[Falco]: The 31st regular meeting of the Medford City Council will now come to order. Board of Trustees, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears?
[Bears]: Present.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello? Present. Councilor Knight?
[Knight]: Present.
[Hurtubise]: Thank you. Councilor Marks? Present. Councilor Morell? Present. Councilor Scarpelli? Present. President Falco?
[Falco]: Present. All seven members of the president at this point in time, I'd ask everyone to please rise to salute the flag.
[Marks]: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[Falco]: Yes, one minute please. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law, General Law, Chapter 38, Section 18, and the Governor's March 15, 2020 order imposing strict limitation on the number of people that may gather in one place. This meeting of the Manfred City Council will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. specific information and the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and or parties with the right and or requirement to attend this meeting can be found on the City of Medford website at www.medfordma.org. For this meeting members of the public who wish to listen. or watch the meeting may do so by accessing the meeting link contained herein. No in-person attendance 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. To participate remotely outside of Zoom, please email our city clerk, Adam Hurtubise at A-H-U-R-T-U-B-I-S-E at medford-ma.gov. On the motion of Councilor Knight to suspend the rule, seconded by? Second. Councilor Marks. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: What were the papers again? Councilor Knight. Sorry. Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Senate affirmative, zero in the negative. The rules are now suspended. petitions, presentations, and similar papers. 20-616, petition for common vigilance license by Scott Cullinane, 6 Thomas Street, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. For Medford, Malden, Elks, number 915, 19 Washington Street, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. On file, business certificate number 187, buildings department, fire department, police traffic impact, health department, letter of compliance, state tax ID, workman's compensation, petition, and treasurer. At this point, I recognize the chair of the licensing subcommittee, Councilor Scarpell.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I see that everything is in order that Mr. Cullen has put forth. If he could just give us a quick synopsis and then we can move to our colleagues, if anybody has any questions before we move forward. Okay.
[Falco]: Mr. Cullen.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yes.
[Falco]: We just need you to name and address for the record and then Councilor Scarpelli, I'm sorry, did you want a brief?
[Scarpelli]: Yeah, if you just give us just what we're trying, what we're looking to put forth here with the- Right, so Scott Cullinane, 122 Lincoln Road.
[SPEAKER_05]: George was trying to open up with being a restaurant. So we got our food license last week and we were going to sell food to any person that wants to come into the lodge. Just so we can start getting some money back.
[Scarpelli]: Okay. Yeah, well, I see everything in order, Mr. President, so I move forward in approval. I have no other questions. Second.
[Falco]: Okay, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Bears. Are there any other questions from the council?
[Knight]: Mr. President, if I may. I think it's important that we point out the good work that the Medford Mall, the 915 Elks does here in the community. When the city hall was being renovated, they donated their parking lot. Every flag day, they have a flag day celebration. Every Memorial Day, they help decorate the graves down at the cemetery. They do a great job decorating our war memorials here throughout the community as well. And the Elks actually gives out more scholarships nationwide than the federal government does, Mr. President. They're the largest private organization that issues college scholarships in the United States of America. But the Medford Mall and Elks have always been a great partner here in the city of Medford, and I thank them for the work that they do, and I will support this paper wholeheartedly.
[Falco]: Thank you very much. Councilor Ntuk, they also have a great free-throw shooting contest every year for the youth of our community, so thank you very much for everything you do. On the motion- Mr. President, before you call- Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. If we could just get, what type of food will be sold and what are the hours that the food will be sold?
[Falco]: Oh, there you go.
[SPEAKER_05]: So the menu that was sent into The order help was burgers, hot dogs, chicken wings, fries, onion rings. I think you're even going to have stuffed clams, frozen pizza. And that's what we're starting with. And we're going to see how it goes. In the hours, right now, we're just going to be Thursday to Sunday, like a soft opening, to see who's going to come back. And if it's worth staying open, then maybe we can start opening up for those other days.
[Marks]: All right. I wish you good luck. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_05]: Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Any other questions from the council? Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: I also think it's important to point out, Mr. President, that this will allow the Elks to begin their function hall business again where they're not allowing entities to come into function halls and do buffets and stuff like that. The Elks will have the opportunity to begin renting out their function halls based upon the capacity requirements that have been established by the Board of Health and then offer their own food stuff there instead of having an outside entity come in to do that. So I think this is something that will help them with their business and their revenues during these trying times.
[Falco]: Thank you. Good point, Councilor Knight. Any other questions? Okay. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Bears, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Ferrarino?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. Congratulations and good luck.
[SPEAKER_05]: Thank you very much.
[Falco]: Thank you. Have a good night.
[SPEAKER_05]: You too.
[Falco]: Thank you. Next item. Key one nine dash six six zero motions under motions, orders and resolutions. This is the promote, prevent, support behavioral health commission being ordained by the city council of the city of Medford. Chapter X of the ordinances of the City of Medford, as most recently amended, is hereby further amended to insert the following after the present article, the following article. Promote, prevent, support Behavioral Health Commission. The purpose, to monitor, track, inform, and make recommendations to city officials and policy makers in the City of Medford about behavioral health data, issues, needs, and efforts within the city. The Medford promote, prevent, support Behavioral Health Commission shall, build community partnerships and collaboration amongst providers, social services organizations, and city government to identify and address the social determinants of health, social, environmental, and economic challenges that contribute to poor behavioral health, poor behavioral mental health and substance use outcomes. Serve as an advisory board to the city on all matters dealing with behavioral health and make recommendations to address needs such as evidence-based practices, programs, and systems. environmental or policy changes to prevent behavioral health disorders and promote behavioral health and wellness. Set overall community-wide goals and create a strategic plan for achieving mental and emotional well-being for all residents of Medford. Be the clearinghouse and repository for behavioral health programming and plans within the city to ensure efforts are purposeful and aligned with overall strategic planning goals. Behavioral health is a state of mental and emotional being and or choices in actions that affect wellness. Substance abuse and misuse are one set of behavioral health problems. Others include, but are not limited to, serious psychological distress, suicide, and mental illness, SAMHSA 2011. Specific goals may be approved by the commission as it seeks to fulfill.
[Knight]: Mr. President, motion to waive the remainder of the reading. I believe the purpose section gave a good outline as to what this ordinance will do.
[Falco]: Okay, on the motion of Councilor Knight to waive the reading.
[Hurtubise]: Second.
[Falco]: Seconded by Councilor Bears. Clerk, can I please call the roll?
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco? Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. 7 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative. The motion passes. On the motion.
[Knight]: Mr. President, a motion to adopt the additional comments for review as amendments to the paper. Second.
[Falco]: On that motion by Councilor Knight. Mr. President. On the motion by Councilor Knights, seconded by Councilor Bears, we have Councilor Scarpelli, and then Council Marks, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. During this very difficult time, one of the things we're hearing are the fears and concerns of what's happening with people that are really still being sheltered in their homes and looking at the different how to handle some of these serious issues. And the quickly we can push this ordinance forward and establish this committee, I think it would be so beneficial right now for our community especially. And making sure that mental health and other concerns that we see with substance abuse are really forefront and we have a group that would do that. We do have a wonderful group right now with Penny that's leading us, but as you move ordinance forward, it really puts some teeth into it. And I think this is a great step in the right direction. So whichever way we can move this quicker through, I would support it wholeheartedly. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor. Scarpelli, Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Last time we met to discuss this ordinance, there were a number of recommendations made and voted on by this council. Of which I proposed under the representation section that a behavioral health specialist from Lawrence Memorial Hospital and a behavioral health specialist from Tufts University be part of the membership of the commission. And I don't see that language incorporated, Mr. President, that was voted on by the council.
[Falco]: You are correct. That was voted on by the council.
[Marks]: And I think, I don't know if Councilor Bears had one also.
[Hurtubise]: Can I address that? Clerk Hurtubise. I have to get the committee report to the solicitor. I think that's the issue. I don't think, I mean, I know that she was at the meeting, but I don't know that she's been able to incorporate the changes. I'll make sure she gets a copy of the committee report.
[Marks]: So what do we ask to vote on tonight?
[Falco]: So on the motion of Council, I think this needs to be tabled until we get, thank you for calling this out. It seems that this here has a couple of edits that still need to be made. I'm wondering if maybe the solicitor maybe made some of the corrections off of her notes.
[Marks]: I second the motion to table by Councilor Knight.
[Falco]: Incorporate everything. So on the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Marks to table this, Clerk Urbis, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice President Riviello.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Feldman.
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. This item is tabled.
[Marks]: Motion to refer back to regular order of business. Second.
[Falco]: On the motion of Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Bears to refer back to the regular order of business. Clerk Burnaby, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Falco]: Yes, I mean the affirmative, zero in the negative. Motion passes. We will now revert to the regular order of business. Hearings, 20-569, City of Medford notice of a public hearing. A public hearing via Zoom, remote video conferencing on Tuesday evening, October 27th, 2020 at 7 p.m. on a petition from Luis Rodriguez of Luz Auto Works of 134,000. Mr. Gavin effort for class for auto repair use special permit in accordance with Chapter 94 zoning ordinance of the city of Medford section 94-148 D table of use regulations automobile uses 37 for permission to operate its automotive repair establishment at 134 Mystic Avenue. Medford, Massachusetts, a commercial 2C2 zoning district. The Zoom link for this meeting will be posted no later than October 23rd, 2020. Petition and plan may be seen in the office of the City Clerk. Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts. Call 781-393-2425 for any accommodations and or aids. TDD 781-393-2516. The City of Medford is an EEO AA 504 employer. by order of the Method City Council. Signed by Anna Malher to be City Clerk. This was advertised in the Method transcript on October 8th and October 15th. At this point, I declare a public hearing open. Open to those in favor of the petition. I believe I saw Mr. Rodriguez out here. Mr. Rodriguez, if we could please have your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_10]: Louis Rodriguez, 117 Willis Avenue, Malden, Massachusetts.
[Falco]: Okay, and you are in favor of the petition?
[SPEAKER_10]: Yes.
[Falco]: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in favor of the petition that would like to speak? Mr. Clerk, I don't see anyone in favor. Did you want to make sure I'm not missing anyone?
[Hurtubise]: I do not see anyone in favor.
[Falco]: Hearing and seeing none, I declare this portion of the hearing closed. Anyone in opposition to the petition? Anyone in opposition? Is there anyone in opposition that'd like to speak on this matter? Court Kirby's, I don't see anyone on this one either.
[Hurtubise]: I do not either.
[Falco]: Okay, hearing and seeing none, I declare this portion of the hearing closed. Are there any questions from the council?
[Knight]: Mr. President, is this a change of use or is this just a new business going in with the same use that's already existing?
[Falco]: Mr. Rodriguez, could you clarify? Councilor Knight has a question.
[SPEAKER_10]: It's a new business.
[Knight]: So you will not be doing the same type of work that Libby's Auto was doing?
[SPEAKER_10]: I'm sorry, doing the same type of work, yes.
[Knight]: Okay, so yeah, just you're going to be, you're still selling pizzas, you're just selling it under a different name, right? Yes, yes, exactly. I have no problem with it, Mr. President, we'll approve.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Chairperson of licensing, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: If Mr. Rodriguez could just clarify what the difference of class four automotive repair is. What is the classification, what is it meant when it's class four automotive repair?
[SPEAKER_10]: Why is it class four? What is class four?
[Falco]: What is class four, the definition class four?
[SPEAKER_10]: I'm not sure. That's what I was told I had to apply for. Okay.
[Falco]: Clerk Hurtubise, would you know the definition of class four auto repair?
[Hurtubise]: I don't know the specific definition, but it's one of the uses that requires a special permit by the council.
[Marks]: The trucks, does he work on trucks?
[Scarpelli]: That's my question. Mr. Falco.
[Marks]: Paint? No. Do you paint trucks?
[SPEAKER_10]: No, no.
[Marks]: No painting?
[Scarpelli]: No. Is it heavy trucks, 16 wheels? No. I'm sorry?
[Falco]: No, it's not heavy trucks.
[Scarpelli]: Okay, all right, because that was the question I did have with the traffic study. Some communities, we've seen huge traffic issues with people that permit the auto repair that go to a different class, meaning 16 wheelers. And you see them being parked on main roads and So that's why I wanted to get distinguished. So as long as you're telling me it's not, it's just a regular car repair business, I'd support that. But if it does, if it is for 16 wheelers and bigger, I think that I'd have a question with some safety issues and traffic issues, so thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor. Scarpelli, Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, this is a small garage that was operated by Bob Libby for probably the last 30, 40 years that I can remember. And again, I think it's just about, it's a small garage, I think one day, that's really about it. So just a small auto repair that he's purchasing from Bob Libby. And I don't think he's doing anything different than Bob Libby was doing.
[Falco]: Okay, thank you, Vice President Caraviello. Any other questions from the council? None. Okay, any questions here? Okay. No hands raised. Okay, on the motion of Council Knight, seconded by- Second. Councilor Scarpelli. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Council Bears.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Council Knight.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Stracchelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. Let's see, Mr. Rodriguez, congratulations. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. See, Clerk Kurtabees, do we have a representative from National Grid with us?
[Hurtubise]: Hang on just a second. I saw Ms. Cuddy on earlier. Yes, she's on. Hang on a second. Let me unmute her.
[Falco]: Okay. 2-0-6-0-0, petition for grant of location, National Grid Gas Main Locations, Medford, Massachusetts, City Clerk's Office. You are hereby notified that by order of the Medford City Council, the Medford City Council will hold a public hearing via Zoom on October 27, 2020. A link will be posted no later than Friday, October 23rd, 2020, on a petition for Boston Gas DBA National Grid for permission to locate. gas mains as here and described for the transmission of gas in and out of the following public streets, lanes, highways, and places of the city of Medford in of the pipes, valves, governors, manholes, and other structures, pictures, appearances designed or intended to protect or operate said mains and accomplish the objective objects of said company in the digging up and opening the ground to play or play sand. The, to install approximately 1,570 feet of eight-inch plastic gas main in approximately 170 feet of six-inch plastic gas main along Riverside Avenue, including all tie-ins and stubs on associated cross streets, as shown on the plans dated August 20th, 2020, and available for inspection in the city clerk's, in the office of the city clerk, Medford City Hall, room 10385, George P. Hassett Drive, Massachusetts 02155. We afford a praise that after due notice and hearing as provided by law, it is granted a location for in permission to locate gas means as described above for the transmission of gas in and under the above. named streets, lanes, highways, and places of the city of Medford substantially as described in the petition date, August 20th, 2020, and available for inspection in the office of the city clerk, Medford City Hall, room 103, 85 George P. Assett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, and of the pipes, valves, governors, manholes, and other structures, fixtures, and appearances. designed or intended to protect or operate said mains and accomplish the objects of said company in the digging up in opening the ground to lay or play same and hereby consented to in approved. This was approved by the city engineer with the following conditions. The engineering division recommends that the grant of location be approved with the following conditions. Number one, these conditions include minor revisions to the proposed gas main routing. National grid must submit a final revised set to the engineering division prior to release of a street opening permit. This set of drawings must be stamped by a registered professional engineer. Number two, the grant of location, GOL, is limited to approximately 1,570 feet of 8-inch plastic gas main, 170 feet of 6-inch plastic gas main and associated Number three, before starting work, the contractor shall notify DIGSIG and shall obtain all applicable permits from the engineering division. The project must obtain a street opening permit pursuant to section 94-144 of the city ordinances prior to commencing work. At a minimum, the street opening permit application must include a traffic management plan for review and approval. Number four, no other utility structures, conduits, duct banks, pipes, or any other appearances are adversely impacted. National Grid shall ensure that all sewer, water, and drain lines are marked prior to any excavation. Number five, the project site must be swept daily and shall be kept safe of debris for the duration of the installation. Number six, Riverside Avenue is a highly traveled roadway for vehicles as well as pedestrians. A detailed traffic management plan must be submitted to the engineering division for review and approval prior to receiving a street opening permit. The traffic master management plan must include accommodations for pedestrians in addition to vehicles. Number seven, the proposed gas main crosses the stormwater drainage pipes in multiple locations along the route. The drainage pipe shall be video inspected, so the city may evaluate these pipes. Drain pipes that are in poor condition must be replaced by national grid. Number eight, there appears to be locations along the proposed route where the new gas main is laid too close to the... to the Medford 16-inch water main. The new gas main layout should be revised to maintain at least four feet offset from the Medford water main. Isolated locations of reduced encroachment may be allowed with approval by the Water and Sewer Division and Engineering Division. Number nine, the work located at the Locust Street intersection in the Spring Street intersection appears to disturb the traffic detection loops. If the traffic loops are disturbed, they must be replaced in kind and in condition with the superintendent of wires in the engineering division. Number 10, utility relocations that were performed by the MWRA as part of their section 57 project are shown on the plan and appear to be coordinated. National Grid shall confirm utility relocations with the MWRA and revise the plan as needed to eliminate potential conflicts and to provide sufficient offsets. Number 11, at the intersection with Locust Street, there appears to be a gas valve in conflict with the Medford 16-inch water main. The plan should be revised to remove the valve, to move the valve at least four feet from the water main. 12. The scope of the MWRA Section 57 project includes resurfacing and striping this portion of Riverside Avenue. The Engineering Division requests that National Grid contribute the cost of final restoration to other paving in the City. This can be coordinated with the Engineering Division. Number 13, the plan includes work in Linden Street. Linden Street was recently paved. The engineering divisions understood that National Grid completed Linden Street work prior to paving. If this is not the case, then Linden Street must be restored curb to curb for a length of at least 50 feet measured from the near curb line on Riverside Avenue or 10 feet beyond National Grid scope of work, whichever is greater. Number 14, MWR permits are required to perform this work. Copies of the MWRRA permits must be submitted to the engineering division with the street opening permit application. Call 781-393-2501 for any accommodations. and or AIDS, TDD 781-393-2516. For further information, contact the city clerk at 781-393-2425. The city of Medford is an EEOAA 504 employer. By order of the city council, signed by Adam L. Hurtubise, city clerk. I declare this public hearing open, open to those in favor of the petition. Is there anyone, let's see, I believe is it Ms. Cuddy?
[Diana Cuddy]: Hi, if you could just- I'm Diana Cuddy from National Grid, 40 Sylvan Road, Waltham, Mass. Okay, and you are in favor? I'm in favor, yes. We were asked to do this work by MWRA so that they can access some of their infrastructure and do some necessary repairs and replacement. Okay, thank you.
[Falco]: Is there anyone else in favor that would like to speak? in favor of the petition. Anyone else here that would like to speak in favor of this petition? Okay, Clerk Kierkegaard, I don't see anyone else. Okay, hearing and seeing none, I declare this portion of the hearing closed. Anyone in opposition of the petition? Is there anyone in opposition of the petition that would like to speak? Okay, I don't see anyone with their hand up. the hearing and seeing none, I declare this portion of the hearing closed. Are there any questions from the council? Yes, Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was wondering if the petitioner can answer several questions. Does this run the entire length of Riverside Ave?
[Diana Cuddy]: Let's see. It runs from 520 yards. Linden Street to I believe Hall Street and there's a match line here as well as Spring Street to the Cummings Street.
[Marks]: Does it not go up to Locust Street? Let me see, Locust Street.
[Diana Cuddy]: Sorry, I'm working off such a small laptop. Locust, I did see, oh yeah, I'm sorry, you're right, there's another drawing here. It was, it goes from I did see Locust Street in here before.
[Caraviello]: Number 11.
[Falco]: There is a, number nine, there's a mention of Locust Street.
[Diana Cuddy]: I'm sorry. Yeah, this is just such a small amount.
[Falco]: I'm not sure if this helps, but number nine says the work located at the Locust Street intersection and the Spring Street intersection appears to disturb the traffic detection loops.
[Marks]: Right, so I'm just trying to figure out, so does this construction start after 93 on Riverside Ave and go all the way up to Locust Street? Is that roughly the area? No.
[Diana Cuddy]: Let me see here. Let me go back to this other drawing. Actually, it might be in the description here. Scope of work. Riverside Lake Guard Drive to Hall Street. Relay 490 feet of six-inch cast low-pressure main with 1,508 inch plastic, low-pressure gas main. Additionally, relay of 35 feet of six pound bare steel with 70 feet of six inch plastic, 25 pounds per square inch gas, gas main. Seven main connections and approximately 39 services are included based on available records and mapping to be field confirmed.
