side, Mr. President, commercial business may not see fit to come to our community because of the extremely aggressive and high tax rate. And when we do the split rate, which we've been doing for years, we've always shifted, and I voted for it, we've always shifted the burden from the residents to commercial, saying, well, they're a commercial business and they should pay more in the community. And I agree with that, Mr. President, but I think you get it to a point where The burden on the commercial, Mr. President, is having an impact on the community. And when you see the percent of property in our community by value by class, almost 90% of the percent of levy that we derive from our income is for residential property, 90%. And then the commercial industrial make up 8.72%. So you can see over the years, the shift, we're losing a lot of the commercial base, which we rely on now because they pay a much higher tax rate and we're gaining more residential, which pays a lower. And at some point, we as a community are going to make a tough decision and say we don't have enough of this commercial that we've been shifting the burden to, to support our budget. And I think that's going to be the question, Mr. President, that we're going to have to answer to eventually. And I think it's creeping around sooner than we expect, Mr. President. The numbers, if you look at the single tax rate, which we haven't supported since I've been on the council. If you look at the single tax rate, so that would be one tax rate for both commercial and residential, an average single family would pay $6,326. And the average commercial business would pay $14,707. So that's with one tax rate for both sides. Then you look at it, Mr. President, and if you were going to do a split rate, which we currently do, at 115%, the average single family would pay $6,215 and the average commercial would pay $6,915. Then if you fast forward that into what we currently do is a split rate with 175% shift. The average single family pays 5,768, so you can see it's decreased. And the average commercial pays 25,737. So they went with the single tax rate from 14,000 for commercial up to 25,000. And then if you split the rate at 115%, they went from 16,000 to 25,000. Those are huge jumps, Mr. President. And if you look at, if we were to reverse this a little bit and look at shifting the burden to residential, the average single family at 175, at the single family rate, The single rate would pay $6,000, and at the split rate would pay $6,215. The difference, really, if we sat down and started going through this, because you're shifting it over so many different properties, it's not as big as the commercial side. And I know it's not a popular thing to say, but if we're really serious about keeping commercial in this city, Mr. President, and expanding the commercial tax base, I think we have to take a look at it at some point. And sometimes, you know, officials have to stand up and take tough votes, Mr. President. But I think it's something we have to look at. And, you know, it's probably not going to be this time, but I think next year I would request, Mr. President, that we have meetings a month or two prior to the budget meeting. I'm sorry, the tax vote meeting. So we could start looking at the residential factor. So we could start looking at the residential exemption that has been discussed about by area residents, Mr. President. And give us enough lead time to make some informed decisions rather than tonight, which most of us, to be quite honest with you, I hate to say it, our hands are tied, because this is based on the budget that we put forward and it is what it is. So I would ask Mr. President, under the leadership of yourself or whoever, as the Council of Vice President, Kaviel's the next president, that we have meetings well in advance. to when we set the tax rate so we can discuss some of the issues, Mr. President. As we heard tonight, I always thought that the tax rate was due at the end of January. We heard that you could vote on it to have it done at the end of June, which gives you another six months of additional growth that you could use in a time of recession like we're seeing now. That's six months that could add some new growth onto it and give us some additional revenue. And that's the lead time I think we need as a council to start discussing this. I'm prepared to vote on this tonight, Mr. President, but I think, you know, we have to take a long, hard look at how we average out the property in our community and see if it makes sense to continue to shift the way we're shifting if we're really serious about keeping a commercial base in this community. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Peers.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to Councilor Marks, Mr. Navarre, and to all my colleagues, you know, What we're talking about here are different ways of adjusting the distribution of the taxes that we currently assess on the community. We've done the same thing for a long time, and we've seen some negative externalities on the commercial side, especially, that I think a lot of people don't like. So I think it is time to reassess. Another piece of this, though, is the amount that we have to spend as a city on city services, which, as we all know, too low that every department is understaffed our schools and every city department doesn't have the resources it needs and I think in addition to exploring the residential factor and also I think the residential exemption there may be a combination of these tools with the distribution and the tools at our disposals to increase revenue that would allow us to have a just distribution for the people of Medford, commercial and residential both, property owners, as well as raising the revenue that we need, as I mentioned, and I essentially mentioned this during our budget conversation in June, to increase the revenue that we have for city services so that we can provide to the people of Medford the services that they deserve. And I think that's a conversation that's long overdue, so I hope that that As part of the conversations around the tax rate and the budget, we can have an honest conversation about the unmet needs of our community when it comes to city services, as well as the distribution of the tax assessment. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. And we discussed in our committee the whole earlier tonight about having a community hall meeting in March to kind of kick that off and talk about different options and to talk about the residential exemption and other issues. So in March, we'll be talking more about those topics. Just to let you know. Okay, so there was a motion on the floor, and that motion was offered by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, and the motion was, can you read that again, Councilor, Clerk Artavis?
[Hurtubise]: The motion was to adopt the lowest residential factor possible to be used in 2021, which is 91.2072, I believe. That is correct. Ellen, that's correct, right?
[Falco]: Thumbs up, okay. Yes. Okay, perfect. On that motion, Clerk Bernal, 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 Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Can you turn your microphone, Councilor Knight,
[Knight]: Motion to adopt an open space discount.
[Falco]: Got a motion of console night to adopt an open space discount. And that's seconded by councilor Scarpelli. Please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Motion to adopt an open space discount council bears. No vice-president Caribbean. Councilor Knight. No. Councilor Marks. Councilor Morell. No. Councilor Scarpelli. No. President Falco.
[Falco]: No. Zero in the affirmative, seven in the negative. Motion fails. Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Thank you Mr. President. Before we take the vote on the owner occupied exemption, I do want to just share that I very much support this. I do think it's something that Medford very much needs. Based on the presentation we had earlier tonight in the Committee of the Whole, as far as Ellen recommending that If Medford were to adopt this, it needs to be done earlier in the year so residents can actually benefit from this and apply for this. So I'm going to be voting no tonight, but I do very much believe that Medford would benefit from an owner-occupied exemption. I look forward to a future presentation from Ellen on this more in depth and more conversation around this. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Morell.
[Bears]: Motion to adopt a residential exemption.
[Falco]: And the motion of Councilor Behr is to adopt, to select a, I'm sorry, adopt a residential exemption. Seconded by. Seconded by?
[Marks]: Second.
[Falco]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Marks]: Mr. President, before you call the roll.
[Falco]: Yes, sorry, Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to clarify that last year when we discussed the residential exemption, and I know Mr. Castagnetti has been a stalwart regarding this. He says 10 years, I think he's been talking about this for 20 years, or at least it seems 20 years. So long, Mr. President. Last year when we discussed it, I think Councilor Knight brought up the fact that the numbers that we received that were the break even point for assessments over, I think it was 640,000 Councilor Knight mentioned, was a little over 2,000 households that were owner occupied, that lived in their home. If we voted for residential exemption, because their property was assessed at over a certain amount of money, which was the break even point, they would still have to pay a higher tax rate. And we were told there were about 2,000 properties in the community, that was last year. And that's a number I've been monitoring over the years, because I think we as a council, I won't speak for anyone else, said if the numbers were falling, meaning that there were less and less people that fell in this range. that were the exception to the rule that we may see favorable to vote on this and provide a property tax, a residential exemption. We heard tonight, Mr. President, from the city assessor that they're saying now there's over 4,000 properties that are above the break even point, Mr. President. And in addition, out of the 4,000, 1,300 properties of people that are over the age of 60, which are seniors in our community. So these numbers are very staggering, Mr. President, and there may have been a discrepancy over the years. As we heard from the city's assessor, and I won't put words in her mouth, that they may have not been counting every type of property. So they may have been just looking at single families and not condos or two families or multi-families. So this number, in my opinion, is a little alarming that there's so many people that would fall out of the range of residential exemption. And I'm looking forward to discussions possibly in March regarding actually taking a closer look at this and seeing if these are the true numbers. I think the city assessor made a commitment that she would revisit these numbers to see if they're true and accurate. But I just want Mr. Castagnetti and others to know that we do monitor this, we do keep an eye on this, and the numbers have fluctuated. And in this case, they fluctuated in a way that I couldn't support at this particular point. There's just too many people, Mr. President, that would be impacted by this. And I think the good outweighs the bad in this, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Bears?
[Bears]: I just also want to add that it would be great to get figures. We have kind of estimates right now. I think if we had that historical data, it would present a much clearer picture, as Councilor Marks indicated. But the flip side is that there are as many as 11,000 properties that could benefit. So it's definitely a difficult decision. That's our job is to make difficult decisions. But I think it's important that we talk about costs and benefits as well. Probably many seniors who are in that 11,000. So we really need to have the facts in front of us to make an informed decision on the residential exemption. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: And just on Councilor Marks' point, Mr. President, looking at the math and the numbers that were put before us this evening, that 4,000 households looks like it represents about almost a quarter of the community. So that would be one in four paying more, even though they're owner-occupied. And I think that's very important to point out. So, you know, I think that, you know, garbage in, garbage out, right? You can only make good decisions with good data. And that's what we need to focus on.
[Falco]: You are correct. So on the motion of Councilor Bears, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, Clerk Carter please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. No. Vice President Caraviello. Councilor Knight. No. Councilor Marks. No. Councilor Morell.
[Falco]: No.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Falco]: No.
[Hurtubise]: President Dela Cruz.
[Falco]: No. Zero in the affirmative, seven in the negative, motion fails.
[Knight]: Motion to adopt a small commercial exemption. Second.
[Falco]: On the motion of Councilor Knight to adopt a small commercial exemption, and that is seconded by Councilor Bears. Clark-Carnaby, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: No.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello, no. Councilor Knight. No. Councilor Marks.
[Bears]: No.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell.
[Falco]: No.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. No. President Falco.
[Falco]: No. Is there any affirmative? Seven in the negative. The motion fails.
[Bears]: Mr. President, while we're under suspension, motion to take paper 20-639.
[Falco]: And before we conclude, I just want to thank everyone for their help. I want to thank Ellen Bordeaux and Alicia and Emily Benjamin for your help during the Committee of the Whole meeting this evening, for answering all of our questions. We greatly appreciate your hard work with regard to this. So thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Council of Mayors.
[Bears]: Motion to take paper 2639 under suspension. It's right above or on the prior page to the text.
[Falco]: Yes. Notice of a public hearing. 20-639, City of Medford. Notice of a public hearing. A public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council via Zoom on Tuesday evening, December 8th, 2020. A link to be posted no later than Friday, December 4th, 2020 at 7 p.m. on a petition by Adam LaRusso of Last Night Tattoo Studio, 507 High Street, Medford, Massachusetts 02155 for a special permit to conduct a body art establishment In accordance with the City of Medford zoning ordinances, chapter 94 of section 94-2 and section 94-148, use 14A to operate its business at 507 High Street, Medford, Massachusetts, a C1 commercial one zoning district. Petition and plan may be seen in the office of the City Clerk, Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts, 781-393-2425. Zoom link to be posted on the City Council agenda on December 4th, 2020 on the City of Medford website. Call 781-393-2501 for any accommodations, AIDS, TDD, 781-393-2516. The City of Medford is an EEOAA 504 employer by order of the City Council. Adam L. Herdeby, City Clerk. This was advertised in the Medford transcript on November 19th and November 26th, 2020. At this point, I declare the public hearing open to those in favor of the petition. Would anybody like to speak in favor of the petition? Okay. We'll start off with Adam LaRusso. Adam, I'm trying to unmute you right now. Oh, there we go. If I could just have your name and address for the record. And if you could give us a brief statement as to why you are in favor of the petition.
[SPEAKER_27]: Sure. My name is Adam LaRusso. I'm living at 18 Preble street in Boston. So I'm the one that filed the petition. I just want to thank the city council for hearing me tonight. So what I'm looking to do at 507 High Street is open up a private tattoo studio. I think it's important to point out that what I'm looking to do is not a typical tattoo shop, but a private, appointment-only tattoo studio. And this would be to the degree that even the door would be locked. Unless you have an appointment, you would come in. And other than that, no public. traffic, and it would be a very small scale operation. And I did want to address that I know that tattoo shops typically have a certain stigma, a certain connotation. And I wanted to make sure that I was available to answer any questions from anyone that might come about because of this. Thank you.
[Falco]: Okay, thank you very much. At this point, I'd ask anyone else in favor of the petition that would like to speak. Okay, we have Colin Burgoyne. Can I try to unmute you? Name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_00]: Colin Burgoyne at 161 George Street in Medford. I'm also the owner of Colleen's Ice Cream Shop here in Medford. And I just wanted to speak to Adam LaRusso. He's been a personal friend of mine But more than that, just really proud of the work he's done as an artist. He's one of the best young artists we have in the city. He has signed on to do some mural work with us, and I did commission a few pieces for ourselves. And we really support him being able to open up his shop here in Medford. After being in the business for so long in Cambridge and in Somerville, I think it's great that he's come back home to set up shop.