[Marks]: So the number of feet that's being installed of eight-inch plastic gas main and six-inch plastic gas main is about 1,700 feet. So I'm just trying to figure out how much of Riverside Ave that would cover.
[Diana Cuddy]: Well, in the construction notes, it says Lake Guard Drive to Hall Street. Would that include? The street you had questioned earlier?
[Marks]: Lake Drive starts right across from Spring, right? Hall Street is from Spring to Hall.
[Falco]: That's not that big of an area.
[Marks]: That's not that big of an area.
[Falco]: Yeah, that's 500 yards.
[Marks]: You think that's 500 yards?
[Scarpelli]: Yeah, three feet divided to 1,700.
[Falco]: 1,570 feet.
[Bears]: It's like a quarter mile. Okay, so let me get past that then.
[Marks]: When is the anticipated start date and what's the duration?
[Diana Cuddy]: The anticipated start date is soon. We have the traffic management plan due back to our office the first week in November, and the PE stamp drawing that the city engineer requested. So I expect that next week or the following week, we will be able to apply for a permit. And MWRA is very anxious to get started on this. It's a rather large project. So we have people on hold waiting to go. So pretty soon, I would say.
[Marks]: So what are we looking at, the middle of November?
[Diana Cuddy]: I would guess, yeah. That would be my best guess.
[Marks]: And what's the project duration?
[Diana Cuddy]: I don't actually know that. Let me see if I can text somebody and find out.
[Marks]: Do you work for National Grid?
[Diana Cuddy]: I do, but I don't.
[Marks]: This is not a Zoom bomb, is it?
[Diana Cuddy]: I didn't know they had them yet.
[Marks]: Oh, we have Zoom bombs all the time.
[Diana Cuddy]: Oh, funny. Okay, yeah, let me just see if someone can get me that information.
[Marks]: The reason why I ask is I've had calls from concerned neighbors because if they're going to do any type of shut off of gas, especially over the winter months, they're concerned about heating in their homes and so forth. So there's a lot of associated questions on when this work will take place and how long will it last for.
[Diana Cuddy]: So I'll see if I can get an answer on that. But typically what they do is they will install the new main and then not have it energized yet. Then they go door-to-door and they let people know that this is the anticipated date that we're energizing the new main and then bringing you offline and onto that. There'll be a slight service interruption and then They go door to door that same day and relate everyone, make sure everybody's up and running before they leave.
[Marks]: So when you say slight interruption, roughly how long does that changeover take?
[Diana Cuddy]: It can take, depending on how they sequence it, it can take a couple of hours, but it's definitely the same day. Okay.
[Marks]: So that's my concern. If this work is going on, just say, in December and January, and when it's 10 below, to have your heat off for five, six hours could be a problem.
[Diana Cuddy]: So the engineer on the job said that he anticipates that it would take about six weeks to complete the work.
[Marks]: So that brings us into probably January. November 15 is towards the end of December, beginning of January. So I'd be real curious to know how long these changeovers take, and if there's anything we can do to get a quicker changeover on behalf of the residents that are going to be impacted.
[Diana Cuddy]: Yeah, that's definitely something that's doable. It's a scheduling thing. But in the winter, they definitely pay much more attention to this type of thing. They do an outreach program in the beginning because some people are away. You don't want to have the tie-over happen and the person isn't home, so we can't turn the meter back on if no one's inside to let us get in to make sure everything's up, the pilots are lit, things like that. So they do an outreach program in the beginning. They mail notices to everybody with all the job-specific information and a hotline number. And then they go door-to-door. And then the other thing, the supervisor's out there every day, available for sequencing and scheduling questions, because sometimes it's dependent on the weather a little bit. But they do take better care of this type of thing in the winter, because it's more critical.
[Marks]: Right. So why was this project held off until the winter months?
[Diana Cuddy]: This was the request to MWRA. I guess it took us that long to design it, or I don't know. I don't know when the request came in, but I can ask that, too.
[Marks]: Right, because to me, this would seem like the most inconvenient time to do a gas changeover in the winter months. And I realize the MWRE is requesting it, but that seems like a real selfish request to do it in the cold winter months of New England. It doesn't make any sense to me. Okay, so my next point is, and this may be a question for, is our city engineer on the call, Mr. President, do you know?
[Falco]: Mr. Clark, do you know if the city engineer is on the call? I do not see him on the call.
[Marks]: Projects of this nature, I would just request in the future that the city engineer be part of the call as well. especially with these conditions, there's 14 conditions that were put on by our engineering division. And I would ask that someone, a representative from the city, be present on behalf of the residents of this community. The question I had, Mr. President, and this has been an issue that's been near and dear to me for a lot of years. Many of us travel down Riverside Ave constantly. I happen to live right off of Riverside Ave. And many of the curbs a level with the street. So there's no distinction between a sidewalk and the street. They've become level. And that's a very dangerous proposition for area residents. We just had a house struck at the corner of Locust and Riverside, where a car plowed in to his walkway and his stairs. Thank God no one was there. And it demolished brick and cement stairs. And that was largely in part, Mr. President, bad driving, one thing, but the fact that there's no distinction between a sidewalk, there's no curbing, and it's a very dangerous situation. Under number 12, under the conditions, It says the scope of the MWRA section 57 project includes resurfacing and striping this portion of Riverside Ave. So they're saying the MWRA is responsible for the resurfacing and restriping. That's great, Mr. President. But what about the curbs that are level with the street? In my opinion, if we're going to look at resurfacing this road, We have to do it correct. If they're going to grind it up or whatever they're going to do, we have to make these curbs full curbing. And now's the time to do it. And it would cover a large stretch. This particular recommendation says the engineering division requests that National Grid contribute the cost of the final restoration to other paving in the city. So they're saying, we realize MWRE is going to do the paving. We're doing the job, but they're going to pay for the paving. And instead of us being responsible for something, we'll do some work somewhere else. I would submit to you, Mr. President, the work should be on Riverside Ave, and it should be leveling off the curbs on Riverside Ave. So I don't agree with this condition 12. This money should be spent on Riverside Ave. It should bring those curbs up to the current standards, the safety guidelines and highway standards of DOT. which I can guarantee you level curbs with streets are not the safety standard of DOT. So I would ask, Mr. President, I'm going to ask that we don't approve this tonight, even though this is going to prolong this a little bit. And that's why I was hoping our city engineer would be on until we can get a commitment that the curbing on Riverside Ave will be part of the condition from National Grid. to recreate the elevation on the curbing when they do the street resurfacing over for that particular stretch. So that would be my first recommendation, Mr. President. My second recommendation is that at the corner, and I'm not sure this would be a question for National Grid, it would be a question for our engineer, but at the corner of Riverside and Locust Street, as we know, there was a fire many years ago. in the DPW public works building that held most of the plans of our engineering. And many of the plans were lost. And from what I'm being told, the plans and the drawings for the underground utilities at the corner of Riverside and Locust Street are no longer around. So you can't find these plans because they were burnt in the fire. And now would be a perfect time if they're going to be digging up that area, which they are, would be a perfect time to recreate these drawings and digitize the underground utilities in that area. That would save us a heartache, Mr. President, and also get the work done on behalf. And I raise this question because when they were working on Wegmans and the project on Locust Street, there were many questions raised about underground utilities, and the city of Medford could not produce these plants. So I would ask that as a second recommendation, that at the corner of Riverside and Locust Street, that during this project that the city recreate the drawings and digitize underground utilities at that particular location in the interest of our public safety and our community. So I would ask that that be part of a condition on this report. My third and final condition, Mr. President, is that that particular set of lights, as we all know, that's a busy, busy intersection. Especially now we're adding 400 and I believe it's 50 units in that area of new housing. And we have the Wegmans, which is very busy. And the Opticom system, which you know is the little gadget that they put on the lights when ambulances and fire trucks go through intersections. It has a connection to our public safety vehicles and it allows these vehicles to go through in a quick manner and in a safe manner. And that particular intersection, we can ask head of Y's, I don't believe has the OptiComm system in place. And I would ask that it be installed as a recommendation or a condition. under this particular digging, Mr. President. If we're going to dig the street, that requires wiring under the roads and so forth, and that be done during this particular project. So I would ask that that be outlined as a condition also that the Opticomp system at the corner of Riverside and Locust Street be done during this project. So those are my three conditions, Mr. President. I would respectfully ask that we lay this on the table for one week, Mr. President, to get answers back from our engineering department, our head of wires, and also a national grid on the curbs and other two conditions that I put on this, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Councilor Marks, if I may, first and foremost, they're trying to get in touch with the engineer right now. So a call has been made to him, or at least they're trying to contact him. The other thing I wanted to check was with our city clerk. Do you have all of Councilor Marks' recommendations?
[Hurtubise]: I'm working on them. The first one was not to approve until there was a commitment from National Grid regarding the curbing of Riverside Avenue. Second one I have is regarding Riverside and Locust, that the city recreate the drawings and digitize the underground utilities in the area. And the third recommendation I have is to install the OptiComm system at the intersection of Riverside and Locust.
[Marks]: Very accurate. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. So, Councilor Marks, if I'm correct, you haven't officially, a number of Councilors have questions. You haven't officially asked to table this.
[Marks]: Oh, I don't want to table right now. I want to hear from my colleagues, but I am going to ultimately ask that this be tabled if we can't get answers tonight. This is a very important road, length of road in our community.
[Falco]: I would agree with you a hundred percent. Okay, we have a number of questions. We have Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Beard, Vice President Caraviello, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. To be honest with you, Councilman Mox hit so many of those questions I had right in the head. But I think that if you're looking at this area, you're looking at a certain time where, like you said, you're adding, we'll be adding 400 units. We'll be in the middle of Christmas rush. where you have a busy shopping center and hopefully the beginning of school where the parents would be traversing through that area with the school buses. So I think it does concern me with the time of year and when we're going to be doing this. But the question that I have is, as we're moving forward, what does the National Grid team have in place to inform the neighbors of any inconveniences to their day-to-day activities. I know that a lot of those homes don't have, obviously there's no parking on the street. So a lot of these homes park in their driveway. What do we have set up and planned? There's any inconvenience for senior citizens that need to park in their driveway and have notice that they cannot traverse their own homes. Do we have anything in place with them or notification system in place with them?
[Diana Cuddy]: Yeah, so typically with a main replacement like this, what happens is we run an abutter list and we send out letters to all the abutters. It includes some COVID facts and updates on how we proceed now due to COVID. It includes sequencing of how it will happen and what to expect. And also there's a hotline to call in if anyone has any questions that we monitor. So they get the abutter notification approximately a month before the job starts and then They do get updates on to get the supervisor going door-to-door Sometimes it will also get like little long those little hangers on the door with some pertinent information and scheduling and stuff like that. So Yeah, the supervisor is out there every day. I
[Scarpelli]: I can appreciate that, but that's not enough. Ms. Cuddy, I appreciate that. I think that really communication is the number one most important factor of this job being so large and how it impacts those neighbors. So I know that we've had, with other jobs of this magnitude, we've had, I know Eversource has a direct line that they can actually call the project manager. And when certain areas are going to be closed, they're notified either by robocall or by door knock. But I think it's important that we do that for Sometimes if the notification is going to the person that owns the home but not the person living in that home, I think it might pose an issue. So my recommendation for the city clerk, if we can make amendments to this, that we have a direct point person that our residents can talk to on a daily basis. I appreciate a hotline, but I've dealt with some other hotlines and I don't trust it to get back in a timely fashion when you're talking about this type of scope of work. So I look to amend this and ask the construction company and National Grid to have a dedicated person for these neighbors. So, thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Diana Cuddy]: We do have a dedicated supervisor for this particular job, and we do call the residents the night before and The other thing you said No, we do send it to the abutters. We don't send it to the property owners only, exclusively. We have two sets of databases. One for this particular meeting, we send it to the property owners, the abutters that are property owners. But the other one with regards to the main replacements, we send it to the tenants. If they're owner-occupied, then it goes to the same person. Because those are the people who need to know about conflict with traffic or parking and things like that. So we do send it to that group.
[Scarpelli]: Again, with the scope of work, Ms. Cuddy, I think that what we feel comfortable and what we've done in the past is really having a dedicated person that's on the job. You mentioned a hotline. The hotline, I appreciate the person on the street that's going to be there, that's in charge of the job. But other companies, for example, Eversource, project managers that are on site that people could reach while something was going on in a minute's notice for the fact that for some issues where it is senior citizens and they have doctor's appointments or they have to make an emergency exits. There isn't any way to park there that they can move their cars. And say that they'll just park there to prepare themselves, the only place for people to park are the driveways. So if the driveways are affected and they're not known, they don't know what to do, I think a hotline is great. If it wasn't, I would approve anything when it's a small scope. But this being so large and so encompassing that we have, in other instances, had a direct line. throughout the day during that job. So I'm going to stick with that amendment, Mr. President. And thank you.
[Diana Cuddy]: We can do that.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you. Clerk Hertoghis, do you have the information?
[Hurtubise]: Yes, Mr. President. OK, thank you. Councilor Scarpelli's amendment is that the national group provide a point person on the projects for residents to contact on a daily basis.
[Falco]: Correct. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. My first question for National Grid, is this project going to remove the existing infrastructure from underground?
[Diana Cuddy]: It's replacing the existing structure.
[Bears]: Right, so the old stuff's coming out.
[Diana Cuddy]: Most likely because WRA needs to get to their infrastructure, which is below ours.
[Bears]: Great, thanks. And then we don't have the city engineer, do we?
[Falco]: And do not think...Clerk Hurtubise, has the city engineer been contacted yet, or has he called in, do you know?
[Hurtubise]: I know that Mr. Rodriguez has contacted him. I don't know what the response is.
[Bears]: In that case, I just have two questions we could send to the city engineer, if possible. What is the scope of the MWRA work, and are they going to require a grant of location, and why are only Riverside Avenue and Linden Street designated for resurfacing? Those are my two questions for the city engineer. Okay.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. To Councilor Bears, last question. Linden Street was resurfaced about a year ago. So that's part of my question is, is any of this going to be going into Locust Street?
[Falco]: She's looking into it. OK.
[Diana Cuddy]: I don't see.
[Caraviello]: There's Italian.
[Diana Cuddy]: It looks like there is approximately, I would say, 80? No. Probably 40 feet going into Locust Street.
[Caraviello]: Which brings me to my next question, which Councilor Marks brought up. Why are we doing this project now, or why didn't we do it before? Because we've just gone through paving Loca Street, like two weeks ago. So now the brand new paved street is gonna get dug up. Linden Street was just recently paved. That's gonna get dug up. And the other thing is, we're doing this in the middle of the winter. I mean, not in the middle of the winter, but the side of the winter. When people depend on the heat, three or four hours might be a long time if you've got kids at home. Not that I want to be the bearer of bad news, but three weeks ago, National Grid did a project on Winford Way and they forgot to put the gas on. I got a call at like 7.30 at night and trying to find someone to get down there at 9 o'clock at night to put the gas on for every resident was a monumental task. And some of them didn't get the gas on the whole night. So that has my concern also. We're doing this in the cold weather, you're going to be digging up the streets, and the patch you're going to put down is going to be of substance to the project, because all the plants get closed in the winter. So this is going to be a temporary patch, it's going to snow, and before the end of the winter, it's going to be all dug up again. That's really what I'm concerned about, why this has to get done now in the winter. And also, you're doing it in the holiday season, so now you're going to block Walker Street, where there's a shopping center, and the Felsbury Plaza. I mean, these stores are hurting enough. And this is their little bit of time to get some business back is November, And we're shutting one of their main streets down. So I've got concerns about the timing of this project also, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Scarpelli.
[Knight]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I think it's important to point out that National Grid did submit this application in August. And we're just getting it now. Is there a plan to maintain any construction material or equipment along the public way during this project?
[Diana Cuddy]: Usually there's a protocol for securing and maintaining that.
[Knight]: Yeah, it's awful. We just had a project on High Street in Woburn where every weekend there were 50 or 60 cardboard boxes filled with yellow pipes sitting on the traffic island that one of the neighbors spends a lot of time maintaining. There was a bulldozer in front of a historic home in a historic district on the corner of Route 60 and Woburn Street, which is a difficult intersection, number one, and also a highly traveled thoroughfare. In the past, I've asked the city engineer if, in fact, materials or equipment were going to be stored in a public way that a community mitigation agreement be entered into with the provider in the city. So if you're parking a bulldozer in front of my house for six weeks, and I need a new sidewalk panel in my house, and you're doing asphalt work, why don't you replace that sidewalk panel in front of my house too? Mitigation issues. And as I look through this, grant a location application. conditions that are surrounding it. A lot of these, I think, are more focused on infrastructure stuff and less focused with community mitigation and community impacts that affect the neighborhood and quality of life. So I'd ask that no equipment or materials be stored on the public way. There's plenty of industrial zoned land down between Hall and Linden in that area that's privately owned that I believe that the public utility can secure to use as a layover or a layoff land. But I don't think we need to be using our public ways and our public roads for storage area, for materials and equipment, for projects. And I've said this consistently for a number of years. So that would be the request that I make, Mr. President. I certainly have no problem supporting Councilor Mark's resolution. If he has questions that need to be answered, then so be it. So with that being said, I would second his motion.
[Falco]: Okay. And if I may, I just want to let you know, uh, the city engineer has just joined us. So, um, come on down.
[Knight]: It's like the price is right.
[Falco]: Uh, so let's see. First and foremost, uh, Clark, Carterbies, do you have a council nights recommendations?
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Uh, no equipment or materials be stored in the public way during this project.
[Knight]: Absent a community mitigation agreement.
[Diana Cuddy]: And that can be part of the permit too. You know, not everything needs to be ironed out for the whole job. Part of the permit conditions can be those types of things, sweeping the street, stockpiling materials.
[Falco]: Okay. Clerk, are we all set?
[Hurtubise]: Got it.
[Falco]: OK. At this point, I recognize Consular Marks. I believe you had questions for our city engineer. Sure. Let's see. I'm going to unmute Tim McGivern. OK. Thank you, Tim. Consular Marks.
[Marks]: Mr. Engineer, my question is, I actually had three questions, but as you know, the curbing on Riverside Ave for the most part is level with the street. And I was wondering what your thoughts are if we are going to do a paving and a re-striping and so forth. why we wouldn't be addressing, at least within this stretch, the restoration of the curbing and reestablish it as a true curb and not something that's level with the street.
[McGivern]: So this job, hello everybody. So this job is in preparation for an MWA job, and part of their scope is going to be resurfacing and repaving the whole stretch. It's actually beyond the limits of National Grid. We are looking for opportunities for, you know, addressing things while they're out there. For example, the intersection with Commercial Street is one, and the condition of the manholes there. So my thoughts on it are we look for opportunities to try to make some improvements. you know, where we can and what's reasonable. So we can take a look at it to see what, you know, what makes reasonable sense during the scope of the work for sure, whether it's National Grid is doing some piping work or MWRA has a more fuller scope project.
[Marks]: Right, so as part of Number 12, Tim, it says that the MWRA section 57 project includes resurfacing and striping of this portion of Riverside Ave. And then it goes on to say the engineering division requests that National Grid contribute to the cost of a final restoration to other paving in the city. So it seems to me that we could ask of National Grid to step up and look at some of our curbing conditions, but rather the condition in here states we'll look at them to do other projects in the city. And what I'm saying is right now, I don't believe that the current condition of that curbing on most of Riverside Ave meets any safety standard of DOT. I can't see how a level curb that meets the street meets any requirement of safety standard.
[McGivern]: There are definitely areas that need curbing and things like that. Some of it would require design and closer look. I do know that. Which is why I kind of go back to what makes sense for the scope of the job and what they have mobilized.
[Marks]: Right, right. So what I'll do different, and this is no reflection on you, because you're relatively new in terms of this city, is that I've been hearing about Riverside Avenue curbing for a number of years, a lot of years. And now we have an opportunity where we have the MWRA and we have National Grid doing a fairly major project. And we're asking to resurface a street that we already know has some potential safety issues, i.e. the curbing. And we're not going to address it at this point. We're going to kind of kick the can down the street again. And I appreciate the fact that this may be much larger than the scope. But I think at this point, I assume they're going to be grinding the entire street down?
[McGivern]: That would be correct, yeah. Or full build, depending on what the condition is. Sometimes when they grind it, but yes.