[Falco]: Colin, thank you very much. Okay, those in favor. We have a Reverend Wendy. I'm going to try to unmute you. If you could give us your name and address for the record, and if you could tell us why you're in favor of the petition.
[7G1mRGUN6Dk_SPEAKER_09]: Thank you, President Falco and City Council. My name is Wendy Miller-Olape. I am a resident at 105 Brook Street and a fellow shopkeeper, if you will, in West Medford Square. So I have a brief letter that I'd like to share for the record. I sent it earlier, but I was late for the deadline, so. I am in support of artist Adam LaRusso's application to open a body art studio in West Medford. He and the studio that he intends to open I'm sure will be a brilliant addition to our city and specifically West Medford's neighborhood business and art scene. I've known Mr. LaRusso for five years and have interacted with him as pastor and one of his spiritual guides. as the facilitator of a deeply inspirational art experience when his work, his paintings, were installed at our gallery, as a partner in building Beloved Community, which I've watched him do in the art scene and with other colleagues, and as a very satisfied and safely held recipient of one of his beautiful pieces of art, which is on my forearm here. In addition to bringing these kinds of commitments to our city, Mr. LaRusso is a gifted, celebrated, and inspirational painter, an active member of the Boston area art community, an invested co-op studio member, and has actually achieved acclaim as one of Boston's most highly regarded and sought after artists. He is considered one of the top artists in our area. He and his family have been active members of the Medford community for generations and his family values that I can attest to and their investment in Medford is a grounding influence in the manner in which he invests in his clients and in his business model. I'm confident knowing him as I do that his studio will be a bright spot in our city and will attract great energy to our neighborhood. So thank you for your attention. I highly support having him be here.
[Falco]: Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of the petition? Okay, hearing and seeing none, I declare this portion of the hearing closed. Is there anyone in opposition of the petition that would like to speak? Anyone in opposition? Adam, you see anything? Okay. Hearing and seeing none, I declare this portion of the hearing closed. At this point, I recognize Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank Adam and Reverend Wendy and everyone else who spoke. I just wanted to add that there were a number of letters from members of our community attesting to Mr. LaRusso's both skill and also devotion to our community. And I think that those testimonies speak volumes. So I'm supportive of this. Tonight, thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Peers. Councilor Scarapelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I know that I had a great discussion with Mr. LaRusso, and I too received a lot of correspondence from our residents in supporting of a very fine and respected young man. In our discussion, and I know Mr. LaRusso would speak on any question that people would like to offer. I know that the questions I had from people that were a little nervous about when you hear a tattoo parlor that's coming to your neighborhood, the things they fear are these frightening, pictures of artwork that depict violence or sexual things in sexual nature and it really scares a community and I think that Mr. LaRusso and I had a great discussion and you know I believe he put it as his It sounds like an artist studio for the body, and understanding that it's by appointment only, that the building will be unassuming. I think that the biggest questions that we talked openly about being across the street from the church, there might be some negative concerns with that, but he reiterated his deep faith. And his support to the church and making sure that whatever he does as a business here in Medford, that it's done with class and with respect for that neighborhood. And again, He hit all the buzzwords for me that you have a well-respected individual that has the total best interests of all of the neighbors and making sure that he is putting forth a classy and respected organization in this community. I know that we typically do move, request to move this to a committee of the whole. So we do hear from other residents in making sure that there's some concerns that if they had, they can listen to a very educated and eloquent individual. can speak on behalf of his art prowess and realize that he is really, could be an important piece of not only the West Medford community, but I think a model for other neighborhoods that are looking to bring in the body art and the tattooing industry. So, thank you, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpello. We have Councilor Morell, then Vice President Scarviello. Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: you. Thank you. Mister President. If I could through the chair, just a question for Mister LaRusso. There's those big, beautiful windows on the property there previously filled with antiques. But I do know your neighbors, potential neighbors at Bistro 5 take a more kind of subdued approach. The windows. I'm just curious what you envision for those big if you wouldn't have that space.
[SPEAKER_27]: want to have anything flashy. I think one of the reasons why I'm opening a private studio, as opposed to continuing to work in a very well-respected tattoo shop, is to have something that is very small, very intimate, very unassuming. And so I don't even plan on really putting much artwork in them, to be honest. There would be a sign with the name of the shop, but very simple, very clean, And that would really be it.
[Morell]: OK, yeah, thank you. I know and I know this is not what you're proposing, but I think some people's fears stem from the fact of thinking they someone's going to wander up to the window and pick out their tattoo and go inside. So I appreciate you clarifying that.
[SPEAKER_27]: No, of course, and I totally understand where people's hesitations come from. So again, any questions, I would definitely welcome them, because I want to make sure that not only am I granted so graciously the opportunity to do business Medford, but people know that I am going to be contributing as like an actual member of the community. It's hard for me to speak because I tend to be pretty humble, but I actually am a very well-respected and sought-after tattoo artist. I have people traveling from New York to Florida to Chicago, I guess not right now because of COVID, but I tattoo members of the Patriots to members of the clergy. I work with a lot of different people and I have such a great opportunity to have such a great client list that the whole point of doing this for me is to again, do something that's very small, intimate, unassuming, relaxing. So people don't actually have to deal with a tattoo shop. That's, you know, probably more of what you would think of like a very loud, buzzy place. This would be the complete opposite. Again, intimate, unassuming, small appointment only. So I just want to make sure that that's clear.
[SPEAKER_13]: Great. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Morell. We have Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. And again, I'll reiterate what some of the other councilors have brought up. There's a church and a school right across the street from you, so if you could keep your establishment as tasteful and tactful as possible, that's about the only thing I can request of you. I'd also like to, if we can get a report on the status of the other facility in West Leavitt that we voted on last year. Are they coming? Are they not coming? and have that, so when we do have a community hall, we'll know what the status of that studio is also. So if we can make that part of the paper, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Okay, so we'll make that, we'll have to do a B paper for that, okay? So on the motion of Vice President Caraviello, seconded by? Second. Councilor Scott Falco. Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Mr. LaRusso for expressing interest in coming to our community. I just had a couple of really quick questions. What would his staff consist of?
[SPEAKER_27]: Thank you, Councilor. So it would be just me. I would be the only working artist. I have toyed around with the idea of possibly hiring a front desk person for a day or two during the week, more so to help with the administration. So sending emails and whatnot, but that's another thing to share is that I would be the only sole artist. So just me.
[Marks]: And would your establishment consist of strictly tattooing or would it be body piercing as well?
[SPEAKER_27]: It would be strictly tattooing.
[Marks]: Okay. And I'm sure you're familiar. You said you work for a current tattoo establishment. Yes. So I'm sure you're aware of all the proper protocols and procedures for the placement of syringes and needles and anything else associated with your business, blood and any other bodily fluids that are associated with your particular business.
[SPEAKER_27]: Yes, sir. Very much so as a self-proclaimed germaphobe, I am very well aware. And actually, uh, I was speaking with Sophie in the health department and actually had a couple of suggestions on, uh, ways to possibly update the health code and actually be even a little bit safer. Um, I pride myself in not just creating good tattoos and a good experience, but third and just as important as those things, uh, a safe experience. Um, because not only is it my reputation, but it's also someone's health. And I take that incredibly seriously. Um, and I pride myself in always watching when I'm in a tattoo space, things that could be improved upon. That's something I take extremely seriously. Um, and would a hundred percent continue to do so, not just maintain status quo, but always improve and stay up to date on anything that's coming out in the industry that could make people safer. I can a hundred percent assure you that is very important to me.
[Marks]: And what would you anticipate your hours of operation to be in general?
[SPEAKER_27]: Sure. So it would probably be in the 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.-ish range. I'm sure that if someday I ran a little bit late, maybe 7. But not really early in the morning, because it's difficult to make appointments early. And I tend not to like to work late. So I would assume somewhere between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. with an hour, give or take.
[Marks]: Are we looking at how many days a week?
[SPEAKER_27]: Most likely four, but the possibility of five. Okay. Currently four is what my preferred schedule is.
[Marks]: Okay. And if you were to know there was another establishment that existed within a hundred yards from your establishment that does the same type of tattooing, would that discourage you from going to this location?
[SPEAKER_27]: Not at all. To be completely blunt, I don't really care if there's another tattoo shop. Because of what I do is so specialized, and again, I may say so myself quite humbly, because I'm so sought after, I don't think it's really going to affect my business. The interactions I've had with the landlords of 507 High Street have been brilliant. I've been really excited to not only be working with them, but be near folks like Wendy up the street at Sanctuary and Colin who spoke earlier. And so it wouldn't deter me at all. I tried to do a little bit of research, and I actually have never heard of them, which is strange because I'm pretty up-to-date on local tattoo communities. So I'm sure I might reach out just to introduce myself, but that would be it. Just like a friendly neighbor, hello.
[Marks]: Right. And I appreciate that. And the reason why I bring it up is because Council Vice President Caraviello brought up a very valid point. We, this council, approved a tattoo parlor, probably 100 yards, 200 yards from the establishment that you're looking at. And, you know, I think it's unfair that that hasn't taken place yet, and most people have probably forgotten about it. And here you are, a new establishment coming in. So I think it's important to know what may eventually, or already has been approved, but may eventually pop up next door to you. Because people make business decisions based on that. A number of factors, and that could be one, proximity of other like establishments and so forth. And maybe that's something we have to look at as a council when we issue a special permit that I believe, as Councilor Knight mentioned, and he'd probably know better than I, that it's good for up to a year, which sounds kind of excessive, to be quite honest with you. And I think that opens up a lot of different doors when you have things hanging out there and you're not sure what may or may not go in there after approval. So that's something we may want to look at as a council. And my last thing is I have to admit, I am a little jealous of Reverend Wendy's tattoo. And if she's willing, maybe she could show us some more of her tattoos because that was pretty impressive. But I wish you well. And I wish you all but good luck.
[SPEAKER_27]: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And if I may, just to add on to a comment you made, Councilor, I am 100% ready to go. So obviously, I need to do a final health inspect walkthrough. But other than that, I'm ready to get in there and start paying taxes. So if you folks will have me, I would love to be in there as soon as possible. And I'm really, really excited to be part of the Medford community. I'm third generation Medfordian. And this is very exciting for me. So thank you for hearing me.
[Falco]: Thank you. We have a couple more questions. Councilor Knight, then Councilor Morell. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. Mr. LaRusso, thank you for coming this evening. I'd first like to start off by saying that your abilities nor is your character in question this evening. I got a phone call from a dear friend of mine, Chris Murphy, raving about your character and the type of person that you are. And his opinion that you'd be a great fit in Medford, and that goes a long way with me. You know, personal relationships that I have with individuals in the community and their opinion mean a lot. I'm certainly no prude, I have tattoos. Not too happy that I got them when I was a young kid, but I got to live with them. They're forever. And I think that you're well aware of the concern that some people in the neighborhood have and some people in the parish have relative to the location of the studio and the aesthetics that may or may not be present there upon opening. And I do have a specific request, and I'm hoping to be willing to entertain it, would be that you conduct a community meeting with the neighbors and with the residents in the parish. To explain to them exactly what it is you're trying to do down there, and what direction you're looking to go in. I certainly have no issue with the tattoo shop in West Medford Square. I voted for one just a couple weeks ago, maybe a couple months ago, Mr. President. I'm no prude by any means. But there are certain concerns that have been raised by my neighbors. I live in the neighborhood. I live within walking distance. I've heard about this application before I knew about it when it was coming across our table. And it's been an issue of concern for some of the residents that live down there. So I'm asking. with the hope that you'll be willing to conduct a community meeting or an open house of some sort to allow people to come down so you can explain to them what it is you're doing, what it is you're trying to do in the neighborhood, and address some of the concerns that may have arisen. Ultimately, because this is a special permit that's before the council, we do have the ability and the right to attach special conditions upon it, so on and so forth. I'm not thinking this is going to be a tattoo parlor that has vulgar pictures hanging in the windows right across the street from a church that just doesn't fly anymore. The days of those type of tattoos are over. This type of art form has transformed from bikers, veterans, and people in jail to everybody. The barista at the Starbucks has a tattoo now. The Reverend in Sanctuary Church has a tattoo, everybody has tattoos. They're commonplace, they're normal. But that doesn't alleviate some of the issues that have been brought up to me. So I'm asking that you do that. I'm on your own, I have no problem supporting this this evening. However, I would ask that you at some point in time prior to opening, conduct just a small meeting with the residents and the neighbors and members of the parish to tell them what you're doing and to kind of explain to them what your aesthetics are going to be like so they don't have any fears as to any type of Imagery that may be offensive to the practice of their faith.
[SPEAKER_27]: Of course, I would 100% not just be willing, but love to actively do that. It sounds like, as you were saying, you're not just hearing things from other people, but you also live in that area. And if you would like to reach out, or I can reach out to you, maybe we could connect and you could help me get in touch with those folks. And somehow we could set something up, whether it's in person or in Zoom, whatever people are most comfortable with. And I would love that. Because again, I don't want to just get in there and do business, but be some sort of a light in the community. I think that's something that's really important about art, and hence the name Last Light, is that art has always been something really important in humanity. It provides light. It provides love and a reminder that we are all connected in some bigger way. I would be honored and love to have some sort of a either meeting, whether again, whether resume or whatnot with folks, not just to, uh, like, make them just just okay with it, but answer any questions and hopefully teach them something new. That would be an awesome opportunity. I'd love that.
[Knight]: Mr. President, I just asked that we put a 90-day review on it, just to be sure that the meeting happens and if any issues pop up, we can bring them back in and sit down and talk about what we can do to resolve them. It's not a mechanism or a vehicle for us to come and yank your license away from you after three months or anything like that, Adam. I don't want you worrying about that. I appreciate that. Thank you. What it is is it's a mechanism for us to address some of the concerns that may come up during the first months of operation so that we can come up with a plan so that you can live harmoniously with the residents.
[Hurtubise]: Of course.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. So that is an amendment by Councilor Knight for a 90 day review. Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I just have one more question thinking about signage and this, I support this paper. So this is an kind of a inhibitor to that, but talking, so you mentioned signage in the windows. I know there's currently just kind of the larger signage on the facade that exists at the current space. Do you imagine you'll be using that as well? And will that, I'm just trying to think out loud and understand what this might look like in total, assuming that other tattoo place also.
[SPEAKER_27]: day when I was speaking to the landlord about the signage. And just to clarify, like, above the glass, there's, like, bigger signs for every business. Is that what you're speaking about? Yes.
[Morell]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_27]: Of course. So I would put the last light name, but I was actually considering not putting Tattoo, because I thought it would be a little bit more Again, I think it's important for me to be unassuming, especially because it is appointment only. It's actually probably going to be easier for me, especially it's appointment only, and I would be the only person working there, to not have a bunch of people knocking on the door or something. I don't foresee that happening because I'm going to have proper signage in order to indicate to people that if they are interested to check out the website, that it is appointment only. But I don't necessarily want to advertise that way. I think I've done a great job with word of mouth and just my reputation to be able to advertise that I don't really need the sign to actually read tattoo. So that was actually something that I was probably just going to skip over. And hopefully that also alleviates any concern. you know, I don't know. I don't know. I don't have any information about having like it obvious that there's another tattoo shop. It would probably look more like somebody was driving by somewhere between like a yoga studio and an art gallery. Um, not so much a tattoo shop by any means.
[Morell]: Okay, Great. Thank you. And I thank you for entertaining that question. I do support the paper. I just know that, you know, there may be questions that we get from the community later on. It's just making sure I can address those properly. So thank you.
[Bears]: And Adam, you didn't come here for business advice, but I'll give a little marketing advice anyway. Given your market, it might add to the brand exclusivity to do that. So I think it might be a smart decision all around. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_27]: Yes, thank you. And that's part of the consideration. So I appreciate your encouragement. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. Okay, any other questions? Okay, we'll share away to motion.
[Bears]: Motion to approve.
[Falco]: OK, on the motion of Councilor Knight to approve as amended by Councilor Knight and seconded by Councilor Bears. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Scarpelli]: Get Deacon Rumley to get a tattoo.
[Bears]: Mr. President, is there a B paper?
[Falco]: Sorry?
[Bears]: Vice President Caraviello will have a B paper.
[Hurtubise]: Call Deacon Rumley. Oh, I see. There's a B paper.
[Falco]: We have a B paper from you, so we have to go to that first. You had a B paper. We have to vote on that first.
[Hurtubise]: The B papers for a report on the status of the other, uh, the other tattoo studio that the council approved. Okay.
[Falco]: And that was seconded by?
[Hurtubise]: That was a vice-president Caraviello seconded by councilor Scarpelli. Okay.
[Falco]: On that motion, the B paper by vice-president Caraviello seconded by councilor Scarpelli. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice-president Caraviello.
[Knight]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Nays. Yes. Councilor Marks?
[Falco]: Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scartelli?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Dave Rodrigues]: President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. On the main paper, a motion of Councilor Knight for approval, seconded by Councilor Bears, Clerk Hurtubiseest, as amended by Councilor Knight, Clerk Hurtubiseest, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: for approval as amended. Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. Adam, congratulations and good luck.
[SPEAKER_27]: Thank you very much. Thank you, everyone.
[Falco]: Thank you.
[Bears]: Mr. President, motion to revert to the regular order of business.
[Falco]: The motion of Councilor Bears, seconded by Vice President Caraviello to revert to the regular order of business. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. We will now revert to the regular order of business. That's a continuation. It's a continued correct. Yep. Hearings two zero dash six zero zero petition for grant the location, national great gas main locations, Medford, Massachusetts city clerk's office. This is a continuation of a public hearing. Uh, we met with, um, It was National Grid back a few weeks ago, and they were going to come before us tonight, and I think update us with a few questions. We had a number of questions for them. And let's see, we have Diana Cuddy with us. Hi, Diana. I'm going to unmute you right now. Good evening. And we also have, let's see, do we have,
[Diana Cuddy]: Tim was here.
[Falco]: Tim McGiven was here. Let me see if he's... Oh, there he is. Sorry, Tim. Okay. Tim, I'll unmute you as well. Okay. So we have a number of, and I believe we received a memo this week also from the city engineer regarding was it point number 12? Am I correct? Do you want to talk to that, Tim?
[McGivern]: Sure. So the memo was an update after the, I believe it was the first hearing with National Grid. I spoke to MWRA shortly thereafter to go over the schedule. And ultimately that ended up in a summary that is thus basically MWRA they need to start at the beginning of spring because of the nature of their project. So the lag time between when National Grid finishes their work and MWRA starts their work is going to be either eight months or 20 months. So with that said, I revised my recommendation on number 12 to a mill and overlay restoration which would be pretty typical, you know, a 6 to 8 foot, 4 to 8 foot swath, depending on the pavement, for the run of the work. So if there is that 20-month leg, we'll have a pavement that will last that 20 months. So when MWRI comes in, obviously, they're going to dig the street up again, and then they'll resurface the whole thing, curb to curb.
[Falco]: Any of the cops have questions about that? Okay.
[Marks]: And I believe. So, Mr. President. Cut the marks. So last we left off, Mr. President, is that legal counsel from National Grid was going to speak to our acting city's solicitor regarding some mitigation. And I'm very eager to hear what the results have been, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you council. Diana, could you speak to that please? Sure.
[Diana Cuddy]: Yes, of course. Yes, we had a meeting on Friday. Our legal counsel, our staff engineer that designed the project and is working with MWRA's project manager and Tim and the existing city solicitor, Kim Scanlon. And basically, Tim can correct me if I'm wrong, but we came under, came to the agreement that we will do the, National Geographic will do the video inspection of where our proposed work is going over the city's infrastructure to use as a baseline. And then once we'll review that over the winter and work with to see what the next steps would be, whether that's if we have the spot open, they come in and repair something that's in disrepair. Anything we break, of course, we would fix if that's the case. And then we understand the paving because of the lag time now with MWRA, that we would do that. They would have reimbursed us for that. And then I guess beyond that, requesting that the council be amenable to removing the remaining conditions that, so that the ones that are above and beyond that. And the city solicitor was in agreement with us.
[Marks]: So, Mr. President.
[Diana Cuddy]: So,
[Marks]: I'm a little disappointed that we've waited this long to get that answer, because that answer does not address what this Medford City Council has requested in regards to mitigation, Mr. President. And if we have to rehash this, I'm willing to go over it again tonight. But this council requested that some mitigation be put forth by either the MWRA or National Grid regarding the curbing on that stretch of Riverside F. And we were told that originally they weren't willing to do the whole project. I think this council stood up and said, we're not looking for you to do the whole project. We're looking for you to set aside some money that we as a community can put into bringing the curbs up higher than the street, where much of the curbing is level with the road and very dangerous for pedestrian safety in that particular area, Mr. President. And now we're hearing that as part of this project, it could be a lag of up to eight to 20 months. So they may start the spring of 2021 and not finish for 20 months out, Mr. President. And what they'll do is put down a binary code, coding, whatever it is, so that we can ride on it for 20 months while it looks like you know, a pile of you know what. It doesn't make any sense, Mr. President. This makes zero sense. Why would we want, as a community, want to sit on a construction site for 20 months? And the residents that have to live there, Mr. President, when they open their door and face that, Mr. President. It just makes no sense to me at all. I'm very disappointed that National Grid's not willing to step up, Mr. President, on a project of this size and help out the community in regards to mitigation. They pay mitigation, Mr. President. There's no bones about it. Legal or not legal, they pay mitigation, Mr. President. So if that's the case tonight, they don't have my vote, Mr. President. They're not going to move forward with my vote. Other members of the council may see fit. But we got zero out of this project. Nothing but inconvenience for the residents, Mr. President. And don't forget, this started out with doing construction during the holiday season. And then they pushed it a little further back. And now we're hearing there could be a 20-month lag in between. How does that benefit us? Benefits their schedule, the MWRA and National Grid. How does that benefit the city of Medford on a major thoroughfare in our community? It doesn't, Mr. President. And if they're not willing to sit down and talk mitigation, they don't have this council's support. And I hope my other council colleagues stand up too, Mr. President, on what's right on behalf of this community and its residents.
[Falco]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Bears and Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: And this is to Ms. Cuddy or Mr. McGivern. What is the cost amount we're talking about in terms of potential mitigation, like Councilor Marks just mentioned?
[Diana Cuddy]: Tim, do you want? Mitigation, in my opinion, is like mitigating something that, restoring it back to, you know, it's original condition or acceptable condition. So we are, because of the MWRA's lag in getting in right behind us, there's a, hopefully, it won't be the 20 months, but, so we would restore, the street would just be like a typical main relay where we would come back in, restore the pavement to the condition that it was in. before or a little better. And then they would come back in after us. They would do their work and then, you know, they would do the curb to curb restoration. And the benefit would be, you know, the city has new infrastructure there. The MWRA has, I'm not exactly sure on their exact details of the project, but Tim can speak to that. So there are some benefits to the city for this. I just wanted to mention again, we were asked to move our stuff for the MWRA to come in and do this major project that they have. So, you know, we're being driven by them. This wasn't a main relay we were anticipating.
[Falco]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. My definition of mitigation may be a little different. Restoring back to how it was is a given. That's what happens on every utility project in this community. Every utility project, they're required to return it back to the way it was. Mitigation is going over and above, Mr. President. We're asking over and above. We're not asking to restore the way it was. That's how every project is done. So I'm not, I think our definition is a little different, Mr. President. And, you know, it doesn't matter to me that National Grid's stepping in on behalf of, because they have to move their utility so the MWRA could do what they, it doesn't matter to me. They're both utilities, Mr. President, and they both should step up to the plate and assist this community. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Bears, you had the floor.
[Bears]: Just to answer, to get an answer to the question, what's the difference between the cost of the full curb-to-curb resurfacing and the patching that you will be doing?
[Diana Cuddy]: The difference in cost, I don't know.
[Bears]: Mr. McGibbon has an answer. I mean, I can give you an estimate.
[McGivern]: Yeah, back with an estimate. We're talking about the difference between milling and overlay, the full width of the road, which is 20 some odd feet, versus milling and overlay, the trench patch. So the trench patch mill and overlay is somewhere between typically five and eight feet, depending on the condition of the pavement surrounding it and how close or not to the curb it is. So I can't give you a cost estimate based off of this information that I'm telling you now. I'd have to take a much closer look at it and what would be required. If full rebuilds need to happen in places when they do the final resurfacing, I don't know. Are we talking a million dollars, $100,000, $50,000?
[Bears]: We're not talking seven-figure million dollars worth of work, no.
[McGivern]: The order of magnitude is more than double if that's helpful. So more than double the cost for a full resurface versus less than half of the width of the roadway.
[Bears]: But either way, it would be under a million dollars.
[McGivern]: Oh, yeah. Yeah, I think it would be. I think it would be. Yeah.
[Bears]: All right. And Miss Cuddy, what was the annual profit of National Grid last year?
[Diana Cuddy]: I think it's something like 90% into renewable, like figuring out better ways to do zero carbon. I don't know what their net profit or gross profit was, though.
[Bears]: I think it's in the billions of dollars. And then where is National Grid headquartered? The international headquarters?
[Diana Cuddy]: In Waltham, Massachusetts. No.
[Bears]: But I did want to say that... No, where is National Grid headquartered internationally?
[Diana Cuddy]: The headquarters is in Waltham, Massachusetts.
[Bears]: But where is the corporate ownership? Where do they live? England.
[Diana Cuddy]: We're owned through the UK, but the corporate headquarters is in Waltham, Massachusetts.