[Marks]: Right. So why not take this opportunity to call upon National Grid and the MWRA to step up and do this work. I just don't understand it.
[McGivern]: Well, there's a lot more involved when you're talking about curbing than just the scope that's involved with a utility project and resurfacing. So there's no design scope involved there, taking a look at the nitty gritties of ADA accessibility to every property that's served. So when we're talking about adding curb and making those improvements, yes, I agree. Let's explore that to see what the opportunities are when these projects are happening and what utility companies can do for us what makes sense. Totally there. And I think that if National Grid is open to it, some of that money I'm talking about, that they don't have to resurface, we could look at where it makes sense to put some curbing in and make some safety improvements. Completely on board, completely agree. It's just a little bit of a different animal when you try to incorporate that type of work into these types of projects.
[Marks]: Okay, so would you be amendable then to updating your conditions to include in the language rather than say that final restoration to other paving in the city, which is the responsibility of National Grid, that the engineering division requested National Grid contribute the cost of final restoration to curbing on Riverside Ave?
[McGivern]: Absolutely. Yeah, that would be completely acceptable from my perspective. And then we can work with National Grid to see, like I said, what makes sense and things like that, and see if we can get it incorporated into a scope somewhere and figure it out.
[Marks]: OK, so I would ask, Mr. President, that that language be updated. So we'd read, the engineering division, this is bullet point 12, requests that National Grid contribute the cost of final restoration to curbing on Riverside Ave. And then it goes on to say, this can be coordinated with the engineering division, which is perfect. We have our city engineer that can do that. So that sounds good. The second thing, Tim, and you may be able to clarify this, is I'm under the impression that many of our drawings that were lost in the fire down at the old DPW public works building The drawings were lost that show the corner of Locust Street and Riverside Ave regarding underground utilities. Is that accurate assessment?
[McGivern]: That specific intersection, I don't know for sure. I do know that quite a few are lost. And if you received that information from my division at some point, I would back it up. I mean, they know a lot of what was lost.
[Marks]: Okay, so at this point, would it make sense to put a condition in there where the road's gonna be ripped up that we look at recreating drawings and digitize our underground utilities at the corner of Locust and Riverside during this construction?
[Diana Cuddy]: I was just gonna say, I think that maybe that was for the MWRI permit. I don't know if our excavation will go, we're, We're moving out of the way for MWRA. It's really their project. We're accommodating them.
[Marks]: Right, right. As you said, their pipe is well below yours. Right. So it would seem to me that this would be a perfect time, and I defer to the city engineer, that if indeed we don't have these drawings on file, this would be the perfect time to digitize the underground utilities in that area.
[Diana Cuddy]: Our excavation would be away from that area. We're putting in a new main away from all that, and then we'll abandon it by energizing the new main. excavating out the old main, that would be part of the MWRA's demolition or excavation part of their job.
[Marks]: Right, right. But you're doing this job on their behalf. So now we have leverage through you to the MWRA, right? So now we're requesting that this take place. So I could appreciate the fact that you don't have, National Grid doesn't really have any responsibility in that. But now's the time that we as a community have leverage. So I would ask the city engineer, if that would make sense at this point.
[McGivern]: I do have a couple thoughts, and I was thinking about this matter, that's why I was taking a moment there. So, with the excavation that they're doing, well, two things. We do have a lot of it documented in GIS, I know that, so things have been recreated over time. This specific intersection I would have to look into to see exactly what we're missing. But when they do the trenching for some of the MWI work, or when trenching is happening through that intersection, even with national grid, if we wanted to put a condition, whether it's in the grand location or the street open permit, to document what they find, because basically they're cutting a cross section through the intersection, we could do something like that. Anything else is sort of, We either have the information or it doesn't make sense for them to be digging all over the intersection to try to get the information. So I guess the value of those plans that were lost, a lot of that value is may have been replaced, and if it hasn't yet, it can be. And I think the opportunity here that screams out at me is, if they're trenching across the intersection, let's document what they encounter. So we can definitely have some sort of condition, whether it's in the grand location or the street open permit, for sure, to get that information.
[Marks]: OK, so I will leave that up to your expertise. My last question, and this may be not a question to you, but the Opticom system, I know we have one further down, I believe on Riverside Ave, for fire trucks and ambulances. Does that wiring happen underground, do you know? When they wire the intersections? What's that?
[McGivern]: It's a good one though, I'll add. I'm not sure.
[Marks]: Okay, so maybe Mr. President, if we can ask that question of Head of WIAS. to ask them, and if the case is that the wiring is underground, this would be an ideal time for the city, rather than dig it up again, because that's a very busy intersection, to run the proper wiring underground while this area is going to be open. So I would ask that maybe if the city engineer can work in conjunction with Mr. Randazzo, the head of wires, so we can check to see if the Opti-Com system and the running of wires during this particular project would be worthwhile. And I appreciate your time, Mr. Engineer.
[McGivern]: You have not a problem. Yeah, I'm interested in learning more about that system now anyway, so sounds good. Okay.
[Falco]: Thank you to Councilor Marks. Clerk Hurtubise, do you have all of the updated language from Councilor Marks?
[Hurtubise]: Mr. President, I have the language that the city engineer work with the head of wires to see if the optic comp system can be run during this project. But I don't know if I have the rest of it.
[Marks]: I think that was it, Mr. Clerk. That's perfect, that the city engineer and the head of wires get together and see if this would be an ideal time to run piping.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks, Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for hopping on, Tim. Just a couple of quick questions. So it sounds like MWRA is going to remove the existing gas main as part of their project. Is that what Ms. Cuddy just said?
[Diana Cuddy]: And then just on the MWRA piece here, are they going to require a grant of location from us? Have we already granted that grant of location? Tim?
[Falco]: He's on mute. Sorry. MWI is already there.
[McGivern]: Does that answer your question? They don't need a grant allocation. They have it.
[Bears]: They have it.
[McGivern]: They have very large pipes and roofs. I have it.
[Bears]: All right. Got it. And then I think Councilor Knight answered this for me, that some of the streets are not Eligible to be resurfaced due to the five-year rule, but it does look like this project's going into Locust Street Which was just resurfaced, so I'm just wondering why that's not included in your conditions I would probably be on the permit, I would think.
[McGivern]: Any work that's happening on a sealed street like that, five year street, we have them do curb to curb regardless. If I missed a spot, I didn't think I did, but if I missed a spot, then that would be the case. The same thing on Linden, the one right next to it, the same thing is happening. They're touching that scope. So they end up doing curb to curb with an offset. We don't like it, but it works out. And then the MWRA scope. basically in their plan set is the full length of the project resurfaced.
[Bears]: Right. Yeah. And that's what it says in here is that Riverside will be fully resurfaced. And then there's a condition for Linden Street, but there's no condition for Locust Street.
[McGivern]: So it was an oversight. I can check that out. We can definitely incorporate that for sure.
[Diana Cuddy]: And can be part of the street opening permit. We see that a lot of times. They come back with guaranteed status. So we do curb to curb. So if it's missed here, then it goes in the street opening permit.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. Any other questions from the council? Okay, the chair awaits a motion. Did you get all the answers you wanted to capitalize?
[Marks]: Well, if my colleagues feel comfortable, I'm not comfortable with when this project has taken place, but I'm not sure at this point.
[Diana Cuddy]: I could help, I would hope, with that, with communication.
[Falco]: OK, we have one more question from Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Either to Ms. Cuddy or to Mr. McGivern, what is the urgency here on the MWRA's part to get this underway?
[Diana Cuddy]: That I don't know. Maybe Tim would know better.
[McGivern]: I don't know the urgency besides that it's a scheduled project in MWRA's scheduling. And all of their projects are tied to usually the large redundant project, redundant tunnel project they're working on now. I don't know if this exactly is, but a lot of their work they're doing recently is. But I don't know the exact urgency of the reason, but they always have a right kind of clockwork type schedule that they're always working on.
[Diana Cuddy]: And it is, I do know it's urgent to them. They're really anxious, you know, on us to find out when we submitted the drawings, when the hearing was going to be. So there is some urgency on there and I just don't know what it is.
[Marks]: Yeah. So, Mr. President, just, uh, Councilor Knight mentioned that, I didn't see it in here, but, um, you mentioned that this was submitted to the city back in August. That's correct. And why, why are we seeing it now? Tim? The question was- I'm not sure.
[McGivern]: I mean, I don't think it was in my office for longer than any grant location.
[Marks]: And how long would that be, Tim? A typical grant- I don't have that in front of me.
[McGivern]: I mean, I can look. I could try to figure that out.
[Marks]: So what's a typical grant allocation once you get it from your desk to when it comes before the council?
[Diana Cuddy]: It does go to other departments first, I think, right? Don't other departments mix the rounds? The application is done.
[Knight]: Point of clarification, Councilor, because I don't want to mislead.
[Falco]: Point of clarification, Councilor.
[Knight]: It should be noted that National Grid submitted two granted location petitions for the same scope of work with minor differences in routing. However, the two plans are largely the same. The engineering division confirmed with National Grid that the petition dated 8-20-2020 is the correct petition. The other petition received on 9-8-2020 was discarded. So it looks like there might have been some confusion with the plan design as well.
[McGivern]: That is correct. Those two identical submissions. Yeah. are mostly identical.
[Falco]: And the memo from Tim McGivern is dated October 2nd, which is almost a month ago. So.
[Marks]: So Mr. President, I'm curious about the urgency of this particular project. Yeah, absolutely. And ask that we lay this on the table for one week and get a response back. Two weeks, because you're right, we won't be meeting next week. And get a response back from the MWA on the urgency of this project. And to Councilor Abeas, what exactly is the project they're doing? Mr. President, and then we can make an informed decision based on our residents and based on the fact that this will be during winter time and a huge inconvenience.
[Falco]: Absolutely. I would second that. So is the motion to table to a date certain which would be- Two weeks. Two weeks, okay. Which I think would be November 10th, Mr. Clerk?
[SPEAKER_06]: That is correct.
[Falco]: Okay, so on the motion of Councilor Marks to table this seconded by- Second. Councilor Bears to a date certain which would be Tuesday, November 10th. On that motion, Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks?
[SPEAKER_06]: 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.
[Caraviello]: Mr. President, motion for suspension of the rules. Vice President Caraviello? Motion for suspension of the rules, the take up paper 20614.
[Falco]: On the motion of Vice President Caraviello to suspend the rules to take paper 20614. On that motion, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Morell. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice President Caraviello.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Martins.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Vice President Falco.
[Falco]: Yes, 7 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative. The rules are suspended.
[Caraviello]: 2-0, 6-1-4, offered by President Falco, being resolved. That the superintendent of schools or the city administration provide an update to the Medford City Council with regards to the funding that was approved to resolve the HVAC issues within our public school buildings. President Falco.
[Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. Last month we approved a number of papers that came to us from the mayor to funding to fix various HVAC issues throughout the Medford Public Schools. I believe the total amount of the funding we approved was approximately about $800,000. The ongoing problems with the air quality throughout our district concerns me not only as a city councilor, but also as a parent. I have two students, two of my kids are in the Medford Public Schools, two are at Medford High School. And like many kids, many of their peers throughout the district are accessing the curriculum virtually five days a week because our buildings are not ready to handle the entire student body yet. For many students, the schools are a safe place. They get their food on a daily basis from the Metropolitan Public Schools. The emotional support, the health services that they might not actually have at home. And I know that the custodians and the buildings and grounds people at the schools have been working really hard. And I know the teachers have had the literally Herculean task of trying to teach virtually each day. And that's not easy, and they've had that task. We've appropriated the money. I think it's time that we get some sort of an update. It's been almost two months. And I know I did have an opportunity to review some of the air quality reports. And it looks like they've made some progress at, I believe, the elementary schools, which is promising. And to that I say thank you. But I know that there's, it seems to me when I did a quick analysis of the reports that there are, I know I have numerous questions regarding Medford High School and the vocational school. And I know David Murphy from the, I believe he's the new superintendent of finance on the school side, is actually on the call tonight. And I thank him for joining us. And I believe he's new, so I also welcome him to the Met with Public Schools. So if he could just give us an update with regards to what they're doing with regard to the funds that we sent. Give us a progress update as to what's happening. I have some further questions, but I'd love to hear an update from him. If you could please unmute him, that would be great.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Mr. Murphy, name and address of the record, please.
[Murphy]: of the Medford City Council. David Murphy, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations for the Medford Public Schools. My address is 87 Monroe Street, Boston, Massachusetts. Superintendent Edouard-Vincent is also joining us tonight, and so I just defer the opening comments to the superintendent, and I'm happy to add on to that and answer any questions that you might have.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. John McLaughlin going to be joining us, Mr. President? I don't see him yet. Madam Superintendent, name and address of the record. Madam Superintendent?
[Murphy]: I think the superintendent just happened to be unmuted. There you go.
[Edouard-Vincent]: Good evening.
[Murphy]: Thank you.
[Edouard-Vincent]: Marice Edouard-Vincent, Metro Public Schools, 489. I would like to say thank you for this opportunity to come and speak to you and address the updates of what's been happening in the public schools and the amount of work that has been taking place. And just to assure you that the investment that in the schools is going to further face the challenges that we have been slowly but surely making progress. So I will defer to my colleague, Mr. Dave Murphy, to complete specifics regarding an update on the information of how the monies are going to be spent in the Medicaid school. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam Superintendent. Mr. Murphy.
[Murphy]: Thank you, Mr. President. So I, uh, I testified before you some time ago, right shortly after my arrival in August. And at that time, if you'll recall, that the district was embarking upon an effort to assess the air quality and specifically the air change air exchange rates that many districts and other facilities across the country and certainly across the Commonwealth are looking at now due to the heightened air quality standards that are I think it's important as we discuss these issues to to continue to remind folks that our our buildings are safe. We have children. in them every day, we have staff in them every day, we take their safety extremely seriously, but those of us who work in the Medford Public Schools and are here in these buildings every day, it's important that we continue to message that to the community. That being said, given the conditions under which we are living and under which the district is operating, it is important that we adhere to the heightened air quality standards, and that's why we embarked upon the work that we have over the last several months. So in terms of the efforts that we've done, and I'm happy to get into specific questions as to funding sources and what the priorities are both now and going forward, but we have retained a number of environmental engineers and industrial hygienist staff. personnel who have come in and who have examined every room throughout the Medford Public Schools. We have identified a number of facility repairs and improvements that are necessary and practices that need to be employed in order to make sure that we are meeting those standards. On our website, you can access all the most up-to-date air quality reports that have been published by Precision Air and Balancing, which is the firm that is doing the bulk of this work in terms of the assessing and diagnosing of the issues. I'm happy to walk you through what the big three, as we call them, in terms of issues that we're seeing that need to be addressed. that have been addressed at a number of the schools, as Mr. Falco was alluding to. We've seen significant improvement over the course of the last month. And as a result of that, pursuant to the superintendent's announcement this evening, that fifth grade in-person instruction will begin next week. As of next week, we will have grades K through six participating in in-person instruction. That is due to the work that's happened, both by the buildings and ground staff, and our schools and with the personnel that we've brought on in consultancy roles. And so we feel good about the progress that we're making, but I will say as the person responsible for the non-instructional elements of the district, the fact that there are children not in school due to non-instructional reasons is not sitting well with any of us. And we understand the urgency, both in terms of getting students back into schools and making sure that the buildings are safe for students for staff and for members of the community who want to visit me.
[Caraviello]: So I will refer you as to what questions you have.
[Murphy]: It's going to be about where that funding is going, but that's the same thing as of right now. Mr. Murphy, hold on one second.
[Caraviello]: Mr. Murphy, hold on one second.
[Knight]: What information council tonight? So as of Thursday, all students grades K through 6 will be returning to school underneath this hybrid model?
[Murphy]: That's correct.
[Knight]: So they'll be having two days in and two days out?
[Murphy]: That's correct. That's the hybrid model. two cohorts of in-person instruction on Monday and Tuesday, and Thursday and Friday, respectively. Cohort A, our high-need, most vulnerable students, are in four days a week. Wednesday is a remote day for all students.
[Knight]: Have we done an audit or conducted an assessment to ensure that we are meeting the requirements for hours of education and hours of personalized instruction?
[Murphy]: But I don't know that we've done an audit, but this is a model that's being used across the commonwealth and is one of the ones that were part of Desi's guidelines with regard to what's an acceptable form of education under these circumstances.
[Knight]: As a parent, Mr. Murphy, and I'm not trying to be critical because I know we're all trying to get through this and learn, but this hybrid model, I feel as though it's significantly lacking. I mean, I'm home with my child, doing the online portion of the education. And when they're on their self-directed learning days, I feel as though we could do more. I am very fortunate to probably have my son and one of the best teachers in the Medford Public Schools classroom, and he's been able to manage. As a parent, I'm very concerned about the direction that we're going in and our ability to provide a high quality education to our students here. Because I feel as though we're really missing the mark with this hybrid model. So the next question would leave me to ask with this hybrid model that we have in place. in these investments that we're making to our high school and our other schools. Moving forward, if the schools do open, the hybrid model is what we're going to see. We're not going to see full in-person learning from our students this year. Is that safe to say?
[Murphy]: It's safe to say, due to the occupancy restrictions that have been imposed on us under public health guidance, that it will be a hybrid model for this year, unless significant variables change that we don't anticipate. I don't think those of us who are sick to our stomachs over the lack of in-person learning that's happening as a result of the pandemic, I don't think any of us want to concede that there's no chance of more in-person instruction. But at this point, it has to be the plan for the year based on the public health guidance that we're operating under.
[Knight]: And the public health guidance that we're working under versus, say, St. Raphael's or St. Joseph's is different?
[Murphy]: I can't imagine what the distinction would be, but as a general rule, I would say yes.
[Knight]: So based upon your presentation, I mean, listen, none of us know except for Councilor Marks, I think, because he went to the vocational school and he's a lot handier than I am. based upon my recent electrocution when I was trying to change a light bulb. With that being said, this assessment's going on. I don't think many of us here are too interested in seeing how many particles per minute are being pushed through a room. I think what we all want to know is when a school's going to open so that the high school kids can get back to the high school, so that we can have a full complement of learning in person for our students K through 12.
[Murphy]: Sure. If you remember when we first sought the funding appropriation, that is the subject of this discussion, our hope was to commit those funds both to the HVAC repairs that are necessary to make sure that our systems are in place and that we're meeting those air quality standards. and to procure the portable HEPA filters that would put us in a position where when the HVAC repairs were not going to fit a timeline that we were comfortable with, we would be able to essentially supplement the air exchange in each room and then meet those standards via the HEPA filters. So we have done that. We have had vendors working in the schools essentially seven days a week over the last several months. That's a big part of why we've been able to see the improvements that we have. We've also procured a large, relatively large stockpile of HEPA filters that we've been able to deploy to all eight schools and have more at the ready to deploy as we're prepared to continue implementing the hybrid model and have more in-person instruction. So with regard to the high school, it is the building that both with regard to the complexity of the problem and the scale of the problem, it's where we're seeing the greatest need and where I will have more repairs that have to occur, several of which are occurring right now, and then also a larger portion of the heavens will be deployed to those rooms. So our priority right now is completing the K-8 implementation, the vocational programming due to the curriculum needs of those students is happening alongside with the K-8 priority. And then our hope is to go through the high school. And my expectation is that we'll open the high school for use for in-person instruction, essentially piece by piece, as we're able to bring in more rooms. As I said to the school committee last night, The complexity of the secondary level is that due to the nature of the academic schedule, it is not as simple as just having a hallway that's cleared and therefore we can fit that many students and bring those students in. As we implement in-person instruction, in order to minimize the circumstances in which teachers are educating two constituencies of students concurrently, which obviously brings with it its own instructional challenges. When we bring in some students and have room for them, there's a domino effect as to what other students and staff have to be brought in in order to make the schedule work. That is a piece that's specific to the high school that makes it more complex, but it certainly doesn't make it any less urgent that we bring them in as soon as possible. I do not have a specific timeline as to when that will happen, but I can tell you that it is something that we're working aggressively toward to have as much in-person instruction in the district as possible.