[Bears]: Got it. So there's like billions of dollars in profits from a foreign company, and we can't spend less than a million dollars on a street in Medford. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Mr. Councilor Bears, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: So again, Mr. President, I'm sorry we're going down this hole again. And Ms. Cuddy seems to be the spokesperson that has to take the brunt of this. I find it amazing that it has to be National Grid that comes before us because of an MWA problem that then reflects back to a National Grid problem. Why aren't we sitting together with National Grid, I mean with MWRA? Why don't we have all of the parties together in a room that they can understand what the constituents, what the residents of Riverside Ave have been hearing that is absolutely frightening them. The understanding that close to two years they're going to look at a major major concerns that they're going to be dealing with for 20 months, possibly. So this is why I can't support this, because we still haven't gotten the answers for this Councilor to go back to the constituents that live on Riverside Ave and talk to those people and say, we've dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's, and this is what we're going to have, and this is what's going to happen. Because this is a major project. So I don't know if Tim can answer this, Ms. Cuddy, I'm sorry, but we haven't talked to any representative from the MWRA and this community gives a lot of funding. And we need to get their representatives here so we can talk to them and say, what are we doing? Why can't this be done simultaneously? Why can't we look at the mitigation for the curbs where it's a city, it's MWRA, it's National Grid working together to make sure that we can use all three entities to fix a problem that could go away if there's a way to work together. Maybe it's not a million dollars for National Grid. Maybe it's a third. Maybe it's a third for the city of Medford. Maybe it's a third for MWRA. But we haven't talked about that. All we keep trying to do is push the same 13, 14 points that keep coming back that's not appeasing. Forget about me, because honestly, I live in North Medford. I live in the Heights. The people that are there every single day, that when they heard 20 months now, is absolutely frightening. So can anybody speak to that?
[Diana Cuddy]: So yes, I can say our portion of the project, we would be done in six weeks. So we would start excavation, do the main relay and do the paving that Tim mentioned in six weeks. The other piece I just wanted to mention is, and if you wanted to see the letter that our legal counsel set up, it cites, SJC state law that, so this type of project, because this isn't a new main, it's a main replacement. These costs go back to the rate payers. They go into the rate case and we are legally obligated to keep, to not have like above and beyond what the cost of the construction is. So it's a legal obligation on our part for this particular type of work.
[Scarpelli]: Well, and I can understand what you have to do for your position, but you also have to understand what I have to and we have to do in our positions. Ms. Cuddy, Tim, I think, what conversations, what discussions have we had with the MWRA that is this something that we can do? We're talking about a 20 month project that has to be approved by an organization, National Grid, that's saying they're only going to be here for six weeks. It seems like they're going to be in and out, but then the other organization that has nothing to do with this permit right now, it's going to take 20 months possibly. Can you help us so we can answer the questions to those residents?
[McGivern]: to the chair, it's not a 20-month project. It's a 20-month leg. So they need to be able, MWA needs to start in the beginning of the construction season so they can complete by the end of the construction season. So their start time for the year is a spring. So if it's not next spring, eight months away, then it's the following spring after that, 20 months, and so on and so forth. It's just a lag, it's not the project. So during those 20 months, there's no construction happening on the streets.
[Scarpelli]: Okay, so that's the fear that when you hear, now to a traffic engineer, a lag sounds perfect. To Mrs. Smith, who lives on Riverside Ave, who's 74 years old, that only place to park is her driveway, Tim. This is what I'm saying. I'm not trying to cause any, I'm not trying to be negative. I'm trying to find a way that we can say, okay, so the way it sounds, it's coming out. National Grid's going to do six weeks of work, rip up the road, leave. And just go over it with overlay. And then the residents are going to have to deal possibly up to 20 months with delays with this type of road that they have to drive on, walk on every single day.
[McGivern]: President, I can address that? Yes, please, Tim. Sure. So the service restoration that National Grid would do under this scenario, From my understanding of Riverside Ave, I've driven it a couple times recently to understand a little bit better for these conversations. It would be significantly better than what's even there today. So I think doing a grind and an overlay, that's a legitimate resurfacing job. So that lane or half of Riverside that is done after National Grid does their six weeks of work, It's not just, it's going to hold up for the 20 months plus. I mean, that's what usually we would see for final restoration on some streets. So it's kind of up there with final restoration. It's just not the whole road, because it wouldn't make sense, really, to have National Grid do a curb-to-curb mill and overlay. Because MWRA is coming back at some point in the beginning of A spring to open up pits so they can do their line project. And things like that. So that 20 months, there's no construction during that 20 months. Say that the lag is 20. It could be shorter than that. It could be eight. But if it is 20, then we'll have a street. It's not going to be the pothole-ridden street that we might be envisioning. It's going to be nice, smooth pavement or a chunk of it, the chunk that So that piece is going to be nicer than the rest of Riverside Avenue. But unfortunately, then MWR will come in and dig it up, and then grind it, and then repay it. So just to set expectations, that 20 months, that's not construction. That's just regular Riverside Avenue.
[Scarpelli]: OK, so thank you for clarifying. Like I said, that's one of the biggest questions I've been fielding. And I think I concur with Council Marks Maybe there is, have we had a discussion with all three entities to say, Ms. Cutty says that the amount of mitigation with how much money they're putting into it, it doesn't equate. But has there been discussion where the three entities have worked together to try to fix a wrong that is Riverside Ave curbing? Just in that, especially for me, that locust turn and probably up to the next, The next intersection, the next street, like I said, I don't think it's monumental. I don't think it's all 1,400 feet. So again, I'd like to hear, we could have that conversation to try to fix that wrong, so thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor. Scarpelli, Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Over the last few weeks, we've been beating this back and forth. I kind of feel bad for National Grid, because this isn't their project. It's an MWRA project, and MWRA is nowhere to be seen or heard for that. I say we don't have any more discussions on this until the MWRA comes up, steps up to the table. I mean, again, they're doing this at the request of the MWRA. This isn't their project, and we're killing them. It's really not fair, and I say at the next meeting that this go no further until the MWRA officials come before us, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello.
[Knight]: Mr. President, the notes I have say, I said, why don't we move to have a committee of the whole with the MWRA and National Grid over the project and mitigation? I mean, ultimately, National Grid wouldn't even be here if it wasn't because MWRA asked them to. And as I looked at the heat map just a couple weeks ago, the map that allows us to take a look at the gas leaks in the area, we've had a significant number of gas leaks along that street. That we're going to remain on that street is gas leaks. National Grid admittedly had no intention of coming down there and repairing any of those unless they really had to, unless they were grade one gas leaks. You know, so I'm looking at this project and I'm saying to myself, you know, National Grid was never going to come here unless MWRA asked them to. Now that they're coming here, they are going to make repairs. Okay, that's all well and good. But this isn't about the project. This is about mitigation to the residents in the neighborhood that are going to be forced to put up with the construction that's going on down there, right? So the one question I do have would be for the city engineer and it's, you know, is there a code relative to a safety code or a building code or a construction code relative to sidewalk and curving height in relation to the street. And if there is, when we're allowing these public utilities to come in our community and restore them to equal or better condition, we're really letting them come in and establish something that's not up to code. I mean, if someone were to come into this building, when we built the new police station, we had to make sure that it met the seismic requirements that were necessary for a building of that nature. We had to take into consideration the floodplain and all these different other items when we were building a new building. When we renovate buildings, we talked about the renovation of certain homes in the community. And we have to bring those homes up to code when they're given a building permit. So I guess my question is, is there a code relative to sidewalk height in relation to the street? And why are we allowing public utilities to come into our community and restore them to the condition they were in and not up to code if there is in fact a code? Which there probably isn't, that's why we're letting them do it.
[Falco]: Tim, would you be able to address that?
[McGivern]: Yep. Thank you, President DeFranco. So there is codes associated with ADA accessibility And there's also guidance and all kinds of case law. So if something is not to code and it's within reason for them to fix it, a utility company that exposes it, say, for example, there's a sidewalk panel that's cracked and it doesn't have a pimple pad on it, which a lot of people call those truncated combs. Then, yes, we would ask that when they put the sidewalk panel back, that they install one of those to bring it up to code. So it's a question of reason. So when we look at it and we say, this infrastructure is getting dismantled. When they put it back, is there anything reasonable that they should be doing to get it up to code? Now, of course, there's nuances to this. So existing conditions fall under the code as well. But to repair those slopes would have you chasing grades up the street, for example. That could be deemed unreasonable, and at an expense above and beyond what would be considered reasonable. what the legal obligations of the utility entity are. So we do look at that. So for this particular situation, and I know we have talked about it in previous hearings, the city is looking at opportunities to improve this particular block of curbing. I've looked at it a couple times now. So, you know, there is, And I've also been looking at what the obligations are, what the rules are. And Councilor Knight, as you know, I have community mitigation on my to-do, and we're trying to figure out how to do that. But just from a straight opening the street and then returning the street, we do have statutes to work from, and we do have understandings of what's reasonable and what's not reasonable. And those are the lenses that we really try to look at these projects when we're trying to to ask for certain things. And you're right. Can we get it to code, ADA code, pretty reasonably in the project if they're opening it up anyway? Or is it something where it's unreasonable to bring it up to code? So we are, of course, looking at that sort of thing. If they're not working the sidewalk and the sidewalk needs design work and it has rippling implications for raising it, then we do need to go through a design effort. We do need to take a look at what all the implications are of that particular stretch of curbing. So it is definitely not as easy as just raise the curb and make it better. It requires some careful design. And there isn't a code that says what height the curb should be. It's more of standards. So the city has a set book of standards that we look at when anybody does any road work in the city that we're going to ask them to meet.
[Knight]: And in terms of the gorilla in the room, the elephant in the room, whatever you want to call it, MWRA, have you sat down with MWRA and discussed the further criteria of the mitigation agreement or the requests and recommendations that your office has related to their project when they come on board? Or is this still a little premature for that?
[McGivern]: It's not premature. So we have been talking to MWRA about this project for some time. We've met with them. I don't know if we've actually had all three entities, City of MWRA and National Grid, all in the same meeting or call. But we have been referring to each other. And the bulk of the conversation with MWRA has been what their scope of their project is. It's not just Riverside Avenue. It's a couple of other places in the city. And also, too, the restoration work that MWRA is providing, they've worked with us on that. Again, they fall under the same set of obligations as any other utility company opening on our streets.
[Knight]: Mr. President, I think at this point, I'm very comfortable echoing the sentiments of Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Caraviello that The city engineer just said it. These three parties haven't even been in the same room. So I would suggest an offer in the way of a motion that we have a committee of the whole with the MWRA National Grid, as well as representatives from the administration to discuss this permit and mitigation.
[Falco]: On that motion, I'll provide Councilor Knight. Second. Seconded by Councilor Scarapelli. 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?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Sending the affirmative, zeroing the negative. This motion passes and I will schedule a committee to hold If not, it might be President Capiello that does it in the next term, just because we're running out of time in the month of December. But we will schedule a committee to hold on this, hopefully sooner than later. On the main paper, is there a motion to put on the table, or? Okay, on the motion of council, I'll ask to table the main paper, seconded by. Seconded by Vice President Caraviello, Clerk Hurtubise. Clerk Hurtubise, please come to the hall.
[Hurtubise]: So you've moved the committee to the hall, and you're tabling the main paper until it comes out? Is that the resolution? OK. Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in favor of adjournment, I get the motion passes. It was cut to a mark seconded by Vice President Caraviello. Motions, orders, and resolutions 20-660 offered by Councilor Morell. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council request a briefing on the administration's newly established commission on parking policy and enforcement from the chairs of the commission, Jim Silva and Laurel Ruma, and be provided an explanation of the purpose of the commission as well as the due date for the commission's findings report.
[Morell]: Councilor Morell. Thank you, Mr. President. I believe this paper speaks for itself, and I'll let the chair speak soon. And I apologize that the second item on the agenda took us till 10 o'clock to get to, but I know they're very much used to these meetings, so I thank them for their patience. But I'm the council rep on this commission, and there's a number of community members and business owners who've been working very hard, regular meetings, weekly meetings, and doing a lot of work out in the community to move forward a number of issues around this. I'll hand it over to Jim and Laurel to speak on this more.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor. If I may, one minute. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Just a couple of weeks ago, Mr. President, a similar item came upon the agenda and we discussed that. It's very important when we get updates from bodies, boards, commissions, the administration, that these updates are provided to us in writing so that we have that snapshot in time so that when the item comes up again at a later date, we have something to compare it to, Mr. President. And I'd hope that that still stands.
[Falco]: Yes. So if you're going to give us an update tonight, could you also please give it to us in writing? That would be greatly appreciated. Just so we have, I guess, a point of reference as to what we spoke at during the meeting.
[Ruma]: Absolutely. So my name is Laurel Ruma, 149 Burgett Avenue. And just for clarification, this is the first time we've been before the council on this issue. So this is an establishment of the commission, not necessarily an update, but going forward, it's noted and we will provide them in writing. My co-chair is Jim Silva.