[Knight]: We don't have a date certain. Do we have a goal, maybe, Mr. President? Is there a goal date or a defined period of time we're hoping to complete these assessments? A lot depends on these answers. A lot of people's lives are affected by these answers. A lot of people have child care issues that they need to resolve. A lot of people are paying money out of pocket that they weren't paying before for child care. So these are real life issues that affect people. So we're looking at the high school. It sounds like the high school is the biggest issue, right? The high school is the oldest building in the district. The high school is the building that needs the most work. Let's take the high school off the table. Let's look at the middle school. We have K-6 now, so we're looking at 7th and 8th grade to be the next age bracket that will be, I guess we'd say, let back in to school buildings.
[Murphy]: Yes, so as of next week, 5th grade will move forward and we'll have in-person instruction for K-6. Grade 6 is already in as of last week. Yes, as of last week. 3rd and 4th grade came back this week. 6th grade was last week. 5th grade will be next week. There are, in addition to the HVAC issues, some staffing issues that we need to work through. But I anticipate 7th and 8th grade will not be far behind 5th grade. That is our expectation at this time.
[Caraviello]: Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilor Knight. Mr. President. President Falco, you still have the floor.
[Falco]: Yes, thank you. If I may continue. As far as the reports go, I've received many calls from parents basically asking where can they access the reports? Now you said they're online. Can you, I'm not sure if you're able to, and I don't mean to fine tune this to death, but I mean, as far as, are you able to share your screen and show us where these reports are? Because I've received numerous calls from parents and they can't find them.
[Murphy]: I can, if you give me a screen sharing access, I'm pretty sure that I will be able to do that relatively easily.
[SPEAKER_13]: Mister Clark, can you please allow him to share his screen?
[Caraviello]: All set. All set? All righty.
[Murphy]: Thank you. You should have the Medford Public Schools homepage up in front of you. And if we go over to, let's move. So over to the, scroll down to the reopening tab, school reopening tab. And it says groups that make that bound. That's what that says. Oops. Yes.
[Falco]: Um, so, okay. Because I've received numerous calls from, uh, from parents saying they can't find their reports. They want to see the reports and you know, To me, this process really, really needs to be transparent. And I know that word's used a lot, but this here needs to be transparent. I mean, we're talking about the health and the safety of our children, of our teachers, our students, our staff. I mean, we need to make sure that this stuff is out there so people can see it, and they can access it, and they can make their own decisions and ask educated questions. You know, because this is just important. I mean, this is important now more than ever.
[Murphy]: If it's okay, if I could just stop sharing the screen. Absolutely. I'm going to get the page back up where it was my expectation that it would be. And it is my hope that it is where it's supposed to be.
[Falco]: Okay. So I have some further questions. Sure. So when I look at the reports, and I did actually see some of the school committee meeting last night, I noticed I think one of your priorities, which I think is good, is that the vocational school goes back to school sooner than later, especially because the seniors are nearing the end of their, before they graduate, they need to make sure that they're ready to graduate and they're certified to do things they can do and whatnot. But when I look at the reports, it looks like the vocational school, if I'm reading this correctly, It looks like it hasn't been tested yet. Is that true?
[Murphy]: The units that create the air circulation in the vocational areas were not functioning when the testing crew came in. The units were subjected to some repairs. Those repairs are ongoing. The units were retested over the weekend and on Monday. The firm that is completing these reports has committed to publishing a new report that will include some of the rooms that have not yet been completed. And that report has not yet arrived. I expect it will before the end of the week. I share the frustration for those that are waiting for the report to arrive. The challenge, frankly, is that we're For this firm that's completing this work and the vendors, we are asking them to complete a, and I will say this in reference to some of the comparisons based on other districts that I'm saying from conversations with my counterparts in other districts, the amount of work that we're asking for in this period of time is significant as compared to some of our peers. And so while I'm frustrated that the report has not yet been published, Given the proportionality of what we're asking of these various vendors, I can't say that it's something that I'm terribly surprised by. But that report will be forthcoming.
[Falco]: Thank you, I appreciate that. So when I look at the, so I know there were reports that came out previously. I believe it was maybe mid-September. And when I looked at the reports, I believe mid-September, I don't think at that time the vocational school was tested. I don't think that the Karen Theater was tested. And I don't think any of the three cafeterias at Medford High School were tested either. When I look at this report here, the most recent one, it looks like that the, like we said earlier, it didn't look like the vocational school was tested. It looks like the Caron Theater was tested, but it still doesn't look like any of the cafeterias were tested. Can you confirm that?
[Murphy]: If the places in the report are either zeros or blank, That means that the units that need to be functioning in order to have what I would describe as readable data were not functioning at that time. And so that is why the personnel that is completing the testing will need to return in order to make those repairs. If I could just, if you don't, just very briefly, on the health metrics page where you can see in my screen right now, and this will be linked on the front page of the Medford Public Schools website very, very soon. I can promise you that. And on that front page of the Medford Public Schools website, you'll be able to click on a link. It will bring you down. the section that we have here underneath the health metrics. On the health metrics, if you click on this link, it will bring you to this folder that has all of the most updated reports. That does not include the Roberts Elementary School as that is a page. That is a report that is also forthcoming. I can tell you that I know, based on the verbal representations of those who completed the testing, that Roberts has only a single room that has not yet been repaired. The rest of the building is fully online. And again, that report should be forthcoming by the end of the week.
[Scarpelli]: Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Councilor Scott Belli. Thank you. I apologize, Council President. Mr. Murphy, I know we talked the other day, and I don't want to put you on the spot. I know you guys are very busy. I know how daunting this is. The answer you gave me for the Roberts classroom was that we're looking at Wednesday and Thursday, Friday possibly of last week. They're still not yet in that room. So I know we're talking about the concerns of the kids, but like I said, we have three, it looks like three kindergarten classrooms and one room on the second floor that doesn't have a bathroom. Do you have an update with that?
[Murphy]: To the best of my knowledge, there's only one room that has not been fully repaired at the Roberts. I'm happy to go back and check on that. But initially, in the report that is available elsewhere on our website, there were, I believe, three classrooms that were unavailable. Two of the units were repaired in the subsequent testing. They passed. They met the high air quality standards. There was one room that they were not able to complete the repairs. I know that they were on site at the Roberts both this past Friday and this past Saturday. Based on the report I received this morning, the verbal report, that room has still not yet come online, but it is. We are eager to complete that work so that that building is fully online.
[Scarpelli]: If you please can check that because as of today, we have three teachers in one second floor acting kindergarten class. So I don't know where the confusion comes in or the information's falling by the wayside, but that's only one issue that leaves me to be a little concerned about the rest of the district. So please forgive my my apprehension.
[Murphy]: Thank you. Just to be clear, I don't fault you for that in any way. I think that the current situation is not okay. Schools are supposed to have children in them. Ours don't have enough in them. That has to change. So if there's any, there shouldn't be any confusion with regards to the urgency with which we take this, and I don't blame you for being apprehensive, and I don't blame anyone for being concerned about that. The current situation is totally unacceptable.
[Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Murphy]: Mr. Falco, you're still off the floor. Sorry.
[Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Murphy, so I'm going to go back to the Caron Theater here. So when I look at my report, to me I'm looking at this and it says the required ACH is 4.0 for the Caron Theater and the actual ACH is 2.97. So therefore it fails. Now, I'm under the impression that that space is still being rented every Sunday. have the people that are renting that building have they been notified that they're in a building where the equality is not really up to par.
[Murphy]: when this room has been rented, but we have supplemented that, the air exchange rates there through HEPA filters. So those devices are in place. I don't think that was the case prior to having this report in which it didn't meet the heightened air standards. I can say that there's been additional sanitation that's been applied to that area and a series of protocols that any entity using the space is required to follow. And that's, those are the terms and conditions that it is my understanding have been in place for some time.
[Bears]: Point of information. Point of information, Councilor Bears. Mr. Murphy, could you shut off your screen sharing, please? Thank you. Thank you.
[Falco]: When I look at my calendar, okay, it says that these reports were issued on the 20th of October. So if they were issued on the 20th of October, that means that last weekend, the district knew that the county theater failed, it's the equality, but yet there were still people in the building, utilizing the building, renting the building. I mean, is the city negligible for something like that? And to me, it doesn't seem we're putting health first. We're still allowing people to rent the building that maybe technically shouldn't be rented.
[Murphy]: So the dates and the reports are the dates, to the best of my knowledge, in which the testing was done, not the dates that the district received the reports. That's one piece that I think is important. The current data didn't appear in the initial reports that we received from, from the front because they were focusing on classrooms. And that had taken a priority. I think it was then tested. It didn't make it into a revised report that was issued. And so to the best of my knowledge, we didn't have a report on the on the care there until this past Saturday night. Either way, as I said, there is there are additional sanitation measures that are being put in place and protocols that all anyone renting any of our facilities are required to adhere to under the public health guidance related to COVID-19.
[Falco]: So when you say there's additional, so you're saying that they added HEPA filters to the counter theaters?
[Murphy]: There are now HEPAs in there permanently. I believe we may have used them at other times if there was a meeting or an event of some kind. I frankly would have to check on that, but there are definitely HEPAs in there now.
[Falco]: So now the HEPA filters that are there, has the data been tested since the HEPA filters have been added?
[Murphy]: They haven't been, but there's a formula that the firm that does this testing uses. And so generally, if the HEPA is functioning correctly and they're brand new, and I have no reason to believe that they're not, based on the cubic footage and the number of HEPAs and what the existing air change per hour rate, they then can issue an estimate as to what that air change per hour rate would be with the HEPAs. And that would be, to the best of my knowledge, based on the representations that were made by the firm, in excess of the heightened standards.
[Falco]: So as far as the, I know it's the local church is actually renting the space. Have they been notified? Have they asked any questions as to whether or not the building is safe or ready to be used? So we have not reached out to them. The school system has not reached out to them at any point in time.
[Murphy]: Well, I imagine if they're renting the facility from us, we are in frequent communication with them, but they haven't, to the best of my knowledge, they haven't asked any specific questions with regard to the air change per hour rate in the room.
[Falco]: And we haven't communicated with them anything from MPS?
[Murphy]: I don't know what we would have communicated. I'm happy to communicate if anyone would like me to, but I don't know what I would be communicating.
[Falco]: To me, I would think that the equality is something that should be communicated, but that's just me. Moving on to the cafeterias. The cafeterias haven't been tested. Where are students eating during the day? There are students in the building. Could you please comment on that?
[Murphy]: They were eating in courtyards generally, and I believe that generally is still the case. There are HEPA filters now positioned in the cafeterias as well. That happened several weeks ago, or whenever we first got the HEPAs, some of the first ones that were deployed were put in the cafeterias.
[Falco]: So I mean, as we move forward, it is New England, it's getting colder. So I would imagine even when it starts to rain or snow, eating outside is no longer going to be an option. So as far as eating in the cafeteria, we're putting in HEPA filters, which are great, and I'm sure that's going to improve the situation. But how do we know that if the cafeterias have not been tested yet, how do we know that we're putting enough HEPA filters in? I mean, to me as a parent, that's a concern. I feel like it's a gamble. Well, we'll throw three or four and hopefully it does the job. I mean, you know, parents deserve answers to these questions. And I feel like, you know, and I understand it and you're frustrated. I think everyone's frustrated with it, but you know, we deserve answers. And I feel like, you know what? So a lot of these questions really, I feel like we're guessing at, you know, with regard to the answers.
[Murphy]: But as I said, for each room, based on the usage of the room, the cubic footage of the room, and the specifications of the HEPA filter, there is a formula that can essentially determine what the air change per hour rate is. And that's with things like windows closed. So there are other variables that can be changed that can enhance the air change and air exchange rate. And that is what's happening in the cafeterias to the best of my knowledge.
[Falco]: And the cafeteria is going to be tested at some point?
[Murphy]: But again, they were initially tested. Then the air changes rates were supplemented with the HEPA filters. All of the building will continue to be tested, particularly at the high school. The testing will be ongoing for some time to make sure that we are both employing strategies that enhance the air quality and make sure that those strategies are sustainable. OK.
[Falco]: I mean, when I look at my report, unless I'm missing it, I don't think I see the cafeteria.
[Murphy]: Those don't, I think the cafeteria is in there if it's the latest report, but that report in that instance, doesn't factor in the use of the heifers in the cafeterias. When the use of the heifers are factored in, it does meet the high air quality standards based on the guidance we received from the experts.
[Falco]: So as far as, so as I moved to the report, I also noticed that, the nurse, the nurse's office, that from what I can tell, if I look at this report, it looks like it doesn't look like any of that space passed. Am I correct?
[Murphy]: We're talking about the high school report, correct?
[Falco]: You are correct.
[Murphy]: Yes, my understanding is that the nurses office were beneath the standard of the heightened air quality standards and that was why the nurses offices across the district and even in nurses offices that are now exceeding the heightened air standards were keeping HEPA filters there due to the nature of the work that's taking place in those rooms.
[Falco]: And have those rooms been retested with HEPA filters?
[Murphy]: No, they haven't been, not to my knowledge, no, they haven't been retested because they've been focusing on diagnosing the issues in the vocational areas to try to make sure that those systems are online as fast as possible.
[Falco]: Do you think we should be retesting the nurse's office?
[Murphy]: I think that if we have a formula that makes it clear that with the HEPA filters we're exceeding the height and air quality standards, and there's a limitation as to how much can be tested in one narrow set of time, I think it's important that we prioritize and establish a sequence in which we can try to have students into in-person instruction as fast as possible under the public health guidance. So I think, again, I think the nurse's office has to be a priority. That's why even for the nurse's office that have exceeded the heightened air quality standards, we've deployed HEPA filters to those areas and we'll continue to do that and to retest the nurse's office and all other areas to make sure that the repairs that we're applying to the HVAC systems are working and are being effective.
[Falco]: bathroom safe at the high school?
[Murphy]: There are bathrooms that are temporarily closed due to the assessment of the air quality and there are bathrooms that are open due to the assessment of the air quality. So there's certainly many restrooms that are fully operational and open.
[Falco]: Did you say many?
[Murphy]: There are some that are temporarily closed.
[Falco]: Am I correct in saying that most of the space that's being utilized now by the students that are actually going to Medford High School are in the science wing?
[Murphy]: That's correct, we've temporarily relocated several of the programs that are part of Cohort A, those are our high need, most vulnerable students, into the most newly renovated area of the high school due to the favorable data we had on the air exchange rates in those areas. So a lot of our special ed programs and our English language learner programs are currently in what was referred to as the science wing because that was the highest quality area we had with regard to air quality.
[Falco]: If I can ask you a question going back to the beginning, why were the buildings tested so late? The very beginning, we knew this was an airborne illness back in April, back in April of this year. And I don't think anyone came in to test anything until August. That's not a formula for success, that's just too late. I mean, there are other school districts throughout the commonwealth that are back to school and they might not have their buildings at full capacity, but they're able to utilize their buildings. I would think that if we're out front, we started testing in the springtime. You know, when a lot of these companies probably had more capacity to, you know, give us more resources, we probably wouldn't have the opportunity to maybe get in front of this and actually, you know, get our kids into school if their parents are okay with that. So can you tell us a little bit about why this started so late? And this might even, this might even, this I think actually predates you, but if you could please answer that question.
[Murphy]: What I can speak to is that I'm in touch on a fairly regular basis with individuals at school districts that have positions similar or identical to mine and our timeline is not well off from other districts. So I think we find ourselves in relatively comparable situations. I think that the understanding the nature and depth of these issues is something that given, I think this is true frankly for every walk of life right now, but that is the first worldwide pandemic any of us, most of us have lived through. So I think there's a variety of things that if I don't think any of us want to do this again, but if we ever did, I think we would do a number of things differently. I mean, that's true for me, just in the two and a half months I've been here, I could make a long list of things I would probably do differently. But I would just say, I find that our situation is relatively comparable to other districts in terms of the complexity of the issue and the urgency with which we're addressing it. And so I don't have much more to offer that other than that. And that we're working as hard as we can. And we understand the frustration that's been expressed by some of the members tonight. It's expressed by members of the school committee. And I think we recognize that both the city council and the committee, that frustration is being expressed as an echo of the frustration that people in the community are feeling because they want their kids in school. And there really is no counterpoint to that. Kids belong in school. We want them in school. And we're going to do everything we can to get them there.
[Falco]: If I may, does the, does the board of health have any type of input as to, you know, the cafeterias being tested or not being tested, the bathrooms, that type of thing? I mean, have they, have they given any input during this whole process?
[Murphy]: We work with the Board of Health closely and they've been an invaluable partner in ensuring that we're able to establish both our testing regime that we test all of our staff every week. That'll happen again tomorrow here at this building. And then also just as a partner in advising us in the development of the health metrics that will play a critical role in determining how we move forward with the continued implementation of the hybrid plan. So with regard to the testing specific, I'm extremely grateful for their support.
[Falco]: I still think at the end of the day, when you look at the cafeterias, I mean, I know you're talking about a formula, but I would think that these things need to be retested at some point in time. You know, as a parent, you want the, you know, the comfort of knowing, okay, you know what, they tested it, they retested it, it's finally up to the point where it passes. And I feel like, you know, I know you're saying, well, they have a formula and it shouldn't pass once we have these HEPA filters in, but I would think that, you know, I mean, You want to retest after the HEPA filters to get the comfort knowing, OK, you've got a good reading. We're ready to go. We can put our kids back in the classroom or back in the cafeteria or back in the Vogue, wherever it is. But I would think that there needs to be retesting at the end of the day.
[Murphy]: I'll direct them to retest it on Thursday. I think they're back on Thursday. I'm happy to have them retest that and circulate that information. I will say that it is not. The reason it's not been retested is because there's a formula that tells us what the rating is and tells us that it's safe. And again, every amount of time they spend testing a cafeteria, it's time that they're not spending diagnosing problems in the vocational area and getting those units to a place where they can be retested and then reopened for students. But I certainly understand the point and the nature of the activity that takes place in the cafeteria, you do want to make sure you want to have a belt and suspense approach. And I have no objection at all to asking for a retest of the cafeterias later this week.
[Falco]: I mean, I just, I know at the end of the day, as a parent, I want to make sure that the buildings are safe for my kids to go to school and for everyone's kids to go to school. And I like to see numbers. I like to see metrics. I like to see that the testing is being done and that these areas are actually passing the test. That means a lot to me. I mean, I don't want to just assume that, you know what, they've worked a formula and it looks like you're going to be able to eat lunch today and be safe. And I don't think the option should be in February eating on a snowbank because you've got to eat outside. I mean, we need to make sure that these buildings are tested, the air quality's there, it's at where it should be. And that as parents and as residents and as taxpayers, people feel safe about the buildings.
[Murphy]: I totally concur with that, and for that reason, as I did at the presentation of the school committee last night, I do have to say again that we have no reason to believe these areas are unsafe. The Medford Public Schools are safe. While we do have to adhere to the heightened air quality standards, And I fully take the point that we should make sure that we're producing the data necessary to give everyone the peace of mind that they are entitled to, and we will make sure that we continue to do that. I don't want there to be a situation where a community member only hears a fraction of this conversation and draws the inaccurate conclusion that there's something unsafe about eating in a Medford Public Schools cafeteria. I have no basis to believe that that is true. and all of the experts who have looked at these situations and have applied the formulas that they are applying here in the higher ed context and in other school districts have confirmed that with the supplemental air exchange that we are creating through the HEPA filters those routes are in fact safe.
[Falco]: Okay so we'll say it's we'll say they're just not ready. As far as the HEPA filters go, do you have enough HEPA filters for the high school and all the other schools? I mean, I have a concern that we're going to be just rolling these things around in and out of rooms.
[Murphy]: We definitely don't want the equivalent of art on a car with HEPA filters, with teachers needing to drag around the HEPA filters. I agree that that is something we have to be very, very careful about. It seems as though right now we're in relatively good shape. The supply line that had been causing some of the delays in the delivery seems to have accelerated over the last couple of weeks. So right now, we are in relatively good shape. What's going to get us in a position where I will feel very confident about that is making sure that the K-8 schools are fully online and their HVAC systems are functioning. That's part of why our strategy has been to make sure that those issues are resolved. Because once we do that, we're going to not need as many HEPAs in some of the spaces that they're currently supplementing the air exchange rate at the elementary and middle schools. And then we're going to be able to relocate those to the high school to add to the significant stockpile that we have here already. And at that point, that's when I'll feel more comfortable about being able to say that we're able to use as much of the facility as we need to to bring students in.
[Falco]: Is the goal to basically have fresh air without opening a window?