[Jim Silva]: Jim Silva, 115 Yale street.
[Ruma]: And the two of us have been appointed by the mayor to develop a, as well as other members of the commission and the purpose of the Parking Policy and Enforcement Commission is to go by her purposes of establishment. And so for the purpose of the record, it'd be good to go over her founding of this commission and why. And this is all public record, but again, we'll put it in the package for you. Mayor's Commission on Parking Policy and Enforcement, I hereby establish this committee, the Mayor's Commission on Parking Policy and Enforcement, for the following purpose. One, to evaluate the City of Medford's current policies pertaining to on-street parking in residential, commercial, and industrial areas. Two, to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of area-wide parking policies as it relates to the MBTA Green Line Extension, scheduled to open late 2021. Three, to study the fees currently assessed for on-street parking in the city of Medford, including meters, passes, and permits. Four, to study the methods of parking fee collection in the city of Medford. Five, to evaluate the city of Medford's current arrangement of parking enforcement to wit the outsourcing of parking administration and enforcement to a third party vendor. And six, to make recommendations of the policy changes to her honor the mayor if necessary. the following individuals are the designees of applicable. One resident appointed by the Mayor to serve as chairperson. You get two. No fewer than three residents and or business owners of the City of Medford appointed by the Mayor. A member of City Council, which is Councilor Morell. A member of City Council, which is Councilor Lueb. and the chief of police of Medford and or his designee. City staff shall be made available to the commission to assist with completing this charge. The commission is directed to begin work immediately and submit a report to the mayor with the recommendations by March 31st, 2021. This was signed by the mayor, October 5th. And from that point on, Jim Silva and I have been part of this commission and the members of the commission are the following people. Um, many who are still on the call. Thank you all very much for being here, including Morgan Carroll, Pam Cirillo, D.J. Benigno, Nicole Morell, Jeffrey Mung, Saketh Rama, Fred Roche, myself, Laurel Siegel, and Jim Silva. And the Police Department representative has been Sergeant Hartnett, um, as well as at times the chief himself, which has been very helpful. So our charges as the commission is to look at what the current parking situation is now, how it can be improved for both business districts and residential, as well as the fees, et cetera. So we are currently meeting every Wednesday at 7 p.m. We welcome any public input to these meetings. We have divided ourselves up into two committees. One committee is focused on residential, one on commercial business. And the status so far of the residential meeting has been to reach out to neighboring communities to get an understanding of their parking situations. We are a differing and complex community, as we all know. The important part about the Mayor's charge is to really look at the areas that are surrounding the MBTA, the new Greenline stations that are coming in, and that's at College and Boston Avenue near Tufts University, as well as Ball Square. So although we are not only looking at those two geographic areas, we are looking at the rest of Medford for residential that our main concentration is this area, which we are, as Jim and I are also the mayoral appointees for the Greenline Extension Committee, as well, greatly concerned that these particular neighborhoods will be severely impacted by folks coming in to take the T to town eventually. The business committee subcommittee is doing this excellent work, talking to businesses that have ideas and brainstorming and various suggestions on what to do about business parking. They have also, we have also all created this survey that we have sent out to businesses through the Chamber of Commerce. This is now publicly available on the City of Medford's website. We strongly encourage all businesses to take the survey. We are actively looking for feedback from every single business in the City of Medford, whether or not you are in a parking center, whether or not you have a meter in front of your business or not. We do want to hear from as many businesses as possible. As you can imagine, the pandemic has made it difficult to reach out, you know, meeting as many people as possible. So what we're trying to do here is reach out through public forums, such as the City Council on the City of Medford's website, as well as through the Chamber and basically handing out flyers where it's safe and applicable to talk to businesses. We will also be doing a residential parking survey. So we do want all residents of Medford, whether you have a business or not, whether you own a house or not, we would love to hear everyone's opinions about the current parking situation in Medford and how it can be made better. The link to the survey is available on the City of Medford's website, and I'll stop here if anyone has any questions for Jim or I.
[Falco]: Councilor Morell and Councilor Marks.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. Laurel, do you know where specifically on the website the link to that survey could be found?
[Ruma]: Yeah, so it was just posted. So it's on the city news announcements from December 4th, but the title is Mayor's Commission on Parking Policy Enforcement Seeking Business Input via Survey.
[SPEAKER_13]: Okay, great. Thank you.
[Ruma]: Councilor Morell, Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank the two chairs, Laurel and Jim, for their dedication to this community. They've been involved with a lot of different projects. And this project is a big undertaking. I sat on the original parking enforcement committee back some, I don't know, probably 10 years ago now. And at that time, it was a large undertaking. And they're taking on, in addition, the Green Line extension and some other issues that city-wide permit parking and some other issues. My question to the two chairs is, if someone's interested in a particular subject, as you know, there's a lot involved with from enforcement to districts to meters or kiosk and how we're going to enforce things. If someone is just interested in one aspect, How do they know when that will be brought up? Are they allowed to get onto the Wednesday meetings and just bring up any subject, or is there an agenda that you follow and talk about just certain items? How does that work?
[Ruma]: Thanks, Councilor, because we are acting on behalf of the mayor as a city commission, we do have public meetings with public schedules posted ahead of time. We offer time at the end of the meetings for any public comments. So honestly, we are not progressing in a linear form. We are sort of taking all issues as they come up. It sounds like a massive undertaking, but we only have three months to complete our report as of now. So if anyone is interested in any of those particular issues, whether it is meters or private ways, we are welcome to come in and bring it to the commission pretty much at any time.
[Marks]: So how, as a commission, are you publicizing your meetings and are they well attended over the last, you know, several weeks since you've been meeting?
[Ruma]: Meetings are posted on the city website or the event calendar. I would say no, probably folks don't know that we are operating it. There's a lot of commissions going on in the city right now. And we are, just looking to pretty much get our name out there as well and really encourage folks that are interested in parking to come to the meetings and or reach out to Jim and I. We have all of the contact information also available.
[Marks]: So is the expectation at some point that you're going to have, you know, like a full-blown public hearing where residents will be invited to hear recommendations and give input? Is that the ultimate?
[Ruma]: It's possible. You know, it's within the realm of possibility. I would say right now we're very focused on getting as much information as possible for the recommendation for the mayor's report. The mayor's charge was fairly specific. So we also have a number of previous parking studies that have been done, as you said, 10 years ago and more recent. So ideally, we would like to get to a place where we have public input as a large meeting, yes. It will not probably be in the next month.
[Marks]: Right. And just if I can give a word of caution, I think that's one thing that could get in the way of this whole process, is that if the public input is held, and I'm not saying this is the case, but if it's held to the end, you may get a lot of animosity and people thinking they've been left out of the process. And so somehow, and it's a difficult, I agree with you, there's a lot going on in the community. Somehow I think it's important that public hearings be set up along this whole process and not just wait till the end. And I'll leave that up to the committee, but I would highly recommend that in the interest of transparency and so forth.
[Falco]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President, and thanks, Chairman Low. You guys always step up to do. do these big tasks that no one else wants to volunteer for. All right, thank you for your help. Is there any discussion amongst your group with life after Republic Parking? I know their contract is coming to the end very soon, and is there any discussions on that?
[Jim Silva]: At this point, we have not had those kind of discussions at all. Basically, we've interviewed to go over procedure process and actually the tools needed and specifically what could be identified as enhancements. We're here to make recommendations. So enforcement is one of these recommendations we'll be doing. So we need to know what products are available to the city. And so most of this has been like a data gathering situation where we're trying to define specifics of process.
[Caraviello]: As Republic Parking been receptive to suggestions,
[Jim Silva]: They have been very receptive, they've been open. We have a person who's administering all of these interviews, Pam Cerullo, who has done a fantastic job. And they are available. We have a meeting with them, and then they're available for any questions, any updates. So they've been very forthcoming with information. Yes.
[Caraviello]: So are you tackling, I would think, probably the two problem areas would be South Medford and the Hillside area. Are those your two biggest areas you're working on at the moment?
[Jim Silva]: They are the GLX areas, quite honestly, so yes. And they're some of the most densely populated areas, so parking is, resident parking and business parking, are on people's minds, so yes.
[Caraviello]: Is there any talk of bringing that parking back on Boston Avenue where they, along that GLX line, where they took them all those spots away, from like College Ave down to, The Dunkin' Donuts?
[Jim Silva]: We recently had a conversation with Rocco DiRico, who is also the Hillside representative for the business. We're, again, asking the businesses what works, what doesn't work, et cetera, what their needs are, what their employee parking needs are. All of that data information are gathering. I think that's sort of a secondary aspect, looking at parking, seeing what's available, what the needs are. So ultimately, I'm certain that we will come to some sort of realization of our needs.
[Caraviello]: Thanks, Jim.
[Ruma]: To address that specific concern, obviously there's still a lot of construction happening between Tufts and the GLX, so it's on a larger roadmap to discuss. We're not necessarily looking at every street.
[Caraviello]: My question was, you know, on Boston Avenue, where College is down, they used to be all parking along this strip that's now gone. probably a public representative duty for these spots. Are those spots going to be brought back after the train station comes in?
[Ruma]: There's discussion about what will happen to those spots. I can't say for sure. It's in flux.
[Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you vice president. We have a council of bears has a question and then we'll go on to Mari. Council of bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Not a question, just a comment. I want to thank the chairs and the members of the commission for taking on this difficult project. And I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you. Council of bears. Okay. We have a, let's see Mari Carroll. I'm trying to unmute you.
[xyqJQrsXvc0_SPEAKER_27]: There you go. How's that? We in? Perfect. Thank you, everyone. I just have to tell you, I'm so delighted to be on this commission, number one, of people that just get it and they care about the city and want to do the right thing. It's not going to be perfect. Nothing ever is in the beginning, You know, we have taken in and we're going basically door-to-door in all the, I am the chair for the business community. We've been in Haines Square, we're about to go into West Mefford, Mefford Square, in the hillside, we've had all the reps out of the chamber. to do the right thing here. And we're going to come up with something. And I'm going to tell you, you guys, everyone knows me that's sitting on that council. It's not going to be perfect, but you know, we're going to retweak it to make it right. You can only do the best you can. And the mayor has put together a commission led by Jim Morrow that they're doing a great job. And be it with us, work with us, We're going to work with everybody else, and let's do the right thing here. And also, I hate National Grid. So four and a half years with my doorstep. And get rid of that. George, they show up at 8, 9, 10, 11 o'clock at all your constituents' front door on Riverside Ave. So tell them to get ready.
[Falco]: Thank you. Keep the kind words, Mario.
[xyqJQrsXvc0_SPEAKER_27]: Thank you, Mario. Thanks, you guys, as always. You know that.
[Falco]: Thank you. Jim O'Neill, thank you for all your hard work with us. And Mario, thank you for your hard work as well. If someone wants to reach out to either of you individually, is there a contact or is there an email address?
[Jim Silva]: There is. It's commissionpe at gmail.com.
[Ruma]: So commissionpeteredward at gmail.com PE.
[Jim Silva]: We also have a phone number, area code 339-221-7027.
[Ruma]: And again, all this contact information is also on the website. Our meetings other than this week, because it is the start of Hanukkah, this week's meeting is Thursday at 3 p.m. The Zoom information link is on the city's website. Other than that, The public meetings are held Wednesday at 7 o'clock. We welcome the public. And then one other piece of business is that everyone should know that the Green Line meeting is happening, and the public meeting is happening tomorrow night. You can sign up to the MBTA's website to attend the meeting, but it'll be an update meeting of what's happening. And Jim and I would be happy to come back before the Council and give you an update on the Green Line as well.
[Falco]: Great, thank you very much.
[xyqJQrsXvc0_SPEAKER_27]: And John, everyone knows how to get a hold of me.
[Falco]: Yes, we do. Thank you, Marty. If I may, Jim and Laurel, I believe a while back, there was a parking study that was done. I think it was when Chief Sacco was leaving and Chief Buckley was coming in. Is that something that you're looking at?
[Jim Silva]: Actually, we're using that as a baseline, one of our baselines. It has specific numbers, it has specific focus, so yes, we're using that. And it is available for anyone to view. Any information that people want to review, just contact through the email and we'll send you a link.
[Falco]: Perfect. Sounds good. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you for all your hard work. Any other questions? Thank you.
[Marks]: Thank you. Mr. President, just one question regarding the scope. Does it include recommendations regarding taking the parking service in-house as well as removal of the kiosk? Will that be things that the commission works on?
[Jim Silva]: What we're doing is we're getting recommendations from the public through the public response. What we're gathering also is cost involved in other communities. We're asking specific questions. So we're hopeful when we submit our recommendations, we'll also have an opportunity to have some sort of implementation process with a rough estimate of cost, et cetera, if you're to change things out. And very basic, very, very minimal, but at the same time, it will give the implementation folks an opportunity to focus. So the answer to your question is we're looking at that. We're getting the results of public input in regards to that.