[Murphy]: Yeah, I think the nature, as I think you've alluded to earlier tonight, running a school district in New England means that you can't rely on fresh air based on open windows. That's just, that's not something that we, that's not something we have a luxury to do. And so all of these numbers that we're talking about are tests that are done with the windows closed. With the windows open, frankly, even in an area where there's no HVAC system, the air change per hour rate, as a general rule, is not a problem. So that is another reason why the data alone in those reports is not sufficient to draw conclusions about the safety of these roads or the schools.
[Falco]: As far as the, can you say with any confidence that kids will be back Can you say with any confidence that you think kids will be back at Medford High School by the end of the year?
[Murphy]: I think it's our job to make sure that that happens.
[Falco]: Okay. I'm not sure if my colleagues have any other questions.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Congressman Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Murphy, thank you for taking these questions. I know that the frustration sometimes parents reach out to us because we do have school age children and they feel the same pain. I know that if you can, again, please check on that Roberts Kindergarten. I'm not sure if that's accurate, if those kindergartens or three classes are in their classrooms. I don't think so. What we're seeing now is some of the other information we're talking about is really making sure people are informed. I know I had a great conversation today with Ms. Shulman, who's the head of guidance right now. And maybe talk with Mr. DeLaver and the principal at the high school and really allow him to I think that he was notorious for two a week and was very informative. And some of the things that parents or seniors are saying, the SATs went well today. We did have some parents that didn't know about it for one reason or another. I know we have another. senior evening on Thursday night that some parents don't know anything about with the guidance department to update those seniors. Because it's a very stressful time right now, and I only say that right now, that it's important because. You're talking early decision is due on Friday, and there's some easiness. So you can stress that back to your administration and your organization to really try to find a way to get more information out to make sure that while they're not in school, that they're informed of what's happening. So thank you so much. I appreciate your time, Mr. Marchion.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Bearst. Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Vice President. Dave, Mr. Murphy, I want to ask you some questions about the CARES Act funds. So I know there was a release that $1.6 million or so, maybe a little bit more than that, was spent on the schools out of the $5 million total that we've received here as a city. Has any additional money been spent on the schools beyond that $1.6 million?
[Murphy]: I know Ms. Lumley is on the call as well and may want to add to my answer. So when we initially sought the appropriation of the $116,000 that was originally earmarked for capital improvements, it was our intention to use that funding to some of the capital work that is necessary in order to meet the height and air quality standards that we've been discussing tonight. The variable that changed between the time that that authorization was made and now is that the timeline for the use of the CARES Act funding was accelerated. As a result of that, and due to the eligibility of the expenses that were identified that were necessary for HVAC and the consultancy work that was necessary, and testing that was necessary, and the HEPA filter procurement that we've discussed tonight, We determined that it would be more prudent to use the CARES Act funding for those expenses. And so we are in the process of making sure that that's well organized so that we have a full read of as to what all of those expenses are. And that is going to be charged to those CARES Act accounts. because we're on such a short timeline, that puts us in a position where the capital improvement funding that you authorized, that you authorized in either the last week of August or the first week of September, that was subject to the discussion that we're having now, that funding will be available for the more significant, and hopefully, not exclusively this, but it will be available for the more significant HVAC repairs that reasonably will need to occur in order to make the work that we've done now to get the schools reopened sustainable for this year and going forward. So the answer to your question is with regard to the CARES Act funding, again, there's nothing I suspect walked through with greater specificity, in part because my screens are now loaded up with windows that I opened to try to get you the webpage so you can see the folders with the reports. I have a focus on procurement, vendors for both electrical and HVAC, repairs necessary to meet the heightened air quality standards and the consultants and test and environmental and industrial hygienists and environmental engineers that are coming in to do the work in order to assess where we are and where we need to go from an air quality perspective.
[Bears]: Well just before we do that, is that in addition to the 1.6 million that was in a press release or a patch article a couple months ago?
[Murphy]: I believe that my reading that I just referenced would be in addition to that, yes.
[Bears]: In addition to, okay. And this may be for you or for Alicia and only Benjamin. How much of the 3.4 million, you know, that was not allocated to schools, how much of that has been spent or unspent? Because it's my understanding that the expenditure deadline for these CARES Act funds is this Friday. And I would hope that we are getting that money out the door to address these issues, so how much is remaining unspent?
[Murphy]: I think I heard the term not with the schools, so that means it's my turn to defer.
[Bears]: Well, I don't know if it's with the schools or not, but whatever the 3.4 million or less that remains other than what's been released to the public.
[Caraviello]: Alicia, can you answer that? Name and address of the record, please.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: I'm Alicia Benjamin, Finance Director for the City of Medford, 85 George P. Hess Drive, Medford, Massachusetts. Thank you, Honorable Councilors. I've been working closely with David Murphy, actually, a lot. And for the CARES Act money, we were let know that there's $150,000 capital improvement cap, which actually is, the schools are exempt from that for their HVAC. because of CDC guidelines for the air. So he and I have been working really, really hard to try to get all that data, all the stuff that he spent, everything encumbered in time to meet the deadline for Friday. So he's been working extremely hard to get that done. That's still a work in process. I've moved some of the POs over that they have. I've moved some of their expenditures, but I'm going to have all of their expenditures to meet by Thursday. So he's been working very diligently. So I can give the numbers, the actual true figures to council by next week, because I don't have the whole thing in cupboard and moved until Thursday.
[Bears]: Just an estimate, we got 5 million total. How much are we leaving money on the table if the deadline is this Friday and an estimate of how much we might be leaving on the table?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Well, as of right now, so we were awarded $5,093,008. last year $132,155. We uncovered $65,756.22 at the end of the year. And then in fiscal year 21, we've uncovered $1,357,866.74. We've expended $361,685.86. So as of right now, I don't have all of their expenses, but we've expended over $2 million.
[Bears]: Right. But if the deadline is Friday, that leaves $3 million that we haven't spent.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Well, for Friday is my drawdown. So what I'm doing on Friday is I have to draw down based on an estimate. In addition to that, I also found out from them because in the beginning they had said that we could only take backfill for people who had COVID. We couldn't charge COVID costs. Now they're changing and saying we can charge back COVID costs. I understand that there's different targets and what
[Bears]: Do you expect that you have $3 million in chart? That just seems unreasonable to me, that you would come up with $3 million in the next week. And that's not a task that should be put on you on such a short timeline. But are we losing that money?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Well, I think that, honestly, the way this is set up is very unusual. Most grants, when you have a grant, they're on a reimbursement basis. So spend it, and then you would do a report at the end and get your money pulled in. What I'm doing is I'm constantly estimating what I believe I'm going to expend, not what I'm actually expending. So I'm taking my actuals and then I'm taking estimates, and that's what I'm giving to the government to get money back. Then they're saying to me, okay, do that in October 30th. You've got to do that right now. And at the same time, they're telling FEMA. FEMA, you do that by October 15th. I don't even know what FEMA is covering versus what CARES is covering. So there could be costs that are rejected on the level from FEMA that has to go back to CARES. Then I have to do a report in November. Then I do another report in December. So there's a lot. It's not very clear cut, to be completely honest with you, Councilor. This is not the usual way I've ever seen a grant managed or done. I'm just following the guidelines of the federal government and what we're being told on a municipal level how to do this as sub-recipients of the Commonwealth.
[Bears]: Well certainly the federal government has failed us, but I mean, again, I mean, I'm a little baffled. Is there any way that those numbers are going to end up adding up to $5 million, or do you expect that we will be leaving some amount of money on the table at the end of this process?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Well, our hopes were in the beginning when we come to you during the budgetary process that we could use something less as a stimulus for a revenue offset, which the government never did. So now we're in the place where if we don't spend it, we could possibly have to return those funds. So what we're doing is we're trying to expend it as fast as possible using the guidelines. It's very, very, very strict on how we can use those funds. So they actually have us fill out a form that I send in to a liaison that tells me what's eligible and what's not eligible based on what we're spending. So it's kind of a complex process I've been managing and trying to get through. And I've been managing it with the schools, trying to get the schools covered as best they can to make sure that they can get all their needs covered while also covering all the needs of the city.
[Bears]: I certainly appreciate that, Alicia. And what I'm about to say has nothing to do with you. I think you have an impossible task. But it seems like we gambled and we lost here. We thought we might be able to use this money to cover a deficit. We're not. And now we're leaving money on the table. And I think that's a huge mistake by the administration. And it's putting you and our city departments and our school system in an impossible position right now. I mean, that's a disaster, in my opinion. And it goes to another point, which I'd redirect back at Mr. Murphy. Consistency, clarity, and transparency are essential across all of these decisions, right? Whether it's HVAC or reopening or hybrid, we need consistent, clear, and transparent communication Was there ever a proposal or was the mayor ever amenable or the city administration ever amenable to using CARES Act funding or other supplemental funding to increase our communications capacity? Because my understanding is that we have people doing four jobs. No one's focused specifically on communication. We saw the perfect example of it tonight. We clicked something on the city website and it took us to a 404. Oops, where is it? Has there been any plan or proposal Or has it been rejected to increase the communications capacity of the school system to address some of these communications issues that have been rampant? I know that it's been significantly discussed at school committee. The school committee can only do so much. It really needs to be the staff, and it needs to be this administration, the city administration, accepting that. And so I just would like to hear if there's been any discussion or proposals for increased communication staff that has been accepted by the city administration using the emergency funding from the CARES Act.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: If I could interject on that one, if that's OK, Councilors?
[Bears]: Sure.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: the eligibility would be at hand, I'd have to ask, can we use that vacation? They're very adamant about us using it for certain things, such as you can use it for personnel to assist with hybrid things, but you can't use it for this. So you can use it for this, but you can't. They're very, very stringent on their rules. So it's not as easy as Dave Murphy just saying, OK, I want to use CARES Act funding, Alicia, for this. I actually have to go back to our federal state liaison to see if that's even an eligible expense for him to use it.
[Bears]: Has that question been asked of you about communications staff, Alicia?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Dave Murphy has come to me for staffing questions. He has, especially when it comes to education and the kids and backfill and any way he could get additional staffing for his hybrid model, which was yes. As far as communication specifically, that wasn't exactly what we had discussed, but we have been discussing personnel and backfilling. But as you know, the CARES Act ends December 29th, or December 30th, so really, even if we got things in place, it's only going to be for a couple of months and then that funding ends.
[Bears]: Well, right. I mean, I hear that. I'm saying in June, you know, we've had a summer and a fall where communication hasn't been what it needs to be. So I understand their specifics, but I would, it seems like the federal, I mean, are you calling the federal liaison and they're saying yes or no to every specific item or is that how this is working on your end?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: I actually have to go online into a form, fill in the form, and submit it that way to get any of my questions answered.
[Bears]: OK. Well, again, I think that's been a huge area in question. I know it's been raised by the school committee, by parents, by the community. I would hope that there can be some effort put into increasing the communications capacity of Medford Public Schools, as people have been talking about extensively, because it's needed. We can't have assistant superintendents and superintendents doing the job of communications and their own job and the job of assistants and secretaries. I mean, it is just not sustainable. And I think the people on this call know it best, because they're the ones who are experiencing it. So I mean, my last question was just going to be, You know, where do we go if the map turns red tomorrow, what happens? Do you have an answer for that, Mr. Murphy?
[Murphy]: So in the event that the community is declared in the red category, I anticipate that we will continue to have in-person instruction. Now, there are caveats to that. If the red is caused by an outbreak or if there's evidence of in-school transmission, that's something obviously we'll have to look at very, very closely. But as Commissioner Riley stated today, it is the expectation of DESE, and I think it's inconsistent with The mandate by the community to keep students in school has provided that it's safe. Based on the public health guidance that we have and the data that we have, I don't anticipate that we would immediately cease in-person instruction solely because the community goes into the red. Now, we will continue to look at the metrics every single week. The virus transmission rates will absolutely be a factor in the superintendent's decision as to whether to maintain in-person instruction and whether to continue the progression of the implementation of the hybrid program. But a red designation alone will not be sufficient to cease in-person instruction. The last thing I'll say very quickly with regard to the communication issue, I just want the council to know and the community to know that All of us see communication as something that has an organization. We need to be continuously improving. We do have staff that are dedicated to communication. They work extremely hard, as do our people on the instructional side, as people do on the operational side. But for those of us in leadership roles, We have a responsibility to communicate effectively with the community and to keep the community informed. So when I'm presenting in front of you and a website doesn't work and therefore I can't effectively convey to you the instructions that people need to get to the information that they need, then that's on me. And I get the point that you're saying that we all can't wear a million different hats. Frankly, when you're in a role like assistant superintendent or superintendent, all of us are being paid to wear multiple hats. And that is just the nature of our roles. It's something we have to do better. And I don't want there to be any misunderstanding as to the degree to which all of us, our team, is aware of that.
[Bears]: Well, Mr. Murphy, I mean, I appreciate that, and I understand it. But yeah, you can wear four hats. You can't wear 40 hats. And I think there's a clear capacity issue here. a clear need has been outlined at very many school committee meetings for increased communication even prior to COVID-19. So I just want to put that.
[Murphy]: I disagree with that. But it's our responsibility and we have to do it better.
[Bears]: Right. Well, yeah. And I think it's also responsibility of the city administration and the people who make the budget to make that a priority. And yeah, I mean, I don't envy you having to work with Commissioner Riley, who's flip-flopping back and forth every other day on what DESI means or doesn't mean, or how big of a bully or a gangster they're going to be this week.
[Murphy]: So I do... Sure, I quoted him from this afternoon, so I might have to go back and check.
[Bears]: Yeah, so I don't envy at all, but I will just say, I know that just going back into the red doesn't mean that. But if you look at the wastewater results and the number of tests per day, we are headed quickly back into a COVID surge. And I just think, again, the consistency, clarity, and transparency of your communication around that is going to be essential whatever happens. So I hope that resources are available. And I hope we're not leaving thousands or millions of dollars on the table to address those challenges. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. Council Member Rowe.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my fellow councilors for their extensive questioning, so I really don't have many questions left. Just have one question for Ms. Nunley and Benjamin. Just for my own edification, could you remind me when the city was alerted of the CARES funding we were receiving, the amount we were getting? Ms.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Rowe, could you clarify your question? I apologize.
[Morell]: When were we told of the amount we were receiving? What was the date we got the information about that $5 million? How long have we known that we had access to that?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: It was fiscal year 20. I know that. But what also was frustrating to me is, as Councilor Beeson said, the rules just keep changing. So we're being told we can't use the funds one way, and now we're being told we can't use the funds that way. It's a little frustrating. I'd love to give you the exact date, Councilor, but I didn't. I brought all my numbers, but not the award letter.
[Morell]: OK, but it's been several months?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Yeah, it's been a few months. Because when we did the budget, we came up with a four-year honorable body. And we were hoping that we could use it as an offset. When we found out, we were going to wait until August, we told you. And when we didn't hear back, we just started using the funding as much as possible. So that's what we've been doing. And then on top of that, we've been told Oh, now you can capture things from fiscal year 20 that originally I hadn't captured. So now I'm actually able to go back. I think we're going to have a lot of frustration right now. Okay.
[Morell]: Thank you. And then question for Mister Murphy. So you were discussing mentioned essentially the $800,000 that I guess we're getting an update on tonight actually hasn't been applied yet because the cares funding is being applied in the 800,000 is being
[Murphy]: That's a very fair question. I don't have a specific timeline, but I can tell you that there will need to be a sense of urgency because the work that we're doing right now, while it is a good strategy and a safe strategy, it has not been billed to me as a long-term sustainable strategy. with regard to making sure that our VAVs, which for those who are not familiar with it, and if this is, I'm the only one who wasn't prior to all this, I apologize, but essentially a computerized Q&A. that allows, that controls our dampers, that determines how much air is coming into a room. There's a need for those to be recalibrated. That's one of three sort of buckets of work that will need to happen in the near future. And so I would anticipate it would be in the course of this fiscal year that we will be identifying a specific scope of work and the process of doing that work. But I don't have, I don't know whether that's measured in weeks or months at this point. I just would say that I definitely think it needs to begin during this, the course of this fiscal year.
[Morell]: Okay, so if we're looking at this fiscal year, then it's conceivable the work, I mean, the school year essentially ends the same time around as the fiscal year. So it would be implemented or started or
[Murphy]: this work does not work generally speaking that needs to be completed in order to have students in the building. We're bringing students in the building while identifying these issues. We've essentially triaged a number of problems and have applied what our, it's probably not accurate to call it a band-aid because these are more than really, really short-term solutions, but they're not solutions that are going to put us in a position where we don't have to do this work for another five or 10 years. There's a lot of work that has to take place, as I understand, during the course of the next year.
[Morell]: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Thank you, Councilor Morell. I just want to make it clear for everyone outside, all the people that are listening, that We weren't spending the CARES Act from day one. We just weren't rapidly spending it because we were hoping that they would give us some stimulus by August, but they didn't. And that's when we started rapidly spending, but we've been spending CARES Act all the way through based on our needs for the city, as far as PPE, gloves, technology, technology for the school. So expenditures have been occurring the entire time.
[Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Marks]: Councilor Locks. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Council President Falco for bringing this very important issue forward tonight. I know my council colleagues asked a lot of questions. I do want to say on the lines of Councilor Bears that if we do indeed leave money on the table, that would be a complete disgrace to leave any money on the table. Knowing what we know now, Dave, I know you've just been around for a little period of time, but I have a tough time believing over the years that we have not identified through our building grounds and maintenance the need to make updates to exhaust fans, ventilation, HVAC, and so forth. These issues, issues that have been recognized over the previous years,
[Murphy]: I have to say I have a limited amount of knowledge as to what's happened historically, but my understanding as to everything I've been able to learn in the period of time that I've been here, there have been some priorities that haven't, there's always competing priorities, so anytime there was an infrastructure related priority that was not at the forefront from a budgetary perspective, I'm sure that there were a set of instructional priorities that were, and I'm sure vice versa were true, but I'm just candidly I'm making that observation more based on just general municipal and school administration experience than I am specific to Medford. I know that there are definitely issues with roof fan, exhaust fans, and again, the VAP calibration point that I raised earlier that have been identified and now have a different sense of urgency behind them.
[Marks]: Right, so what I'm hearing tonight is that the school district has been aware for many years that they've had some non-instructional reasons that there may be concerns with portions of our buildings, but those particular items have been kick down, push down the list of priorities for other priorities. And I think what we're seeing right now and part of the frustration is, and this is no reflection on you in particular, Dave, or the superintendent, or the school committee. But I think when we look at lack of maintenance within our buildings, and this is not exclusive to the school department because the city side is at fault as well. We've always kicked the can down the street when it comes to building maintenance and upkeep. And I think what we're seeing right now is a system that is plagued with a lot of concerns. And concerns that should have been addressed over the years, now are being addressed because of COVID. So the one thing that we did get out of COVID was the fact that, in my opinion, these building maintenance concerns, which get brought up every year, and why we don't allocate a certain amount of money to address these needs, because it gets pushed off. I think this was, if anything, a great learning experience. And I hope it doesn't become any other experience other than a learning experience at this point. But the question I have, Dave, is do we anticipate, and this may be a question for Alicia, and I know it's tough to tell, do we anticipate any additional funding, knowing that some of the money's going to dry up at the end of this month, and then we heard at the end of December, do we anticipate any additional funding to address the air quality concerns that are being addressed now?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes. Yes, the administration's working on an extensive five-year capital improvement plan, which takes into account maintenance and projects, all different projects throughout the city, including the schools.
[Marks]: Right. And are we able to tap into any of this particular CARES Act money or stimulus money that may be available to address this capital plan that the school committee and the administration is looking at?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: The capital plan was actually funded through a state grant that the administration received. So that's what's funding the development of the extensive capital plan. As far as the CARES Act money, we're gonna use whatever the school needs as far as their HVAC needs up until our expiration date. It just has to be done and we're completed with invoice and paid by December 29th. So I haven't the ability of amending my drawdown, but I need to draw down as much as I can by this Friday. It's a big task, I'm working on it, so.
[Marks]: Right, no, I understand. And I understand this is new to everyone, believe me. This is an emergency that we've never seen the likes of before, so I understand that. Relating to Council President Falco's question regarding that we knew that COVID-19 was airborne and we knew about this in early March, April. And I am very concerned why it took so long for the school administration and the school committee to act on moving forward on some of these needs that we have regarding air quality, exhaust fans, and so forth. And it's pretty troubling to me that we let a fair amount of time go by, and in doing so, potentially a fair amount of money be left on the table, which is very concerning in these troubling times to leave any type of money on the table. And that really bothers me that there wasn't more of an emphasis on finding out air quality, which is a major concern. Now to that point, Have we reached out to the EPA? Have we exhausted all the rules and regulations and standards from Mass DEP or the Clean Air, Mass Clean Air Act? And are we required as a school system to look at air quality? And if so, what, how often are we required to do so?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: If I'd like to make a point of information to Councilor Marks, As far as the CARES Act, and I know the schools are spending on the HVAC, they aren't considered a recipient of the CARES money. It's the city, and the city is a sub-recipient of the Commonwealth. So the school is actually considered a sub-recipient of the city, which even though they're the largest department, that's the way the federal government is looking at it. And at the time when we were awarded the CARES Act money, that was not an allowable cost, but now they're telling us it's an allowable cost. So I just want to stress to everybody, to the council, that it's not just we're sitting on money, it's that we're told, no, you can't use it for this. And then later, a month later, yes, you can use it for this. No, you can't use it for that personnel, but now, yes, you can. I just need you to understand that the federal government has flip-flopped on their rules for expenditures, and that's one reason for why we are where we are today.
[Scarpelli]: Point of information if I can, Mr. President. Point of information, Councilor Scarpelli. Alicia, I'm just a little concerned. I just don't... I work in a municipality where that is the flip-flopping. You do see it happening, but for example, I have 50 employees that are working 20 hours a week and we were told that we couldn't use that funding to pay for those employees. We got word last week that we could, so all we did is revert back all of those hours for reimbursement. Why does it seem so simple in some communities and why does it seem so difficult the way you're making it sound right now that it's really monumental? Is it that different?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: It is because, depending on the tracking, so you have to think, you have a police department, a fire department, a school department, a DPW department, me, a finance department, a treasury department. I could go on and on and on. We have multiple departments with multiple staff. Now, if somebody's out with COVID, I don't know who had COVID. If somebody's being quarantined, I don't know if we've been quarantined, so I have to rely on each department's department head to gather that information for each of their departments for all their staff from the beginning of the disaster until now.
[Scarpelli]: No, I understand if somebody was infected, but we're talking about part-time employees. It's very simple for us just to say that this is what we spent prior to approving it, and now we're asking for the CARES Act for reimbursement to our budget, and it's being done.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: That wasn't how it was. So what happened was we were told if anybody, for instance, me when I was sick, anybody from my position who helped out in backfield, we could pay for that expenditure. So we tracked it. My position could not be paid. Now they're saying, yes, it can. In addition, they're saying if anybody was quarantined, that money can also be. So that's all has to be by department tracked, put in a spreadsheet and put together. It's not just part-time. It's part-time, it's full-time, and it's all across the city and the schools.
[Scarpelli]: Yeah, I know what you're saying, but I'm confused, maybe I'm not saying it right. What I'm saying is this has nothing to do with an infection or anybody being infected. When we're running programs for a COVID-based program, we were told we can't pay salaries through that back then. We found out we could, and all we did is revert back to all those months and salaries that we paid, and we reimbursed that through the COVID money. And that's just my small department. It sounds like it's so difficult here. Do we have an incident command system in place? In Medford, do we have a team in place?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: I see Dave Rodriguez nodding his head, but I can't unmute him to speak.
[Caraviello]: If we can unmute the Chief of Staff. Chief of Staff Rodriguez.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, we do have an ICS system in place. Mary Ann O'Connor is answering.
[Scarpelli]: Okay, so that's what I'm saying, Dave. This is where I'm confused. Other communities have used the COVID money to directly put together an incident command system and a team together that focuses on what we're doing with our employees that have to do the day-to-day activities just to survive without the COVID. So it just seems like, I can understand why it seems so overwhelming to so many people. I'm just a little confused. Thank you for answering that, and I appreciate it. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Marks, you still have the floor. Sorry.
[Marks]: Yeah, Mr. President, if I could, I asked the question, maybe it's a question for Dave Murphy, but what MAS DP rules or regulations or standards or MAS Clean Air Act or the EPA are we bound by as a school system? And how often, if any, are we required to do air quality testing?
[Murphy]: My knowledge, there isn't a regulatory requirement with regard to the air exchange rate, which is the specific element of the air quality that, under public health guidance, is cause for concern with regard to virus transmission. I'm not familiar with any regulatory requirement on that piece. industrial standards that all governmental buildings and public spaces obviously have to comply with, although I can't say that I know, I can speak to the binding nature of them one way or another, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no legal requirement that is sort of that is dictating this particular piece of air quality that we are measuring. It's based on public health guidance and public health experts saying that in order to reduce the likelihood of transmission, this is the piece of the air quality that you generally want to try to improve and that's where our focus has been.
[Marks]: And if I could, and maybe this is a question for you, Dave, would this money also be available to do improvements such as relating to air quality, such as windows and so forth?
[Murphy]: When you say this money, are you referring to the CARES money or the capital improvements expenditure?
[Marks]: The CARES money in particular.
[Murphy]: CARES money. I think my understanding, and Alicia may want to speak to this, but The money is designed for items that are expenses that are caused by the pandemic, essentially. There's a more complicated way of saying that, but that's pretty much what it is. And so if there are facilities or infrastructure, improvements that we are doing specifically to respond to the conditions under which we're operating related to the pandemic, then, yes, I think we would certainly take the position, and I would advocate to Alicia, and I imagine Alicia would advocate to the state, and the state would advocate to the federal government, that that is, in fact, an eligible expense. So I think the short answer to your question is, yes, that's essentially the conversation that we're engaged in right now. I can offer just a very quick illustration of the complexity of our personnel piece. When we had staff who were quarantined, we had other staff who were deployed into those roles. And so when the new guidance was provided to us that a personnel expenditure of that kind could be an eligible expense, we are now going back and analyzing who was filling in for whom and then finding a way to make the argument that that's funding that should be eligible. So that's a really short way of explaining what is a fairly complicated task because so much of the work that administrators and other staff are engaged in, depending on the day, that they are more or less in either the role that they're adopting due to someone else's absence or their normal role. There's a lot of overlap between the two. So we're trying to draw that line as consistently as possible so that we can be good faith participants in the CARES Act program. At the same point, we don't want to leave any money on the table, so we're analyzing at a very close level what staff are deployed where so that we can make stated appropriate arguments.
[Marks]: So just moving forward, Dave, what did we learn about the lack of building maintenance? Have we learned anything from this?
[Murphy]: I think so. And I think, I'm not sure, Councilor, if it was your question or one of your colleagues, but the point about what's learning, I think there's a number of things. I mean, I think we have to, and I'm not suggesting that the Metro Public Schools was unaware of this by any means. I can just say that based on being in my role during this situation, what I would answer as an individual is that we need to look at the organization as a whole and always be thinking about how, in the way I always describe district leadership positions as, what are the problems that you don't want your successors to have to deal with? And I think we have to have that type of forward-looking perspective to make sure that we're we're building our priorities and developing our plans accordingly because there will be other infrastructure related crises and there will be other superintendents and assistant superintendents before the Medford City Council and I think if we do our job well those individuals will have fewer and different problems to confront with or without a pandemic.
[Marks]: And just my last point, and I know we talk about school buildings, a lot of people don't envision the vocational school. But let me tell you, we do have a very well functioning vocational school that's been recognized over the years and there's been a lot of improvements. And it's very troubling to me, as a former graduate of the vocational school, to hear that we have shops that have poor air quality. And knowing what takes place in a vocational shop, which is welding, which is automotive, things that emit toxic fumes, knowing that our students are being subjected in these shops to a poor air quality. really raises a red flag to me. And I've yet to hear anything really about the vocational school, but it's a major, major concern. And I think it's something that needs to be addressed immediately. I know Dave, you mentioned that it's an area that's being looked at, but With the nature of our shops and the work that's taking place, it's unacceptable to have poor air quality in those particular shops. And I hope that that's something that's on the radar. And moving forward, it's something that's reviewed not on an annual basis, but maybe a monthly basis in these shops. We probably have the same filters in some of those shops when I attended some 40 years ago. And that's not a joke because of the lack of maintenance and the lack of upkeep. So I would hope that this special attention paid to our vocational school in those particular shops.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Marks. President Falco.
[Falco]: Thank you. Alicia, one question. When you mentioned about the CARES money and how some of the funds are reimbursed, some things are reimbursable and some things are not reimbursable and how things have flip-flopped. What's the process? Does the federal government notify you through like bulletins or how do you get notified about that?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: So literally, I've gone on a Q&A session with them, and what they did is they gave us a link, and each community goes onto that link, fills out a form for their questions, and then we wait for the federal state liaison to get back to us with an answer on whether it's eligible or not.
[Falco]: So you like just submit questions back and forth?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes, that's how I've been doing it. Yeah, they have an overall of what's eligible, obviously like PPE and things like that. But anything that's questionable, like I asked about the HVAC for the schools because they had $150,000 capital improvement cap. And then they were like, well, that doesn't apply to the HVAC for the schools, they're exempt. So I wouldn't have known that unless I sent that question. I would have thought, oh, I can only spend up to 150,000 on HVAC. Okay.
[Falco]: Thank you for your answer on that. And if I get one final question for Dave, Dave, with regard to the Curtis Tufts, is that, I've been told that they're using fans down there. Is that true? Do they have HEPA filters at the Curtis Tufts?
[Murphy]: They have both. They have HEPA filters in the classrooms, nurse's office, and the restroom. And we also have a supply of fans that are inverted in the windows just to create additional air circulation, which the HEPA Curtis-Thompson, as I'm sure you know, does not have an HVAC system. So there's no sort of organic way to, I'm not going to use the windows as the organic way, but there's no systemic way to circulate air. And that's why the HEPAs will be there indefinitely.
[Falco]: Thank you very much. I thank you for answering all the questions tonight. I know they're not easy, and I know you're all there. But there are many concerns throughout the community. My council has great questions, and I appreciate the answers that you gave. And look forward to hopefully another update soon. So I thank you very much.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Chief of staff, did you have your hands up? Did you want to say something? Now it's from the floor. OK, thank you. Councilor Scarpelli. Second. OK, any more questions? The motion by President Falco, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk. If I may, can I ask you a quick question? Hold on a second. President Falco.
[Falco]: Dave Rodriguez.
[Caraviello]: Dave Rodriguez, Mr. Chief of Staff. Yes, sir.
[Falco]: Thank you, Dave. I appreciate it. Quick question. I noticed recently, I think the mayor released an update video with updates that were going on in the city, and there were some good things on there, but there was no update with regard to the schools. I mean, that is part of the city, right? I would think that that should have been part of that presentation. Am I wrong?
[Dave Rodrigues]: For sure. And the mayor participates regularly in the school community meetings. in expressing her opinion, and she's very strongly, strongly opinion and getting kids back to school as quickly as possible. Any updates regarding the school, the school administration from the school committee will happen in conjunction with them. That was not intended, it was intended to be a comprehensive update, but not intended to capture all the stuff that we've been working on or accomplished in the last 10 months. So it's not the last, it will be, It was one of the first updates, it won't be the last, and we sure have to fold with some educational updates.
[Falco]: Yeah, well, I would think that a comprehensive update would be comprehensive and involve the school system. And the school, when you think about it, the budget that comes before us is a lot of money. And it's a big part of our city, the Medford Public Schools is part of the city of Medford. And I would think that that update should have been included. Like I said, there were some good things in there, but there needs to be updates on everything. And I mean, sometimes it's bad news, but there should still be an update. The parents of the residents of the city deserve an update. And I think that that should have been included, and I would hope that that's included in the next update.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Clerk, do we have any hands raised? I don't see any, but.
[Hurtubise]: I did not see any, Mr. President.
[Caraviello]: Okay, on the motion by President Falco, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Paters? Yes. Councilor Nikes? Yes. Councilor Marks?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes.
[Caraviello]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, motion passes.
[Bears]: Mr. President, while we're under suspension, motion to take 2617.
[Caraviello]: While we're under suspension, I'm sorry, Councilor Bears, what was that again?
[Bears]: While we're under suspension, motion to take paper 20-617, 617. 20-617, communications from the mayor to the honorable presidents and members of city council.
[Caraviello]: Request for appropriation of Community Preservation Committee. Mr. President and city councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following recommendation of the Community Preservation Committee. Number one, requesting the appropriation of $125,000 from the Community Preservation Act, Community Housing Reserve to the Action for Boston Community Development for ABCD rental assistance for Medford Residence Program. Number two, requesting the appropriation of $2,835 from the CPA General Reserve to the City of Medford Department of Veterans Services to restore the USMCKA Markey Memorial located at the intersection of Lawrence Road and Winthrop Street. Number three, requesting the appropriation of $3,500 from the CPA General Reserve to the trees, Medford slash City of Medford Tree Warden to undertake an inventory of all existing trees located in Oak Row Cemetery. All projects will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund by category, Community Hazard Reserve, and General Reserve. We have Roberta Cameron on hand. Roberta, where are you? Roberta, could you give us a brief synopsis here? If we can unmute her. Hello, thank you.
[Roberta Cameron]: Sorry for my. So thank you very much. As you are aware, back last spring, the Community Preservation Committee approved a recommended funding of $250,000. for an emergency rental assistance program to assist households who are affected by COVID-19 to be able to preserve their housing if they're in danger of not being able to pay their rent. So the Community Preservation Committee recommended $250,000 at the time, and the City Council approved the first half of that funding in last spring, and asked that we return when the first half of the funding had been utilized to request a second half of the funding. So we've submitted a report to the city council, or we've submitted a report to the city, which I hope has been made available to the councilors, that details how the funding has been spent over the past several months. And in fact, most of that funding has been utilized. And we are asking that the council will release the remaining funding for that program, especially as the eviction moratorium has been lifted statewide. We anticipate that many more households are going to be impacted economically by their loss of income due to this crisis. requested or recommended funding for two small grant applications. Small grants, as you know, are projects that request less than $5,000 of CPA funding. And we make the committee reserves $50,000 a year for these types of projects. And the two applicants for these projects, this month are perfect examples of the types of projects that we hope to be able to support with these small grant applications. With that, I'd like to ask the Council if you have any questions for us or for our applicants.
[Falco]: Thank you. We have a number of questions. You have Councilor Morell, Councilor Bears, Councilor Knight, Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, thank you, Roberta, for presenting on this. So I just want to confirm doing some quick math. The amount that's been expended through the emergency rental assistance is $102,000 based on what we have in this report. We have the $67,000 and then the $35,000. That's been processed and about to be processed.
[Falco]: Roberta, do you want to?
[Roberta Cameron]: Yes, actually, I'd like to defer to ABCD, if I may, to provide some details about how their funding has been spent up to date.
[Falco]: Is that Ann, correct?
[Roberta Cameron]: Ann Corbin from ABCD.
[Falco]: Okay, I'll try to unmute you, Ann, one minute. Oh, there we go. Ann, you have the floor. I'm sorry.
[Morell]: I was just I was just confirming based on the numbers as far as what's been expended. It looks the size of applications for those completed at 67,000, you know, a little more than 67,000. And those pending, which are soon to be completed is 35 more than 35,000. So that's about 102,000. Is there money that I guess because you is there a more specific accounting for the money that's been spent so far?
[SPEAKER_18]: I'm just trying to get to the point that I think the first amount that was allocated for this was a 125,000. So 102,000 were
[Morell]: I'm just trying to so that the first allocation from the council is a 125,000. So I'm just trying to understand. expended and is pending. I'm just seeing an amount of around $102,000. And that's correct. That's the full amount that's been. OK, thank you. That's just what I was trying to get to. Yeah, I mean, obviously, I think, Roberta, for raising the fact of the state eviction moratorium expiring, I guess I would assume you anticipate more demand with that moratorium expiring. that's all I have. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to the CPC and Roberta Cameron for bringing these three proposals before us. I think they're all of incredible value. Just to Councilor Morell's point, and I think basically what we've heard here the past couple hours, federal government has failed us. The state government has failed us, especially on this issue of housing. And I'm really glad that as a local government, we've been able to, you know, do something to help people because people need a lot of help and things are bad out there. RAFT, which is the state's program, is really overburdened. The eviction and foreclosure moratorium expired a couple weeks ago. Judges are being rushed to the housing courts to process evictions. Housing is tenuous. We were in a housing crisis. We were in a housing crisis before. Now we have mass unemployment. And the federal and state government aren't doing their job, quite frankly. So I'm really glad that we can do this. I think we need to get this money out there. I'm hoping we can support more Medford residents and Medford families in keeping them in their homes. And I also just want to thank Mr. Durham from Veteran Services for the proposal to renovate and restore another one of our memorials. And to Therese Medford and Warden Tootin to look at all the trees in Oak Grove Cemetery. So I will be voting yes on this tonight. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. In terms of the two small grants, I have no problem with that. In terms of the $125,000 appropriation for rental assistance, this is something that I've supported in the past, but I think it was important to point out that initially this council didn't support this paper when it was first brought before us. And the reason this council didn't support this paper when it was first brought before us was because these funds were not going to be maintained exclusively in our community. Community Preservation Act funds are generated through an assessment on a property tax. And when this program was first presented to us, people were going to be eligible from all across the state, not just Medford only. And this council worked with ABCD to ensure that only Medford residents were going to be able to receive these funds. And because of that, if you look at the data that they've given us, you'll see that 35 applications have been approved. The aggregate amount requested is $101,679,000, the $102,000 that Councilor Morell was referring to. In reading this paper, you'll also see that 35 applications have been approved for residents that live in the city. 49 applications were rejected because those people were outside the service area. They didn't live in the community. So these restrictions that we put on this to keep these dollars in our community are paying off, Mr. President. They're allowing us to service more Medford residents in the community. and keep that money here. If we looked at the number of applications that came in and the number of applications that were kicked out because they weren't residents of the city of Medford, we'd see that this money would have been spent far faster. And these money, these are monies that are generated through property taxes. So these are monies that should maintain a space right here in this community and go no further than the walls of Medford or the borders of Medford, Mr. President. I think it's very important that we point that out, that the council did its due diligence the last time this paper was before us, and put some safeguards and protections in. And I would assume that these safeguards and protections would extend to the second appropriation, and I'd like to get that commitment from ABCD. And I'd also like to include that as a condition on the paper, should it be approved this evening.
[SPEAKER_18]: We are committed to ensuring that this funding stays in the City of Monroe.
[Knight]: Excellent. Thank you very much. Music to my ears, as they say. I'm also looking at this report that was given. It says 35 households which have completed active applications. The aggregate amount requested is $101,679. The aggregate amount requested. This amount has been appropriated. Is that correct? It sounded like you confirmed that with Councilor Morell's questions?
[SPEAKER_18]: Yes.
[Knight]: So the money's expended, gone, no longer in the bank.
[SPEAKER_18]: Well, so there is, we did just put in a request. There were two different installments. We have, we are continuing to process the applications while we wait on a second installment, but we didn't want to hold up the payment to landlords and risk people possibly becoming unhoused.
[Knight]: Okay. All right, so yeah, and looking at this, Mr. President, you know, addresses my concerns and my questions. It looks like, you know, the safeguards that we put in place are helping us meet the objectives of the program, and I wholeheartedly support the paper this evening.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Any other questions? Councilor Scott, do you have a question?
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. That was the exact comments I was going to make that Councilor Knight made, that we really focused on the Community Preservation Act coming from taxes, revenue created by our residents, and focusing on making sure that our residents that are in need are the first ones that could use those fundings. And again, I appreciate the question and the answers, so I'll be supporting this paper tonight. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. So from my understanding on Councilor Morell's question, they have spent $84,000. Is that not correct? Not $102,000. So only $84,000 has been expended.
[SPEAKER_18]: So the $102,000 includes those that are continuing to go through the application process. But we've already They've already submitted paperwork. We're just getting agreements from landlords in order to continue the payment process.
[Marks]: Right, but that's not money that's been expended. So out of the 35 method applicants, all 35 were accepted, or were there more method applicants?
[SPEAKER_18]: Barbera, were you going to say something?
[Falco]: Can you repeat the question, Councilwoman Lox, please? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry.