[Marks]: So your ultimate recommendations will include looking at whether or not to take in-house or to look at an alternative from the kiosk.
[Jim Silva]: I think it will be easier for folks to make that decision based on the information we're able to compile and sort of the direction of the report will sort of be telling on the decisions that need to go forward. So, yes. So.
[Ruma]: It's a shame that everything's on the table. It's a complicated, as you know, topic. The current parking in Medford is street by street for parking for residents and then enforcement. And so, you know, the issue is, is if we want more enforcement, then we'd have to look at the entire program anyway, because we have X amount of enforcement officers. So one decision then triggers many others. So, yes, we are looking at what it looks like to have the current parking program, what it looks like to have the existing parking program, what it looks like to have the existing parking parking across the city. It looks like to have zone parking. I would say probably the one option that's not on the table right now is no parking enforcement whatsoever.
[xyqJQrsXvc0_SPEAKER_27]: If I could just jump in one more time. Yes, please. Michael, I am looking for the City Council to give us a huge bond to support this whole program.
[Marks]: How's that? That sounds like a good idea. Mr. President, if I could. So I just want to understand, so this commission will be making recommendations from what I'm hearing sometime in March. That's when the mayor asked for recommendations. And then the actual implementation, has there been any discussion about once recommendations are with the mayor, has there been any discussion about implementation, which is I would assume the next phase of this?
[Ruma]: Correct, there is not. We are charged just to make recommendations.
[Marks]: Okay, thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks, Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think Councilor Marks brought up something about the kiosks, whether they stay, whether they go. If I recall, I think during the discussions, I think we owned them at the end of the contract. So the question is, do we keep them? I think President Falco and I have gone to a couple of shows there, and we asked about the lifespan of Those kiosks, and they're saying they're seven to ten years. And those are going to be ten years. I mean, is the decision made, do we take them and throw them out, or do we spend the money to upgrade them and bring them up to speed? Because those are upgradable, and let's see, we are going to own them at the end of our contract here. So either we make use of them, or we figure we throw them out.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. Any other questions from the council? Comments, questions? No. Any comments or questions from the public? Marty, Marty.
[xyqJQrsXvc0_SPEAKER_27]: And just to answer the copy of what he just asked, I think everything's on the table at this point. Nothing's been decided. We're just getting into operations of both the business community side and residential side. All of this stuff will be coming forth with, you know, we're on a fast track to do a good job and let's just do it. What we have right now doesn't work.
[Falco]: Thank you, Marty. Okay, any other questions from the public? Okay, on the motion of Councilor Morell, seconded by? Vice President Caraviello, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll. Sorry, is the motion to receive and place on file, Councilor Morell? Yes, okay, on the motion to receive and place on file. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice president Caraviello.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Falco.
[Falco]: Yes. 7, 8, 4, 0, the negative, the motion passes. Okay. 2, 0, dash 6, 6, 1. Offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the Bedford City Council request a report from the DPW commissioner concerning brown water in the South Bedford area water delivery system. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. I don't know if it's the result of flushing or whatnot, maybe some underground utility work. But for about nine to 11 days over the past two weeks or so, there's been a tremendous amount of brown water in South Medford neighborhoods. Sometimes actually stretching all the way up to the back end of High Street, over by the river, near Mari's restaurant actually, up the street more or less though towards the barbershop and the jewelry store, Rollins and VIP. So with that being said, Mr. President, I've gotten a number of complaints stretching from Main Street. all the way back to the square. So I'm asking the DPW Water Department to provide us with an update as to what's going on, why there was so much brown water in the area for such an extended period of time. You know, a lot of people were a little upset when they were trying to make the mashed potatoes and they ran the water and it was brown on Thanksgiving. So I'm just hoping we can get some clarification and address some concerns, Mr. President, as to what's going on.
[Falco]: Okay. On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by- Mr. President.
[Marks]: Councilman Harkes. If Council and I wouldn't mind amending it, I got a complaint recently about the top of Governor's Ave along South Border Road. Same thing, brown water. The fire department's been out there opening up the hydrants and releasing some of the water. And then within a couple of weeks, the water's brown again. They put two cups side by side. And you can clearly see that there's something going on, Mr. President. And so if Councilor Knight wouldn't mind adding the top of Governor's Ave along Saltwater Road, if that could be reviewed at the same time, that'd be great. Excellent.
[Falco]: Great, thank you. On the motion of Councilor Knight, as amended by Councilor Marks, seconded by Vice President Caraviello, come in front of me, please come over.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Councilor Morell is absent from the chamber. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent. The motion passes. 2-0-662 offered by Councilor Marks. Be it resolved that the Anheuser-Busch Corporation located at Riverside Avenue cut back the tree branches overhanging the backyard of 84 Sydney Street in the interest of public safety. Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think it was about 13 or 14 months ago. This council did a committee, the whole review of the lot of land in between Budweiser and the residents on Sydney Street. It was all overgrown, Mr. President. The trees, we took a walk through that whole area and it was gnarly back there and very dangerous actually. And due to this council and the city administration with their help, Budweiser actually, because they own the property, went back there and did actually, I have to say, a great job of cleaning up. They left a lot of the mature trees along the fences of neighbors on Sydney, of which they did go out recently and cut some of them. 84 Sydney just contacted me and said there's a big overhanging branch of a very mature tree that's on the Anheuser Budweiser. and they ask in the interest of public safety, because they're concerned with the recent windstorms, that the branches be cut back in the interest of public safety. So I ask that this be sent to DPW and the city engineer's office. I believe they're the ones that intervened last time on our behalf.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Anybody, any questions or comments from the council?
[Bears]: Second.
[Falco]: Any hands up?
[Hurtubise]: okay on the motion of councillor mark seconded by tonight Clark her to be please come over council bears yes vice president carry over council night yes Councilor Marks yes council Morell yes councillor Scarpelli yes president Falco
[Falco]: Yes. 7 the affirmative, 0 the negative. The motion passes. 20-663 offered by Councilor Bears. Whereas COVID-19 cases are spiking across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Governor Baker has chosen to take no further action to protect the health of residents and whereas super spreader events have seriously impacted residents of Medford, including members of our city and school staff. Now, therefore be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the city administration explore any and all options to increase COVID-19 mitigation action actions in the city of Medford and provide an update on any plans to protect residents from COVID-19 community spread no later than the December 15th meeting of the Medford City Council, Council Affairs.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was heartened today that there has now been action from Governor Baker on, he's rolled us back to phase three, step one, given the concerning statistics, concerning is an under, underwhelming word to use. COVID cases across the state are double what they were during the spring lockdown, both in terms of daily cases and the seven day average. It's rising exponentially. Two thirds, 67% of Massachusetts ICU beds are already occupied. That's closer to 90 to 95% in Rhode Island. Tens of thousands of cases and hundreds more, if not thousands more deaths are expected. And we've had some major clusters here in Medford. So yes, Governor Baker reverted to phase three, step one today. But we weren't even at phase one when we had half as many cases in the spring. So, you know, it really does present some serious health dangers to thousands of residents and I would say thousands of residents here in Medford. I would just like an update by next week at our December 15th meeting on any actions the city is able to take on mitigation. I understand that it's essential that we follow the state guidelines in terms of phases. We're not going to be able to address the spread of this disease alone if other communities are not doing it with us. But I think there are a lot of steps that could be taken like a robocall before the holidays to remind people to stay safe, to meet gathering limits. You know, we've, we're basically just now starting to see the Thanksgiving spike in COVID cases across the state. And we don't want to double down over the December holidays. And, you know, we have months ahead and we have the winter months ahead before a vaccine gets distributed. And I think the last thing we want to see is Massachusetts and quite frankly, the entire country, you know, coming into the train station, having just lost more people and had more cases in the past few months than we did in our first spike and second spike earlier this year. So that's really the intent, is for both written and verbal update from the administration on anything that they are doing and that, you know, any actions that they are taking. And I think, to me, a big piece of that should be what guidelines and suggestions are we making to people for how they should, you know, gather or not gather during the holidays. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Peers. Any other comments?
[Knight]: Mr. President, didn't we vote on a paper that was very similar to this, asking the mayor to appear before us and she agreed to appear before us periodically to give updates?
[Falco]: You are correct because I remember, I think it was Councilor Morell's paper.
[Knight]: I think she said Perry. I think the mayor's response is out. It was periodically. I don't think it came out monthly. It came out periodically. But it's my understanding that the statistics data and the like are all compiled on Wednesdays, and they have their powwows on Wednesdays relative to this stuff. So we'd be getting the week before's information if we did that on a Tuesday night. But whatever direction we go when we go, and Mr. President, I just again request that we get this in writing. I feel like our meetings are turning into more like television shows and less like meetings.
[Falco]: No, no, no. I understand and I agree. I mean, we should have something in writing. We definitely do. you know, some sort of an update from the administration. We haven't received one. What was it, Councilor Morell, if you don't mind, do you know the last time we actually received?
[Morell]: I think we got it in October. We didn't get it in November. And then we're in December now, I believe, because I believe that the second month was missed. I think also it was, you know, cases were still at least on the lower end. So I think needing the update now is more dire.
[Falco]: Thank you.
[Bears]: Yes. And I, I miss, I did not include it in here, but a written and verbal update is the language I used in my next resolution, but I would like that for this resolution as well. And I agree with councilor Knight for any update that this council receives.
[Falco]: Thank you. And if actually, you know, if I could actually vice president, if you wouldn't mind coming up, I just have a couple, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to have met here. Thank you for bringing this forward, because I think it is very important. And I think Councilor Morell, thank you for bringing our resolution forward a few months ago. And I think it's important that we receive periodic updates. Actually, they should be monthly updates, but we should be notified on a regular basis. Because I know I'm getting all kinds of questions with regard to, I think some of the data, general questions as to, and I think a lot of it is education with regard to, You know, I got a lot of questions about, you know, what is the threshold for notifying the community about potential exposure? So if there are, you know, how is a cluster determined? You know, if a cluster is determined, you know, is there ability to contact trace or whatnot? So if we could, if you wouldn't mind, if we, if Councilor Bears, if we could, if I could amend that to, for the administration of the Board of Health to respond as to what is the threshold for notifying the community about potential exposure? And how is a cluster determined? And if there is a cluster in the community, especially in the business community, what types of organizations are subject to public notification? Is it restaurants? Is it retail? Is it healthcare providers? How do they define that? I've been getting a lot of questions about that type of thing, questions like that. How does a communication work between the Board of Health and businesses? Are the businesses given information from the Board of Health as to what is expected? How is this communicated? Are businesses getting information via email? Is it a periodic email from the Board of Health? We need to know how that's being communicated. I'm sure it's being communicated, or I hope it's being communicated, but we need a clear indication of exactly how it's being communicated to the business community. And last but not least, I know there was an event this weekend at the Chevalier Theater. And I think they had about 250 people at the theater. And my question I guess is, did the Board of Health approve that event? I'm not sure how that works, but I think that we need to get answers on that. Did they approve the event? And it sounds like towards the end of the event, it was modified. So it became, I think the person that was performing was supposed to be singing in public, on the stage. And Councilor, Vice President Caraviello, you might be able to explain this further, but I think that last minute- They had them perform in the green room.
[Caraviello]: They were operating about at 10% capacity, and they had all the safety protocols in advance. And I think at the last minute, either the Board of Health or the Department of Health stepped in and made them change to I think the band was on stage, but the actual performer performed in another room. So he was on like a screen in front of the 250 people that were in the auditorium. So I don't know if that was either through our Board of Health or the Department of Health made that recommendation, I can't-.
[Falco]: And that's a clarification I'd like to receive. I think if I could amend the paper further to find out who approved the event originally and Who requested the modifications to the event? I mean, from what I could tell from the research I did, I think the tickets went on sale in October, and the event was, I believe it was December 4th, I think this past Saturday.
[Caraviello]: And it sounded like- I think it was three or four shows.
[Falco]: Okay. And the event changed, I think, right beforehand. So if we could get some clarification on that, I'd greatly appreciate it. I thank Councilor Bearst for bringing this forward and move approval.
[Bears]: Mr. President, if I may, and I support all of those amendments, and that was actually kind of more my intent with this next resolution, but I'm happy to have an amendment on this resolution wherever it needs to be. What does enforcement mean? That's really the question I have here, you know, and it's, I'm going to talk more about it on the next item, but there's just rumors and and I think we've all seen some of the less factual ones that seem to have been out there recently. We need clarity. What does enforcement mean? How is that being communicated? And is it being administered equitably across everyone in the community? So I support Councilor Falco's amendments, and that's my intent with both this resolution and the next resolution. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Any questions? On the motion by Councilor Bears, as amended by Councilor Falco. Seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Marks. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello, actually you gotta go last. Councilor Knight? Yes. Thank you. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco? because you got to- Vice President Caraviello?