[Roberta Cameron]: If I may, I have a question actually as to whether the correct number was 35 applicants or at another place in the report it said 51 applicants, which would make sense given the average. Household given was just about $2000 per household. And I had a suspicion that there might have been a typo in the report that was given. I thought that we had sent a corrected report. have been that we didn't send the correction of the correction. The the original report with to the council. Right. So so the
[Falco]: Numbers are all over the place.
[Roberta Cameron]: Sorry, I just wanted to correct that I believe that the number of households assisted to date, including the ones who are still in the application process, is 51 households with an average of $2,200 per household, rather than only 35 households assisted. So the 35 households are the households that have actually received payment.
[Marks]: So Mr. President, just if I could. So the report that we have in front of us tonight says 26 applicants, and it says 67,423. And then there were nine applicants that are waiting to be finalized and require additional documentation at a request of 35,881. So now we're being asked or stated that it's no longer 35, it's 51. So out of the 51, what percent or how many are applications that have already received assistance, compared to those that are currently in process?
[SPEAKER_18]: So there are 35 applicants right now that have actually, payments have been made and sent to landlords.
[Marks]: And I thought you said that was $84,000. That is $84,000.
[SPEAKER_18]: And the remainder are payments that are in process. Actually, I'll check the PEP on Wednesday. So to get to the 102, the remainder of those checks will be PEP tomorrow. Once we've approved applications, we have a seven-day turnaround in order for landlords to receive payments.
[Marks]: So currently we have then, not nine, we have 16 applicants that are waiting to be finalized or require additional documentation.
[SPEAKER_18]: Correct.
[Marks]: Okay. And all 51 Method residents.
[SPEAKER_18]: All 51 Method residents.
[Marks]: And how many total applications did we receive from Method residents?
[SPEAKER_18]: I believe it was 67.
[Marks]: Okay, so I assume the 16 that didn't get anything because they didn't meet the eligibility requirements.
[SPEAKER_18]: It's either they didn't meet the eligibility requirements or their landlord refused to participate.
[Marks]: And so the number I come up with is, I know Councilor Morell just gave a ballpark, but it's 103,304. That means we have roughly $22,000 or $21,700 left in the account. And your average is $2,000 per person, so that would lead me to believe there's about 11 or more residents that we can get on this. And how many applications do we have in the bucket right now? Not including the 51.
[SPEAKER_18]: Not including the 51. Right now, we have nine.
[Marks]: You have nine. So you have ample money in there right now to address the needs that you currently have. Yes. OK. And I think one of the issues that this council was concerned about, and that's why we didn't move forward, although you run a great program and I thank you for all your efforts, that we didn't want to allocate all the money because we didn't know the demand on this program and so forth. And I'm glad to see there is a demand. Not glad to see there's a demand, I'm glad to see we're able to meet the demand. It's unfortunate that there's a demand, but I don't know if my colleagues want to appropriate the full 125,000, or should we take a portion of that knowing that we already have money in the account, $21,000 in the account, and we can accommodate everyone that's in the queue right now. Do we want to give half of the 125 and then revisit it in another few months when you need it? I mean, that seems to be the, I don't know the oversight that I think we should have as a body. I'm open to any of my suggestions from my colleagues. So I would just put that out on the floor. I wouldn't be opposed to allocating half of the 125 at this point, knowing that we have enough for an additional 11, and there's only eight or nine in the queue, I think was just mentioned. So I would oppose that to my colleagues.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Morell. Thank you, Mr. President. So this report, I know it's, the report is dated September 10th through October 6th. So the 51 applicants and what time period, this was a month and a half that we went through 51 applicants or what was the actual time period for this, I guess?
[SPEAKER_18]: No, that is a, that is a cumulative number. I believe we started, I started in June, so I believe the first month was the month of June. Okay. I believe it was June.
[Roberta Cameron]: Yes, we started advertising the program in May, but I believe that the first applications came in in June.
[Morell]: And were those applications, were they evenly spread out? Did they start to come, you know, have you had more in recent times as opposed to back in June or July?
[SPEAKER_18]: So from June, they really, they kind of tripled in in June. We are starting to see a little uptick, but we also are providing stabilization services and making sure that people can sustain housing once we provide assistance. Now we're starting to see the uptick. I think people are getting a little nervous because of the backlog with the RAP funding and they're starting to look for other resources.
[Morell]: Okay. So would you anticipate this need would probably be at a faster rate or a higher rate than came through in the previous months? I'm just trying to see as we're extrapolating out the amount of money that's needed. Do you anticipate based on the trends you're seeing, understanding that the expiration of the eviction moratorium and people's concern about RAF, do you that we're going to have a higher rate of these applications coming through.
[SPEAKER_18]: Anticipate probably just a higher rate of these applications coming through.
[Falco]: Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank our council for last time for making sure that this money all went to Medford residents. So I think we all did the right thing in assisting that happen. And I will support Councilor Marks' motion for the $75, similar to what we did last time. Because as I say, you can come back any time and get more. So I will support his motion for that. On the veteran services. I mean, these are monuments, a lot of these monuments you see throughout the city have deteriorated over the years. And I'm glad to see Mike Durham is getting out there, doing some a little bit at a time. I know the Cemetery Board is trying to do some of the monuments up there. And these are monuments for our history in Medford, and they should be restored to their position. I know they did, A great job was done on the World War I memorial on Forest Street. So again, this is a good thing that we're doing, bringing back some of the monuments. As I say, it's part of our history and people should know about them. And as far as on the trees, I would hope that after we do these trees, the assessment that we get out there quickly and replace the trees in the cemetery again. Cemetery is, again, that's one of our, it's a great thing in our city, and it should be maintained with the proper trees. Because as I said, it is an old cemetery and a lot of them are falling. And I hate to see one of them fall down on somebody or take down someone's grave. So I'm glad we're doing an assessment of that and getting them all off the stuff. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to go on record. I think ABCD has done a wonderful job administering this program. They've adhered to the parameters set by the council, and I think they're being very responsive and understanding of really what we're facing in this state, what residents of the state are facing. So I would be in favor of the full amount, you know, releasing the full amount that's been requested, the $125,000, as opposed to a smaller amount and asking them to come back. So thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Morell. Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Yeah, I would also be supportive of the full amount, I think. What was the phrase? There's a dark winter ahead. I don't think we want to be in a position where we don't have the resources. I would be happy to maybe come to a compromise position that any surplus funds still with ABCD by the end of the next fiscal year be revert to the CPA. And then if there are additional funds, then we know they're coming back. I don't expect there to be, but that would be my proposal.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Mr. President, in my opinion, clearly the process that we laid out is working. We allocated $125,000. ABCD is coming back to us now. They have a total of 21,696 that they still haven't expended. And now they're asking for more money, because the need's there, which is great. But we are in the process of giving them more money. So I don't see a lag here. I don't see a reason why not for us to oversee the taxpayers' money. This is not money we pulled off the tree in the back of our house. This is taxpayers' money, and I think us as an oversight body is important, Mr. President. And it doesn't take much to present a paper to us like they are here tonight presenting a paper. So I would offer that in the form of a motion, Mr. President, that we release $62,500 of the $125,000. And if need be, they can come back before us once that's expended and we can reallocate some more money.
[Bears]: Start off with that in the form of a motion.
[Falco]: On the motion of Councilor Marks, seconded by Vice President Caraviello. Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Would Councilor Marks be amenable to an amendment of $75,000? Instead of half, we do $75,000 and $50,000.
[Marks]: I'm not sure. What's the difference?
[Bears]: Again, my concern is I think we should do all of it. I think this is the, we have the eviction moratorium expiring. We have winter coming. I think this is the time where we're going to see a surge in applications, which is what they've said over there. So I'd just like to err on the side of caution and give them a little bit more in case demand is incredibly high.
[Marks]: Right. So in my opinion, and I could appreciate that, I as one member of the council, I'm not going to withhold one nickel from them if they're able to spend it. And I think my fellow colleagues feel the same way. So I'm not sure why we wouldn't, I don't know why we'd want to give up our responsibility on behalf of the taxpayers to oversee this money and make sure it's judiciously spent. And I think that's a responsibility of us as the governing body.
[Bears]: I agree with that. I'm not saying that at all. This is the time where it's going to come through. We've just heard that, you know, they have applications. Basically, we've heard that there may be a cash flow question, right? I just want to try to avoid that. So that's just what I heard here is, you know, we kept processing payments were coming back, but we, you know, we didn't want to run up to the edge here is basically what I think was said. So that's just, I just want to err on the side of caution. That would be my proposal, amend to 75,000, and then we can come back for the additional 50. Either way, I know we're all approving the money, that's just my suggestion.
[Marks]: Right, so right now if we approve this 625, they would have 84,196 at their disposal. I don't know, I think that's appropriate, Mr. President, and I do believe that we should have the oversight. And I'm glad at the beginning that we, as Councilor Knight mentioned, said that this can only go to Method residents. Because as you can see, this money would have been spent elsewhere. not our residents, and that we withheld half of it originally to take a look how this is going. And it's going well, and that's why we're releasing more money. So I'm comfortable with what we're doing tonight, Mr. President. And I don't think anyone behind this reeling wants to withhold money, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. So there's a motion on the floor by Councilor Marks, seconded by Vice President Caraviello, amended by Councilor Knight. Councilor Knight, if I'm correct, Clerk Hurtubise didn't- Just that the money stays in the community.
[Knight]: Do you want to make that as an amendment? Or a condition of appropriation.
[Falco]: Okay, so Clerk Hurtubise, he sent me a message saying he needed clarification on that. Clerk Hurtubise, are you okay with that?
[Hurtubise]: So it's a condition of appropriation that there be a commitment to keep.
[Falco]: Mr. President. One minute, please.
[Knight]: Then I also had a question how much money do we have in the CPA housing reserve presently and I do believe last time the CPA was before us for this paper They were seeking us to appropriate 50% of the total at that point in time, so I'm just seeing where we are in terms of I think last time we were at about 550,000 Yeah, about $500,000 in the CPA trust fund when they came for the $250,000 appropriation. We took that $250,000 appropriation and we turned it into $125,000 appropriation. So I guess the question is how much money remains in that? Roberta, would you be able to answer that question?
[Roberta Cameron]: I will try from memory. I'm not prepared with that number off the top of my head. But in fact, the $500,000 was based on the funds that were estimated to be available for this fiscal year. And those were just the funds that were solely reserved for housing, not taking into account additional funds that could potentially be added to support housing this funding round. So there remains to be $250,000 in the housing reserve, approximately. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me. That has been reserved to be used exclusively for housing. As I said, that doesn't count the funds that could be added to the housing reserve this year.
[Knight]: Hold on. Let me start with that because that confused me for a second. So there's $250,000 in the housing reserve that's planned to be used for housing. All the money in the housing reserve is used for housing, right?
[Roberta Cameron]: Yes. All the money that's in the housing reserve.
[Knight]: I think what you were saying is we have $250,000 there. There's more money that we can put towards housing through other vehicles.
[Roberta Cameron]: Each year, the CPC has to set aside a minimum of 10% of its funds. And we receive approximately $1.5 million in funding a year through Medford taxpayers and through the state matching grant. Those are very rough numbers. I don't have the actual figures in front of me right now. So out of the $1.5 million a year, 10% of that automatically gets put toward the housing reserve. And last year, the CPC recommended to transfer an additional amount of money into the housing reserve above that automatic minimum.
[Knight]: And that money was transferred from the general fund, right?
[Roberta Cameron]: And so at the beginning... Oh, stop, stop.
[Knight]: Whoa, whoa, whoa.
[Falco]: Slow down, slow down, slow down. Roberto, one minute, please. Point of information.
[Knight]: That money that got transferred into the housing reserve was money from the general bucket that we... Yes, from the general bucket.
[Roberta Cameron]: Correct. So, but once it's in the housing reserve, it can only be used for affordable housing.
[Roberta Cameron]: And so I guess the answer to the question is you don't know how much is in there, right? That was $500,000 in there at the time that we made the initial grant of $250,000. So we've committed the $250,000 toward this program. However, the money does not, first of all, we have set aside the full $250,000 toward this program. The city council only approved this program. Mr. President, it's just a question.
[Knight]: How much money do we have in the bucket, in the affordable housing bucket?
[Falco]: Robert, I guess the question the councilor tonight is asking is how much money is in the affordable housing category.
[Knight]: Category, bucket, account, whatever you want to call it.
[Roberta Cameron]: We still have the $250,000 in that category that was left over. We also have the $125,000 that the council did not recommend. So that makes, what, $375,000 are sitting in that bucket.
[Knight]: And- And then those buckets don't get appropriate, those buckets don't get filled until the council makes the appropriation to spread the money out across them, correct? Do we do that annually usually? for compliance purposes. OK. All right. So there's $375,000 in there right now. Of that $375,000, 2 thirds of it is dedicated to housing. Or is it?
[Roberta Cameron]: Of the $375,000 that's in the housing reserve, all of that can only be used for housing.
[Knight]: Right. And 2 thirds of that is, I'm sorry, 1 third of that is dedicated to this project. this program as of right now.
[Roberta Cameron]: Is there any anticipation that you're going to come? One quarter of it is dedicated to this program as of right now and we have not touched the remaining portion.
[Knight]: Pretty sure 125 Is a third of 375, but we're not going to get into a math dispute over here. All right, so ultimately, we have some money in the account still. Six and one half a dozen, the other one, me, Mr. President, I think the program's doing well. Like Councilor Mark said, I'm not looking to hold a nickel back from this project. or this program, I think it's doing well. I can support it tonight in its full funding, or I can support it tonight in half funding. If the intent is to maintain a close and watchful eye on the funds as the board of directors of this community, then so be it. I'll support the resolution as amended that Councilor Marks put forward, if that's the direction that we want to go in. Like I said, Mr. President, they're going to come back before us again. They're going to put another report before us. The report's either going to show that they're making strides or they're not. at which time we can reassess the situation. So I see no harm in erring on the side of caution.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Layton. We have Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Bears. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Just a quick question to Roberta. Roberta, thank you for everything you do. But if we do only do half, it's not daunting or anything out of the ordinary that you'd have to go back and come back in a month. And let's say it is the, I hope, God bless, we don't get the funding spent in a month. But it's not a daunting task to just come back to this council for the other half, correct?
[Roberta Cameron]: It does create an administrative burden because each time that we release more funding, we have to go back and recreate the grant agreement and have the grant agreement go through the legal department and to be signed by the grantee again. So there's an upfront administrative burden. And then again, coming back to the council, We have to do what we have to do. It's the council's prerogative to decide that you want to release the funding in smaller amounts rather than all at once. But it creates an administrative burden for both the city as well as the applicant to repeatedly come back to the council.
[Knight]: Point of information, Councilor Knight. Through these Community Preservation Act funds, do we not fund a Community Preservation Act administrator to perform these administrative functions?
[SPEAKER_13]: We do.
[Knight]: Thank you. It's a bird.
[Falco]: She's right here. She has her, she has her hand up. She's going to be speaking next.
[Scarpelli]: So we have, I'd like to hear from her, John.
[Falco]: Okay. Okay. Let's see. Danielle Evans. I'm going to lower your hand here. Let's see.
[Falco]: Councilor Scott, do you want to hear from Danielle? Councilor Scott?
[Scarpelli]: If she can answer that question that I asked that, you know,
[Falco]: Danielle, would you like to answer Councilor? Good evening. Could you answer Councilor Scott Peli's question? Can he repeat the question? Sure. Councilor Scott Peli, can you please repeat the question?
[Scarpelli]: It's very simple. So if we split this in half, and I can understand why Council Marks is asking for that, how daunting is it? Is it, you know, would it be too difficult to come back in a month to ask for the other half? It's not a difficult...
[SPEAKER_22]: I mean, it does, there is an administrative process that we have to go through. First, we have to wait for the council paper to make it to Alicia, who then has to transfer funds to the account. And then we have to amend the grant agreement, circulate it for all the signatures, and then, I mean, it shouldn't be too hard to amend the agreement, because it's written. It was a pretty detailed agreement.
[Scarpelli]: It's not months.
[SPEAKER_22]: Pardon me?
[Scarpelli]: It's not months, correct? It's weeks.
[SPEAKER_22]: No, it'll take at least a couple of weeks.
[Scarpelli]: OK, thank you. OK.
[SPEAKER_22]: But President Delto, if I could just add one thing, if I may, about oversight.
[Falco]: Please continue.
[SPEAKER_22]: to mention, and I hope this could alleviate some concerns, is that we don't front the entire amount. The only, so ABCD has only been given 75K initially, and we do that with all the grants. We don't give them all the money. We'd like to see how a portion of it is spent, and then they provide all the backup documentation. So Anne sent me copies of all the checks in the amounts to everyone they went to, to the landlords that they went to, And then I was satisfied with how it had spent down in accordance with the terms of the grant agreement. And then I processed the remaining $60,000, and that check should hopefully go out this week. And they also have the finance department, which is looking at it, and they wanted a little bit more detail. So that slowed it down, but it shows that there's so many eyes on it. And so what you appropriated tonight, we wouldn't be just writing them a check for that. We would, again, kind of divvy it up into what's in the pipeline, wait for the backup, see how it looks then. And then once they have the grantees lined up, we would release the rest. So it's not a situation where we're clawing back a huge amount of funds. They're pretty much, the money is pretty much spoken for before the checks are cut.
[Falco]: I just wanted to add that. Thank you very much for that. Thank you very much for updating us with that information. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: I don't want to go off on a tangent, but so what I'm hearing is when the council takes a vote to appropriate funds, those funds don't get appropriated until all at once. Or is this a situation where it's a monitoring of the grant agreement to ensure that there's compliance?
[Falco]: Is it the latter?
[Knight]: And you can just say the first or the latter, the former or the latter. I mean, I'm not looking for a dissertation, but from the way I just heard it was that the council takes a vote, they vote to expend $125,000, then it goes into an office and the office only gives them 50 or 80 or 70. That's not what the council voted for. I'm assuming that the reason why all the money's not released is because you wanted to monitor the grant for compliance, but that's not really what I heard. So I just wanted a confirmation on that.
[SPEAKER_22]: No, it's monitoring to make sure that it's going to the correct places, to the correct people.
[Falco]: Thank you. Thank you very much. Move the motion, Mr. President. Councilor Bears had a question that I believe. Councilor Bears, you had a question, right?
[Bears]: Yeah. I mean, I just don't, it took weeks to get the grant agreement and all the signatures and everything processed last time. It's going to take them weeks to do it this time. And it's going to take them weeks to do it the next time when we have multiple offices, multiple eyes looking at it. I don't see a reason for a successful program, why we would appropriate less money to a successful program on the second round, add red tape and add administrative burden. I think this program's working well, I think we're just asking people to come back here, have another hour long conversation about it, ask them to do two weeks of extra work. It just doesn't make sense to me. So obviously, I support the program. I think at this moment in time, when we have so much on our plate as a council, when city staff has so much on their plate, Let's not add to it. I think we trust this. We've seen the results. We all agree that it's a good program that's successful. Let's appropriate the $125,000. It's being monitored by multiple offices. I just don't see a reason to do, again, we appropriated $125,000 on the first round. So we were clearly comfortable with it then. I think we should be comfortable with it now. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Beres. So the motion on the floor is offered by Councilor Marks to reduce it to 62,500.
[Marks]: Remember, Mr. President, that this program has been in effect since June. So it's been almost five months, Mr. President, and they still haven't expended the original amount we gave them. So they haven't still gone through the original amount. So I think this is being very careful and cautious with our money, Mr. President, taxpayer money. And as everyone behind this reel has stated, no one's going to hold back one nickel, Mr. President. So I think we're doing our due diligence here. That's all we're asking.
[Falco]: OK. On the motion of Councilor Marks, seconded by Vice President Caraviello, as amended by Councilor Knight.
[Bears]: And one quick, is this just a motion to change the amount or would this also approve the amount?
[Falco]: This is a motion to change the amount. Approve the 625. It is basically to approve the 625, yes. It's to change the amount and to approve.
[Bears]: Okay. Can I make a motion to approve the next 625 right after that? That's what I'd like to do.
[Falco]: There's a motion on the floor.
[Morell]: The small grants are on the same paper, so would this be the 625 and both small grants?
[Falco]: I think we should vote on these individually. I think that's probably the best bet. Keep it nice and clean. So these will be separate. Okay. Separate.