[Caraviello]: There we go. 7th affirmative. Motion passes.
[Falco]: While I'm on the council floor, it would be okay to suspend the rules and take a few resolutions out of order.
[Caraviello]: Yes. On the motion by Councilor Falco to suspend the rules. Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. The clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? No.
[Knight]: Councilor Knight? What's this, a motion to table the rest of the agenda? Absolutely not. It's to suspend the rules.
[Caraviello]: While President Falco is on the floor, on the podium, he has two resolutions on hand.
[Knight]: You know he's on the floor. No.
[Hurtubise]: I'm not. All right. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Falco.
[Caraviello]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, two in the negative. Motion passes.
[Falco]: 2-0-668.
[Caraviello]: 2-0-668 offered by President Falco to be resolved that the DPW install mock parking spaces on Governor's Avenue from the intersection of Governor's Ave to High Street, the Terrace Road in the interest of public safety. President Falco.
[Falco]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I've received a number of calls from business owners down in Bedford Square regarding the parking on Governor's Ave and how it's become quite dangerous throughout the day and cars just kind of parking anywhere. Just in the interest of public safety, if we could have marked spots, parking spaces on Governor's Ave from the bottom of Governor's Ave and High Street up to Terrace Road in the interest of public safety. And if this could be forwarded to the Traffic Commission for their approval as well. Move approval.
[Knight]: Councilor Knight. Are these parking spots right now, are they business only, Mr. President? I think just regular parking. Just regular parking?
[Caraviello]: I don't even think they're marked.
[Knight]: They're not marked.
[Falco]: It's just wide open. There's one, I believe, handicapped spot in front of Zero Governors Ave. Two the most, but I know there's at least one.
[Knight]: Is it the sponsor's intention to reserve these spaces just for business permits? No.
[Falco]: It's basically just, for me, it's just public safety. It's just, from what I'm hearing, it's just out of control.
[Knight]: People can't park, so they need lines?
[Falco]: Yeah, so cars have specific spots. Right now it just seems like it's a free for all.
[Knight]: Yes, Mr. President, I vote in favor of this.
[Falco]: Thank you very much for your support.
[Caraviello]: The motion of President Falco, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Councilor Marks is absent. Councilor Morell?
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes.
[Caraviello]: Six in affirmative, one absent, motion passes. 20669 offered by President Falco, be it resolved that the DPW remove the trash in between the address of 205 and 243 Felsway West in the interest of public safety. President Falco.
[Falco]: Thank you, President Caraviello. During my walk, I noticed there was a lot of trash in between the addresses. there's a few wooded lots on the Felsway and it was everything from mattresses to computer parts. And thank you to the DPW. I think they removed almost all of it, but I walked by the other day and I think there's like a small like box spring that's still there. So if that could, if that could be removed. as soon as possible. I greatly appreciate it. It just, it really makes the area look really rundown. So if we could just kind of keep that clean and if the DPW could attend to that as soon as possible, greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I took the liberty of looking at the property database and all of those lots are privately owned. None of them are owned by the city of Medford or state agencies. So I'd like to make an amendment if acceptable that DPW at least explore I don't know what our options are here, but yeah, well, yeah, there you go. That's the, that's the phrase I was looking for. Explore the liens on, on their tax bills to address the condition of the property and the fact that the city had to come in and clean it up. Thank you.
[Knight]: Approval is amended.
[Caraviello]: The motion by President Falco is amended by Councilor Bears, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Knight]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: President Falco?
[Knight]: Yes. Vice President Ferriero? Yes. Seven in the affirmative. Motion passes. We're under suspension, Mr. President. The records?
[Bears]: Motion to revert to the regular order of business.
[Falco]: Motion to revert to the regular order of business by Councilor Bears, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice President Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knight. Councilor Marks?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. 20-664 offered by Council of Mayors be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the city administration provide a written and verbal update to the Medford City Council no later than the December 15th meeting of the Medford City Council regarding enforcement of the COVID-19 health and safety rules and regulations at local businesses or large private residential gatherings. And generally the city will pursue civil or criminal investigations of alleged violations of COVID-19 health and safety rules and regulations. Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Very similar to the discussion we were just having. I think it's really important. especially given the surge in cases and as we've seen rumors flying about across the city about various clusters. What is the city's policy around enforcement? How is it being enforced? And I'm not encouraging or discouraging any specific type of enforcement. I just think it's very important that residents know what the city is doing around health and safety rules and regulations. I think the most important thing is that we're helping people to understand the rules and regulations and how they can be followed before any violations occur. But obviously, if messages are going out with organizations being named or people being named, I think it's important that that policy is a blanket policy and applies equitably to any situation or any case where such a communication is deemed necessary. And I'd also like to know if there's anything ongoing. I know that the word investigations has been thrown around a little bit recently. That's the motion. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Knight]: I'd like to offer a B paper, Mr. President, on this. I mean, it builds right upon what Councilor Bears is talking about. It's the narrative and the spin that's put on certain issues. I'm offering a B paper asking what the criteria is for a robocall. Over this past week, we all got robocalls concerning certain business establishments in this community. That was the only robocall I ever got about a business establishment. I've never heard about any other establishments ever in this community that have ever had any type of outbreak or any type of contract tracing. So it's very concerning to me, Mr. President, especially based upon the current circumstances in the economy. where one out of five is unemployed, where we're seeing a lot of small businesses closing. I think sometimes taking a deep breath and thinking a little bit before speaking makes a lot of sense. I know I'm certainly guilty of not doing that a lot of the time. But ultimately, I'd like to know what the criteria that's being used is for a robocall. notification to the community relative to COVID clusters. Is there a policy or a protocol? Is it just, you know, when I feel like doing it, I'm going to do it or what? I mean, because I think that, you know, every action has a reaction and the reaction that the community has can be very damaging to small businesses if our ducks aren't in a row and our facts are not accurate.
[Falco]: Thank you. Councilor Knight. Any questions from the council? Concerns, any comments, anything online? No. So we'll take the B paper first, offered by Councilor Knight on the B paper. Offered by Councilor Knight, seconded by? Councilor Scarpelli, 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 Falco.
[Falco]: Yes. Seven affirmative, zero negative. The motion passes. Unmanned motion offered by Councilor Bears, seconded by Councilor Morell.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice President Caraviello. Yes. 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. 20-666 offered by Councilor Bears and Councilor Morell be resolved at the Medford City, be it resolved by the Medford City Council.
[Bears]: You skipped 665, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Very good. Thank you. If we're putting me at the end, I'm sorry. The note, um, two zero dash six, six, five offered by council appears. Whereas nearly 2000 Method residents have tested positive for COVID-19 in hundreds of sadly died due to the disease. Now, therefore be it resolved by the method city council council that the city administration established a commission for the construction of a COVID-19 memorial in the city of Medford, be it further resolved that the commission, that this commission can begin to meet after the conclusion of the COVID-19 state of emergency, but may meet earlier at the discretion of the city administration. Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think one of the greatest tragedies of this pandemic is that we haven't been able to mourn people that we've lost either to COVID-19 or to other, you know, causes of death during this pandemic. And from what we know from past incidents like this, and there's actually been very little that's happened as quickly as this has, the COVID-19 death rate is faster on a daily basis than any war in the history of the United States. The Civil War is an example of a very similar lack of being able to mourn, and it impacted people's lives for a very long time. So the intent here is that we would have a memorial of some kind to the pandemic, to the people who we've lost, and also to people, I think, who may suffer the rest of their lives due to the disease. But I don't want to, say, put any timelines on that. I was hoping that we would be discussing this, you know, maybe closer to being on a path to vaccination and on the other side of this pandemic. But I, you know, I put it forward as the idea has been discussed and come up. And I think it's just important that we acknowledge that it's something that we want to do as a community to acknowledge and give ourselves some space to mourn this collective tragedy once the pandemic restrictions are lifted. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Peers.
[Knight]: I don't want to remember this, I want to forget it.
[Falco]: Would any Councilors like to speak on this? Okay. Anyone here? No one has a hand up. Okay. On the motion of Councilor Peers, seconded by? Councilor Morell. Clerk Carter please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears?
[Bears]: I'm sorry, yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello? No. Councilor Knight? No. Councilor Marks?
[SPEAKER_22]: No.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell?
[Ellen Brideau]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? No. President Falco? Four, three.
[Falco]: Four in the affirmative, three in the negative. The motion passes. 20666 offered by Councilor Bears and Councilor Morell. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the Board of Health and Office of Energy and Environment establish a policy that restaurants and other eating establishments only provide plastic utensils, straws, and stirrers upon request of the customer. Councilor Beres.
[Bears]: I would be happy to defer to Councilor Morell. Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I know it's 11 p.m. on the dot and you guys don't want to hear me talk about plastics, forks and knives right now, but I agree with Councilor Bears that this is important. The pandemic will recede, but the amount of single use and disposable items that has vastly increased because of the pandemic will not be gone anytime soon. We can't avoid the use of PPE, but there are things like plastic utensils that They take about a thousand years to break down if they ever do. And I know many of us come home with plastic utensils from the takeout of restaurants in the area that we're trying to support that we simply don't need. We have utensils at home. So I think it's just a common sense resolution that just to minimize the amount of these that go out in takeaway bags that people may never use and just put in their drawers at home and eventually throw away and they end up in a landfill and never break down. So I move approval on this kind of common sense measure.
[Falco]: On the motion of Councilor Morell, Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: And I would just add that it's actually a cost savings to the restaurants and businesses as well, because they're not just giving away these utensils and other materials that they're purchasing and may never be used. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Morell, Councilor Bears, seconded by?
[Knight]: Mr. President. Councilor Knight. I think during these trying times, placing more restrictions and more burdens on businesses and eating establishments is the last thing we should be doing. If I go to Carol's restaurant and I sit down and I want to have something to eat and I say, no, Mari, keep the silverware. I don't want the silverware, I want the plastic. Or I can, plastic by request, I just don't understand it, Mr. President, if they send out a delivery to a house or a work establishment, then they get a phone call, there are no forks and knives, can you bring them back? I mean, it puts an impact on the business. When it comes to cost-saving measures and cost-cutting measures, businesses do a pretty good job policing themselves and regulating themselves. And if this is something that they want to implement, they should. But I just don't think at this point in time, further regulating and further burdening businesses, especially, mostly these are small businesses that do take up business, is the right thing to do at this point in time, Mr. President. So for that reason, I'll be voting no.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Any other questions or comments from the council? Mr. President. Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Is this for take-out only or is it for dine-in take-out? Good question. I'm not quite sure what this applies to.
[Falco]: Could the Council please clarify?
[Bears]: The intent was for take-out and delivery.
[Falco]: Take-out and delivery. Oh, so OK, it's just take-out and delivery only?
[Bears]: Yeah, I mean, I don't. Yes, it was just the idea that sometimes you get 10 forks and knives stuck in a bag, and you don't need them. And if you need them, you could just say, can you add forks and knives to the delivery order is essentially the intent. I mean, given the conditions and also the staff enforcement levels that we are able to operate in the city, I think this would largely be more of a guidance and a suggestion or, you know, I do not think that we will have someone in every restaurant enforcing the, you know, utensil policy with the severe, you know, I think it's more to say, you know, this is something that's easy to do. You may not be doing it. It helps a lot, given the fact that the rise in takeout and delivery is so much higher. You know, there were, when we had full in-restaurant dining, indoor dining, most people were getting silverware at the restaurant, right? Now, a lot more people are doing takeout and delivery instead of eating indoors. So, you know, usually when you get something delivered or you take something out, it comes home, you have silverware at home. Then you have four plastic forks and knives in your bag, too, and they end up being unused or stuffed in a drawer at best, if not just immediately thrown away. So that was the intent of this resolution.
[Falco]: OK, so first of all, do you want to amend the resolution to say take out only?
[Bears]: Sure, I'd be happy to only provide plastic utensils, straws, and stirrers. for takeout and delivery upon the request of the customer.
[Falco]: Mr. President. Yes, let's see, Councilor Marks had the floor, and then Councilor Morell had her hand up. Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: I just want to understand. I think Councilor Bears said this would be for guidance. However, it's asking the Board of Health and the Office of Energy and Environment to establish a policy. Most policies will have some type of enforcement with the policy. So do you anticipate an enforcement onto this policy, or is it guidance? Because they're two completely different things.
[Bears]: I mean, I think functionally a lot of our policies are not enforced fully. That was just a statement that I was making in general, because we don't have the resources to do that. If changing the word policy to guidance would make Councilors more amenable to moving this forward, I personally would be happy to do that. Thank you.
[Marks]: Well, I'm not sure, Mr. President, if we currently don't have enough resources, why would we add on another administrative responsibility if we don't have enough resources right now to control what we have? I just don't know what this is getting at, Mr. President. If I'm at work and I order a cup of soup and it arrives and there's no spoon, that's a concern, Mr. President. And I guess we take for granted that a restaurant, if I'm doing takeout, is going to put the necessary things in the bag so I can consume my food. And part of that may be a straw, a napkin, whatever it might be. And so I'm not quite sure what this is getting at. Is this COVID related or is this outside of COVID? I don't know what this is getting at.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I mean, this is in direct response to just the increase of single-use plastics that's come as a result of COVID. There's a lot of, you know, unfortunately the meals that are not being had inside of restaurants are being replaced, thankfully, by takeout. And there's just, it's so much more plastic that does come with a cost. It comes with a cost to all of us. It comes with a cost to future Councilors introducing resolutions when these forks and spoons are on the felsway dumped in someone's yard and we want to have them cleaned up. I mean, I think it's, this is actually a fairly, some ordering services, this is a common selection. You can select whether or not to have utensils. I know a few establishments I frequent in Medford actually do have this option, and it would be something that, again, just guidance, I imagine this is guidance as well, but something that when you're placing an order, someone on the phone says, okay, do you need utensils with that, as opposed to just, Throwing a fistful in but again, this is not something that we have the ability to really It's not something we really have the ability to enforce, of course, but I think having guidance that people can look to and say, okay, this is probably just a way to minimize waste. I think it's, is there a direct response to the way the pandemic has reshaped the, and really to push back a lot of advances we have made in reusables and now has really increased the amount of plastic trash we're seeing, you know, as a community globally, everywhere. Thank you.
[Marks]: Mr. President. Just if I could, I'm a little confused. If it's something we can't enforce, then why are we asking to a border health and the energy environment office to establish a policy? If it's something we can't enforce and then only to only provide plastic utensils upon request. So you're asking businesses, not to provide this unless someone asks you. So I don't understand how they're saying in one point it's, you know, it's only, you know, it's, it's, it's just guidance, but they want a policy that surrounds it. and I assume a policy, you know, to me, the better approach would be if this is a cause and something you're interested in, why not approach the Chamber of Commerce and ask the Chamber of Commerce, hey, you know what, we're concerned about the plastic utensils and the number of utensils that are given out and I share a lot of those concerns. But I'm not sure a legislative enactment or a policy has to be the way to go about getting the word out in the community. You may have businesses owners that would love to save money, because they're very expensive, by the way. And they may love to save money on that, but I'm not sure this is the appropriate way of doing this, Mr. President. And we heard for a long period of time about doing away with straws. Now it's stirrers, plastic utensils. I just think there's a better way of doing this, Mr. President. Therefore, I cannot support this tonight. Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. We have Councilor Knight and Councilor Bears. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: I was just going to ask if Mr. Costas was still on the call from the Chamber of Commerce, Mr. President, but I think he goes to bed at 930.
[Falco]: He's not with us any longer.
[Bears]: Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Bears?
[Bears]: I'd be happy to propose that I amend the words a policy to guidance.
[Falco]: Guidance? So you have guidance and takeout only. Takeout and delivery only. Yes. OK. have a motion to approve.
[Knight]: I have the floor, Sir. So there was there was a couple of a couple of amendments that were put forth.
[Falco]: Let me check with the clerk. It's buffered by both, right?
[Morell]: Yeah, because I moved approval because I moved approval and then Councilor Bears wanted to speak. So I kind of jumped the gun on moving approval. So I very rudely moved approval before he could speak.
[Bears]: Is there a second? Okay, so technically under Robert's rules, once discussion has occurred, there is a second. I'm just saying that technically under Robert's rules, once discussion has occurred, it functions as a second.
[Falco]: So I have a, the consular morale did move approval, but I don't have, I don't have a second in my notes. So, and the clerk doesn't have a second either. Okay.
[Knight]: We can put it on file. You just take a vote on it. Either way.
[Falco]: The motion is Councilor Morell, seconded by Councilor Bears, as amended by Councilor Bears twice. Clerk Herbies, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? No. Councilor Knight? No. Councilor Marks? No. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? No. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. 3 in the affirmative, 4 in the negative. The motion fails. 20-667, offered by Council of Bears, Chapter 49, Housing.
[Bears]: Mr. President, motion to waive the reading. I would be happy to provide a brief summary. Prior, I was also going to make a motion to send it to the solicitor for review before holding a committee of the whole meeting. But I would be happy to provide a brief summary if.
[Falco]: Please do so.
[Bears]: Essentially, back in January, I filed a paper requesting that the city solicitor develop a framework for an ordinance around regulations for short-term rentals. The Acts of 2018 by the Massachusetts General Court, the Mass General Laws, allow the city to implement regulations around short-term rentals, including a registry. This would complement the vote we took earlier this year to charge an excise tax to short-term rental properties in the community. I based this ordinance, which is pretty lengthy, as you can see, both on the solicitor's framework as well as ordinances in Boston and Salem But I did, I think, strike a balance different from both of those ordinances in this proposed ordinance for sake of time and the fact that this is one of the last things on the agenda. I would make a motion to send this draft to the solicitor for review and then hold a committee of the whole with the building commissioner, finance director, community development director, and city solicitor after it has been reviewed. Mr. President, similar papers are already in the ordinance committee.
[Falco]: Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Why would we send a draft ordinance to the city solicitor for review?
[Scarpelli]: I haven't seen it.
[Marks]: Why would we have a city solicitor look at a seven page draft ordinance that hasn't been looked at by this council, no recommendations by this council, no public meeting by this council, other than the fact that it paid off this agenda. Why would we send this paper to the city solicitor for review? Review of what? Review of this language? Is the city solicitor now part of this council? I mean, I don't understand. I don't understand putting the seven-page ordinance on, Mr. President, because we have ways of initiating subjects, Mr. President, for this council. But, hey, that could be, you know, I'm not going to criticize that, but why would we send a paper to the city solicitor? It makes zero sense at all. I would like to provide some answers.
[Knight]: Councilor Marks, I'll answer that. The reason I offered the motion was because in 2017, in 2019, in 2020, we've tasked the city solicitor with drafting an ordinance relative to short-term rentals in the community. Between 2017 and 2019, there was a series of litigation events and other regulatory parameters that were established that created a criteria that would now allow a community to do this. So I know I've sent the solicitor's office at least 50 pages worth of documentation, a white page report on best practices on how to regulate short-term rentals and the like. And in the last discussion that we had with the city solicitor, it was that she was working on a draft, still to date, I do believe. And the reason to send this to her would be to have her review it and contrast it with what she has already worked on to see if there's any items in here that might be left out and then present it back to the council for us to review.
[Marks]: That seems like a convoluted way of going about this. It really does. I know I appreciate your response, but that seems like we're the legislative body. So if this is language that we want to attain, we should send it to committee, the whole subcommittee, take a look at it, review it. It just doesn't make sense, especially now knowing that the city solicitor may be working on an ordinance at this council's request and then giving her another seven pages, saying take a look at this, unless we think she's doing nothing all day. It just makes no sense to me.
[Falco]: It just makes no sense.
[Marks]: Mr. President?
[Falco]: I know that, if I may really quickly, I know that the city solicitor is quite busy. Is that Jonathan? And I know that, I believe Councilor Knight, you were saying you had an ordinance similar to this.
[Knight]: The ordinance subcommittee just met, what was it, last month and we prioritized several papers that were in there. The first paper I believe was, we had food trucks, we had sick leave bank, we had short term rentals, we had small cell wireless towers were the four top items that we discussed. There might have been one other in there out of the five, but you know, right there at the top of the iceberg from important items that the subcommittee was going to be working on to put out as a work product to this committee of the whole as well. So with that being said, maybe we send it to the subcommittee that's working on that as well. And we could take some of the ideas that are in this and contrast it with what the city solicitor gives us when she does.
[Falco]: That's what I was going to recommend is that when it comes back, then reconcile the two and see what's missing and see if there's something that should be put in.
[Bears]: I understand that Councilor Knight has introduced resolutions on this as well. The item discussed in the ordinance subcommittee, while I'm not a member of the subcommittee, I believe was the paper we received from the city solicitor outlining a draft framework for a short-term rental ordinance, which is what this council requested in January. As I was the filer of that request, and then we received a draft framework, which in my opinion was still very It was more a list of questions than a framework. My assumption from that was that that was the product of the solicitor. And so I went ahead using that framework and other ordinances to draft a draft ordinance. I'm not a member of the ordinances subcommittee. And my intent here, I'd be happy to strip out sending it to the solicitor review and just have a committee of the whole on this. That's fine. She was part of the process that I initiated with my motion. She sent a framework. I developed a draft based on that framework. I did not think it would be unreasonable to send that back to her, considering that she's been part of this chain of events, but I would be happy to adjust my motion just to have a committee of the whole on this matter with the people I suggested.
[Falco]: So Councilor Bears, is your motion to move this to committee of the whole for further review?
[Bears]: Sure, yes.
[Falco]: On that motion, seconded by... Second. Councilor Rao. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: I do believe when the paper was initially introduced in January, Mr. President, and the clerk may be able to take a look in the records if he hasn't before him, the prior paper was joined to it.
[Falco]: Which one?
[Knight]: The prior paper was joined.
[Marks]: What prior paper are you referring to?
[Knight]: The paper from the previous session that we were working on.
[Falco]: That's what I'm thinking of. I remember there was one that dated a while back.
[Knight]: Yeah. The paper from the previous session was joined to it. And now the paper from the previous session still remains in the subcommittee. And it's never been reported out of the subcommittee. And the reason it hasn't been reported out of the subcommittee is because we're waiting for the information from the city solicitor's office.
[Marks]: So maybe that's what needs to be had rather than... You know, we can entertain new language, but this seems like it's... asking for its own separate process. And I think, you know, it's, I don't know. Second.
[Falco]: Is the motion already on the floor?
[Bears]: I just, if I may, I do not care what process we go through. I want to achieve this goal, which we've been trying to achieve for a while. I'm happy to do that in any way that my fellow Councilors want to do. I think that this language reflects good research, and it could be a good baseline. I have not seen a proposed ordinance based on the Medford Code of Ordinances. That's why I took the liberty of drafting this as a councilor. And I did not mean any ill intent by proposing it on this agenda, or to subvert any existing processes, or erase any existing motions. So if the council thinks that the Subcommittee on Ordinances is the place to discuss this, that's fine. I don't know how I will be able to have input on that discussion, but that's fine with me, too. I just want to get something done. So I will withdraw my motion in favor of the motion on the subcommittee on ordinances. But there's no subterfuge here. This is just language and research that I did and wrote out to put before the council to try to advance this issue forward. I think it's reasonable. I think it's balanced. I think upon further review, people will find that this is a good approach for the city and reflects the prior motions that have been made around the issue. Thank you.
[Falco]: So, Councilor Bears, are you okay with withdrawing that motion and sending it to the subcommittee on ordinances?
[Bears]: Yes, Mr. President. I truly did not think these would be the three controversial issues of the night.
[Marks]: No one's saying it's controversial. We're just saying there's an order of how we do business, Mr. President. If we're discussing an item already in subcommittee or committee of the whole, and to reintroduce something different, Mr. President, on the floor is not how we operate as a council. That's all that's being said. That's not how we operate, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. So Councilor Bears has withdrawn his motion to send it to committee of the whole. A motion of Councilor Bears to send it to the subcommittee of ordinances for further review. Seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Knight? Ms. Councilor Knight, did you second? Yes. OK. On that motion, clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. There's no one on line there. Yes. Vice President Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: President Falco.
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes.
[Knight]: Motion to table subcommittee reports for the next meeting, Mr. President.
[Falco]: On the motion of council night to table the subcommittee reports for the next meeting. Seconded by Councilor Morell. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes, 70 affirmative, zero in the negative. Subcommittee reports the table to the next meeting. Public participation, Andrew Castagnetti, who was with us earlier. He is not with us right now. But he did speak earlier, so maybe that's... On the motion of Council on 8 to receive a place of file, seconded by... Actually, we don't need to take action on that. Mr. President, you're correct. Okay. Last but not least, the records. The records... On the meeting of September 1st, 2020, we're passed to Councilor Bears. Councilor Bears, how did you find those records?
[Bears]: I found the records adequate, and there's approval.
[Falco]: Second. On the motion of Councilor Bears, seconded by Councilor Knight, to approve the records. We're going to be following along.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. 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.
[Bears]: Motion to adjourn.
[Falco]: I have a motion by Councilor Bears to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Vice President Caraviello. Floor attorneys, please come to the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, adjourned the negative. The motion passes. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Good night. Be safe and healthy.
|
total time: 45.56 minutes total words: 6582  |
total time: 8.3 minutes total words: 1638  |
total time: 23.3 minutes total words: 4894  |
total time: 2.55 minutes total words: 421  |
|
total time: 7.46 minutes total words: 1128  |
total time: 13.0 minutes total words: 2012  |
total time: 40.96 minutes total words: 6305  |
total time: 21.01 minutes total words: 3720  |