[Knight]: By way of prior deliberation on a similar matter, we've always voted for each item individually for a CPA grant request. If you recall, there was an item before us where they wanted to fund a master plan for the DCR with no commitment for further construction. So we were going to put the upfront cost up to do the design and study for some sort of walking and there was no commitment from the state thereafter. So we said, why are we putting our money up for a plan that we don't know if we're going to get funding for? So we've approved a bunch of appropriations out of the CPA, but we didn't approve that one. So we've always taken them up as well.
[Falco]: Yes. Okay. On the motion of council Mark seconded by vice-president Caraviello is amended by council tonight. Please call the roll.
[Bears]: Apparently, yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello.
[Bears]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight.
[Bears]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks.
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Falco.
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes.
[Bears]: Mr. President, I'd like to move that we appropriate the additional $62,500. Second. On the motion of.
[Falco]: We've already dealt with the paper at hand. So basically the paper has been, this portion of the paper has already been dealt with. Maybe, maybe not. Requesting the appropriation of 2008 35 from the CPA general reserve to the city of Medford department of veteran services to restore the USMC KIA. Lockheed Memorial located in the intersection of Lawrence road and Winthrop street. Is there a motion? Move approval. On the motion of Council Knight to approve seconded by Vice President Caraviello. Clerk Hurtubise please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice President Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Martins. Yes. Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Part three of the paper, requesting the appropriation of $3,500 from the CPA General Reserve to Trees Medford, City of Medford Tree Warden to undertake an inventory of all existing trees located in Oak Grove Cemetery. Moved and approved. On the motion of council, and I seconded by Councilor Bears. Clerk Herlovich, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. He said yes. Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Kelly. Yes. President Falco.
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. Motion to revert back to the regular order of business. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Bears to revert back to the regular order of business.
[Marks]: Mr. President, also, if we could get a report back from the tree board. regarding if an inventory was done on trees within Oak Grove over the last decade.
[Bears]: Mr. President, hasn't that paper been dispensed?
[Falco]: Excuse me?
[Bears]: Haven't we dispensed with that paper? It has nothing to do with trees.
[Marks]: Mr. President, if we can get a report back from tree wanted, whether or not there's been an inventory on trees at Oak Grove Summer Park.
[Falco]: OK. Aggie, are you able to, we have Aggie on the line with us, so Aggie, are you able to confirm that that has been done or?
[SPEAKER_17]: Yes, I can hear you, thank you.
[Falco]: Councilor Marks had a question and that was whether or not a tree inventory has been conducted within the past 10 years at Oak Grove Cemetery? Oak Grove Cemetery.
[Marks]: I remember a study done and I thought an inventory done, I don't know if it was in the last 10 years, but maybe Aggie would know.
[SPEAKER_17]: Thank you for the question, Councilor Mark. To my knowledge, no inventory of Grove Cemetery has been conducted since I became tree warden in 2009.
[Marks]: Okay. Do you know who marked the trees? The type of tree? There was little markings put on each tree and the type of tree? Was that done by the cemetery?
[SPEAKER_17]: I'm not sure what you're referring to, Councilor.
[Marks]: There's small metal tags on the trees telling the type of tree it is, if it's from China or, you know, the type of tree. And that was done to a number of trees in the cemetery.
[SPEAKER_17]: To my knowledge, those have been done many years ago, possibly by the cemetery or volunteers are going to start societies. I know they're extremely useful tags for identifying species and other important information, data planting and so forth. But I don't specifically have knowledge of who installed those tags. But we hope to have such tags installed in the future once this tree inventory is established.
[Marks]: Right, right. Now, I didn't know if that had anything to do with the previous inventory. That's why I was asking.
[SPEAKER_17]: It's been many years since one inventory has been done, and we look forward to this as a huge step to take an inventory so we can proceed to preserve the trees. It's extremely valuable for Oak Grove Cemetery, and to reinstitute the same varieties and species of trees, and to enhance the landscape for our future trees.
[Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. On the motion of Council Knight, seconded by Councilor Pizza to revert back to the regular order of business. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll. Thank you, Aggie.
[Hurtubise]: Thank you. Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice President Perriello.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Vice President Falco. No.
[Falco]: Yes, 70 in favor, zero in the negative. The motion passes. 2-0-609 offered by Council and I, be it resolved that the Medford City Council conduct a committee to hold for the purpose of addressing the complaint filed against the city relative to the contracting of the council zoning consultant. Council and I.
[Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. Last week we received a correspondence from the administration relative to a complaint that was filed concerning the public bid for our zoning consultant. And I took an opportunity to read that document and it said that it was a dynamic and ongoing process and that the administration was doing their best to stay ahead of it and to keep the parties informed as to what was going on. in terms of the nature of the complaint, so on and so forth, and the investigating authority. With that being said, Mr. President, I think it would make sense for this council to meet to be provided with an update from the administration relative to the nature of the complaint, as well as what steps are being taken to ensure that the council is protected, and what impact this may have on our ability to continue working with Mr. Bobrowski.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Knight, do you want someone from the administration, I assume, at the meeting?
[Knight]: And- I think that would be helpful, because we need to have the administration give us the update.
[Falco]: Whoever they see fit.
[Knight]: I mean, I don't want to, I don't know who's working on it. We have 27 lawyers from KP Law that represent us now. They might want to bring somebody in. I don't know who's going to be handling it. My preference would be the chief of staff and the city solicitor, Mr. President. However, the administration is the one that's going to be running point on this. So I would hope that they provide us with the appropriate person that can answer the right questions.
[Falco]: Sounds good. Thank you very much.
[Knight]: Second the motion.
[Falco]: On the motion of council night, seconded by.
[Bears]: Second.
[Falco]: Councilor Bears. Does anybody want to comment on this? Okay. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice-President Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Naik. Yes. Councilor Martins.
[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. 2-0-6-1-0, offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the Medford City Council request the city administration install a flashing pedestrian crossing sign at the crosswalk of Winthrop Street between the community gardens and Memorial Field. Councilor Layton.
[Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. Last week, we had a paper before us requesting appropriations from ride share revenues that the city has generated. And these ride share revenues are used to improve markings and signage in the community. If you look at Winthrop Street at Memorial Park between the hat shell right by the community gardens. and the field, you'll see that there's a crosswalk there. And there's been a number of years of discussion concerning the Winthrop Street-South Street intersection and the ability to cross Winthrop Street at that location. And studies have shown that because of the sight lines and the gradient, that that's not a place where they can put a working crosswalk with a red light, Mr. President. But I don't think anything would preclude us from being able to put some flashing beacons that would say that there is a crosswalk ahead and for people to be aware of pedestrians crossing the street in the area. So with that being said, I'd ask for approval of the paper, and I'd ask my council colleagues to support it.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Bears.
[Knight]: Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. President. And the associated cost of something like this, based upon the paper that was before us, is less than $3,000. Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think this is really both smart and doable. So I support it and I second the motion.
[Caraviello]: On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears.
[Caraviello]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight.
[Caraviello]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks.
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Falco.
[Caraviello]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello. Yes.
[Caraviello]: Seventh affirmative motion passes. 20611, offered by President Falco, being resolved that the Medford City Council send its sincere condolences to the family of Regina Reggie Reynolds on her recent passing. President Falco.
[Falco]: Thank you, President Caraviello. Mrs. Reynolds, long time resident of Fulton Heights, passed away recently, 95 years old, and good friends with a number of her family. And just thoughts and prayers go to her family, so thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Knight? On the motion by President Falco, seconded by Councilor Knight. If we could please take a moment of silence. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Martins? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[Caraviello]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: President Falco? Yes. Vice President Ferriero?
[Caraviello]: Yes, affirmative motion passes. 2-0-6-1-2 offered by President Falco, be it resolved that the storm drain in front of 48 Duna Street be repaired in the interest of public safety. President Falco?
[Falco]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I was alerted to this by a resident recently up in the Duden Street area. And I did actually drive by and take a look at this myself. This is, I guess, a storm drain that's been in disrepair for a number of years. And there's an orange cone there planted on top of it, but it really needs to be addressed. So in the interest of public safety, if that could be addressed before the winter. Thank you. That'd be great.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Motion by President Falco, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Knight? Councilor Marks?
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell?
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: President Falco?
[Caraviello]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello? Yes.
[Caraviello]: Yes, 7 in the affirmative, motion passes. 20613 offered by President Falco, be it reserved that the tree stumps at the following addresses be removed in the interest of public safety. 3 Dawn Road, 7 Dawn Road, and 53 Doonan Street. President Falco.
[Falco]: Thank you, President Calvillo. These here, I was alerted by a resident as well with regard to these three tree stumps. I guess these have been here for a number of years as well. And they really need to be removed. They've been there for at least a few years. So if we could have those removed by the DPW as soon as possible, greatly appreciate it. If I could amend the resolution to ask that we get an updated listing from the DPW with regard to just an updated stump removal list. I'd like to see how many were removed in the year 2020 and how many are left on that list. So, thank you.
[Caraviello]: On the motion by President Falco, as amended by President Falco.
[Bears]: Mr. President. If I may, could I also amend it to get a report on the, for lack of a better word, the stump dump, where we put all the stump? Could we get an update as well on the stump deposit location, the dump for stumps? I don't know what it's called. The wood chips.
[Knight]: Councilor Leif. Mr. President, thank you very much. I'm hoping the councilor wouldn't mind me amending this paper to add a tree stump to it. And this is a tree stump that is on Lawrence Road, located between Summit and Terrace. It's directly across from the old entrance to the Lawrence Memorial Hospital's emergency room, Mr. President. And this tree stump is enormous. But what's troubling is that the city has removed five sidewalk panels and not replaced them for a period of about four months now. So while the residents are waiting for the stump grinder or stump dumper or whatever you want to call them to get out there and get rid of the stump, the sidewalk has been torn up and the sidewalk has not been replaced. So that sidewalk, a stretch of about four sidewalk panels, Mr. President, which would be about. I think each sidewalk panel is three feet long. So we're looking at anywhere between 12 feet of sidewalk that's just asphalt. Not even asphalt, just dirt, all broken up. So with that being said, I'd just like to amend the paper to include that as a priority stump to be removed and sidewalk replaced.
[Caraviello]: I did drive by there today and I saw they were putting new sidewalk in on on Governor's Avenue side, and I saw that there's those four or five panels that are still there. So, on the motion by President Falco, seconded by Councilor Knight, as amended by President Falco, and then amended by Councilor Bears, and amended by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, do you have all those?
[Hurtubise]: I got them all.
[Caraviello]: You got them all. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears?
[Caraviello]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Falco.
[Caraviello]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Riviello.
[Caraviello]: Yes. 7 to the affirmative. Motion passes.
[Falco]: 20-615 offered by Vice President Caraviello, be it resolved that the Medford City Council have the DPW replace the safety sign in the island on High Street at the Brooks School in the interest of public safety, Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, this is something that was done as a traffic calming thing, and they put an island right in front of the, by the Brooks School on Austin Street. And there was a safety sign right in the middle. I'm surprised that someone hasn't run it over before. But it's finally been run over. And if it can be replaced, then maybe possibly with maybe something blinking so that people know it's there. Because they say it's in the middle, it's dark over there. So if they could do that in the interest of public safety, it would be appreciated, Mr. President.
[Falco]: On the motion of Vice President Caraviello, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Laurel.
[Knight]: I just like to amend the paper, Mr. President, to add a couple of items. Councilor Caraviello is absolutely right. That traffic island that was recently installed has been damaged. And if we take a ride further down, the street, and we come to Placelet Road and High Street, we'll see that we have a number of reflector beacons that cross the train tracks and provide warning that the train tracks are there that are damaged, Mr. President. So the reflector beacons at the railroad crossing between Placelet Road and Harvard, as well as the reflector beacons at the railroad crossing at Prescott and Canal need to be repaired. And I'd like to add this to that paper, provided my council colleague has no issue.
[Falco]: Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. Council night. Um, on the emotion of, so on the motion of vice-president copy yellow seconded by president.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Can I get a second set of streets from council night, please? I've got a place that at Harvard, but I didn't get the other one.
[Knight]: High street between place that in Harvard and canal between Prescott and the railroad crossing.
[Falco]: So on that motion offered by Vice President Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Morell, as amended by Councilor Knight. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Vice President Caraviello?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. On the motion, okay. Reports of committees, 20-573. That was a public works subcommittee. Councilor Bears is the chair of the DPW Public Works. Can you tell us a little bit about that meeting?
[Bears]: Yeah. Well, we had a great meeting with Councilor Marks, Councilor, Vice President Caraviello, or should I say President-elect Caraviello and We discussed snow shoveling, the snow shoveling ordinance and proposed amendments. We had some members of our DPW in attendance, DPW staff, as well as a lot of citizens, folks from WAC Medford, Mass In Motion coordinator. And I think we've started on a good path to looking at amendments to the snow shoveling ordinance and hopefully making sure that our sidewalks are clear for All residents during the winter, senior citizens, people with disabilities, so that we can get around during the winter safely without a risk to people's health and safety. So we will have future meetings of the subcommittee looking at the issues of enforcement and fines and some of the other questions that we still have outstanding, priority sidewalk list, et cetera. So looking forward to it. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Peers. On the motion of Councilor Peers.
[Knight]: I just want to commend Councilor Bears on conducting a great meeting. I was very impressed at the way he held the meeting, how he handled it. But I'm also more impressed with the fact that he actually had representatives from the DPW here present in the council chambers to address some of the concerns. I've always been a firm believer that if we're going to get things done, we have to get in the same room and roll up our sleeves. And I was very impressed that Councilor Bears took the steps to allow these individuals here in the community to come before the council subcommittee and address some of their concerns and help out. So I'd like to thank him for that and move approval of the paper.
[Bears]: Well, if I may, if you can figure out how they got in the room, I'd be happy if you let me know.
[Knight]: City employees. City Hall is open to city employees, right?
[Bears]: No, I know. And I think city staff. They got keys.
[Falco]: OK. On the motion of Councilor Bears, seconded by Councilor Knight, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll. This is for the approval of the committee report. OK. Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice President Caraviello. Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight. I didn't hear councilor, I saw councilor. Thank you councilor Marks.
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Falco.
[Falco]: Yes. Seven the affirmative, zero the negative, the motion passes. 19-312 and 20-577. Committee of the whole meeting on October 21st. There was two parts to the meeting. We had a meeting with regard to the purpose of the meeting. The first part was the committee of the whole to discuss a recent notification from the administration regarding the potential disclosure of current or former employee personal identifying information. The second part of the meeting was with regard to the gender equity ordinance, the number of recommendations were made, and the city solicitor is going to go back and incorporate those suggestions. And then when that is completed, it will come back to committee to hold. On the motion of- Motion approved. Councilor Bears, seconded by Councilor Knight. Clerk Urnabes, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello?
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. Seven. The affirmative zero and the negative. The motion passes on the motion of council. Mark seconded by vice-president Caviolo to take papers in the hands of the clerk. We're on to suspension. Clerk please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice-President Caraviello?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Senate affirmative, is there any negative? The motion passes. 2-0-619 offered by Councilor Knight and Vice-President Caraviello be it resolved that the Medford City Council extends its deep and sincere condolences to the family of Lucille Tonello on her recent passing.
[Caraviello]: Defer to the Vice President.
[Falco]: Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Knight. Lucille Tonello was a crossing guide for the city of Medford for many years. She was supervisor of the crossing guides. And Lucille goes back to the days when kids actually walked to school. And you had the same crossing guard for many years, and she knew your parents, and she knew the kids by name, and they wore uniforms, and they were almost like policemen. And they march in the parade, so that's a generation of a woman that's no longer around anymore. But let's say, you know, she was there all the time for these kids, you know, watched over them. Parents would call her. to make sure, hey, I'm not going to be home, make sure Johnny gets home. She would do that, and many times, she would drive the kids home. So like I say, she goes back to that generation of the crossing guards, where I say, why are you in the farms? And I say, they knew the neighbor, they knew the kids, they knew the parents. And she's a good woman, and I got to know her over the years, and her presence will be missed in our community. And condolences to the family.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. And I'd like to extend my condolences to the Tinello family as well. Mrs. Tinello, 95 years young at the day of her passing. a great mother, role model, grandmother. I've had the good fortune of being friendly with her grandson, Jeffrey, and granddaughter, Alicia, for a number of years. Over the years, I've also gotten to meet her sons, Mark and Joe. We all know Ellen Tonello from the library. The Tonellos are very involved in the city of Medford. I believe they've lived here since prior to 1930. The family goes back to prior to 1930 in the city of Medford, Mr. President. Grew up on Linden Street, lived right down on Linden Street near the old drive-in. And a little funny family story was that they lived so close to the drive-in movie theater that the drive-in gave them one of the radios. cause they could see all the movies from their kitchen. So they had one of the radios, they could actually listen to the movies too in their house. But, you know, Mrs. Tonello was a aunt to my good friend, Frank and Jack DePaola. Frankie and Jackie share that story all the time and she's going to be greatly missed. To Mark and Joe and the rest of the family, my deepest condolences and I hope my council colleagues can join us.
[Falco]: Thank you councilor. Is present motion that we... If I may, we want to say council Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my two colleagues for putting this on. The Tonello family is synonymous with community and civic duty in this community for many, many decades. And from what I hear, I didn't know Lucille, but from what I hear, she was a true family person, loved to be around family and friends. And I want to thank her for her many years of dedicated service on behalf of the children in our community. And she will be sorely missed, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: A motion that we hold this meeting in her honor.
[Falco]: Absolutely. Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. My condolences go to the Tonello family, good friends with her son, Mark. And like all my colleagues said, the Tonello family has always been involved in many, many, many ways in our city. And they've always given back and thoughts and prayers go out to the Tonello family. And if I may, before we have a moment of silence, You know, I'll do this under suspension if you don't mind from the chair. I was taking a walk on Saturday and as I was walking, I went into Hickey Park and when I go to the park, sometimes you read the stones in the ground as far as the memorial plaques. And I couldn't help but notice it, which was really odd that Hickey Park, is named in honor of George W. Hickey, who was the youngest soldier from the city of Medford to enlist in the U.S. Army Infantry. Infantryman Hickey was killed in action in France on October 24, 2018, which was the same day I walked by the plaque, 102 years later. So I think if we could also have a moment of silence in Infantryman Hickey's honor on the 102nd anniversary of his passing. At this point in time, I'd ask everyone to please rise for a brief moment of silence. We have one more thing. Do we have minutes?
[Bears]: We're supposed to take up records.
[Falco]: Records! The records of the meeting of October 20th, 2020 were passed to Vice President Caraviello. Vice President Caraviello, how did you find those records?
[Caraviello]: Mr. President, I have reviewed the records and I found them to be impeccable.
[Falco]: All right. On the motion of Vice President Caraviello to pass those impeccable records, seconded by?
[Hurtubise]: Second.
[Falco]: Councilor Bears, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice President Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Falco.
[Falco]: Yes. Sending affirmative zero and the negative, the motion passes.
[Bears]: Motion to adjourn.
[Falco]: On the motion of Councilor Bears to adjourn the meeting seconded by Councilor Morell. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice president Caraviello.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight. Yes.
[Falco]: Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Before we adjourn the meeting, does someone make a resolution to cancel the meeting next week? Oh, geez.
[Knight]: far more important. It's Councilor Scott Peli's birthday. And we forgot until the 11th hour, right before it was almost over.
[Falco]: Happy birthday, my friend. Councilor Scott Peli, happy birthday. Thank you, everyone. I wish I had cake. So on the motion of Councilor Morell to cancel the meeting next week due to the election seconded by Councilor Scott Peli, Clerk Gernaby, please call the roll.
[Bears]: Yes, and next Tuesday is my birthday, so thank you. You missed it. Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. President Falco.
[Falco]: Yes. And the affirmative zero in the negative. The motion passes on the motion of console and morale to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by a console up here. It's clear to me. Please call the roll bears.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Vice-president Caribbean. Yes. No. That's a night. That's a marks.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Hurtubise]: That's a morale. Yes. That's a strip Kelly. Yes. President Falco.
[Falco]: Yes. Some of the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Good night. Be safe and healthy.
|
total time: 47.21 minutes total words: 7816  |
total time: 14.43 minutes total words: 2640  |
total time: 19.83 minutes total words: 3985  |
total time: 33.43 minutes total words: 5193  |
|
total time: 13.42 minutes total words: 2093  |
total time: 11.87 minutes total words: 1903  |
total time: 0.91 minutes total words: 108  |
total time: 3.96 minutes total words: 693  |