[John Falco]: to clear the public hearing open. Open to those in favor of the petition. Is there anyone with us online tonight that is in favor of the petition? Okay, Mr. Shakes, can we please have your name and address for the record?
[SPEAKER_23]: Okay, Eric Shakes, the home address.
[John Falco]: That's fine, that's fine.
[SPEAKER_23]: Eddie Bradbury of Medford, Mass.
[John Falco]: Okay, and you are in favor of the petition?
[SPEAKER_23]: Yes, sir.
[John Falco]: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the petition? Okay. Hearing and seeing none, I declare this portion of the hearing closed. Anyone in opposition of the petition? Anyone in opposition? Hearing and seeing none, I declare this portion of the hearing closed. At this point in time, I'd call upon the Chair of Personal Licensing, Councilor Scott Beall.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Hi, Mr. Shakes. Good evening. Thanks for being here this evening. We see everything that is asked for you is in place. All the documents are in place. Everybody looks to have approved it moving forward. Could you just give us a brief synopsis of what was there prior and what you're doing at the site now?
[SPEAKER_23]: So I can't confirm what was here prior, but I'm pretty sure that it was the same type of business, automotive and body shop. And that's what we're doing now, too, automotive and body.
[George Scarpelli]: OK. All right, in the hours of operations, following the city guidelines, everything looks like it's in place. I know before I make the motion to approve, if any councilors have any questions.
[John Falco]: Are there any councilors that have questions regarding this matter?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[John Falco]: Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, if the petitioner could just state how much off-street parking that they have.
[SPEAKER_23]: Eight.
[Michael Marks]: Eight spots off-street? Eight spots in the parking lot. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I move approval.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. On the motion of Councilor Marks, seconded by?
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[John Falco]: Councilor Bears, Councilor Knight.
[SPEAKER_02]: I, too, support the application, Mr. President. Everything's in order.
[John Falco]: Councilor Knight, I apologize.
[George Scarpelli]: That's everything. I rest my case. I have nothing to add. Okay, so everything's in order. Everything's in order, Mr. President. Move approval.
[John Falco]: Okay, on the motion of Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Bears. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice President Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Yes. Councilor Morell?
[John Falco]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[John Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. Congratulations and good luck.
[Zac Bears]: Congratulations.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Have a good night.
[SPEAKER_25]: You too.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Motions, orders, and resolutions 20-647, offered by Councilor Marks, Councilor Scarpelli, and Vice President Caraviello. Be it resolved that the City Council request the presence of Chief Buckley, Chief Buckley, Chief of the Medford Police Department, Chief Gilberti, Lieutenant Mark Rudolph, and Officer Harold McGill to discuss public safety concerns dealing with our 911 system at our next scheduled meeting. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I'll just defer to Councilor Scarpelli.
[John Falco]: Okay, Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you so much, Mr. President.
[George Scarpelli]: Is it on? Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not familiar with who's present. Are the chiefs present? Officer McGilvrey?
[John Falco]: I see both chiefs. I see Harold McGilvrey is with us and Lieutenant Mark Rudolph is with us as well. And both chiefs, yes.
[George Scarpelli]: OK, so this is important because I think that Out of nowhere we received a letter from the mayor stating that we need to move forward with some concerns dealing with the 911 system. And that I believe it was a public health crisis, a safety crisis that we needed to address. It was something that put a red flag out to alert us and that this is the first time the council heard that. And I thought it was important that both the leaders of the police and fire come and just fill us in if there's things we should know that are this dire, that something's been going on and we need to adjust as a council and move some initiatives through to make sure that we're supporting them in any way. If anybody could share some comments or any insight into this. Would the other Councilors like to speak first or would you like to hear from- That's just to my question, so.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. If I could, thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the fact that both chiefs are on tonight, as well as the union representative. I believe both on the police and fire side are both with us tonight as well, Mr. President. As Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, the concern I have and the reason why I added my name to this resolution was the fact that we did receive a correspondence from Mayor Lungo-Koehn regarding the urgent need and the emergency of putting this particular position forward. And when I saw that email, Mr. President, it kind of alarmed me that there was a concern of that urgency within 9-1-1. First, that I'm hearing that 9-1-1 has existed for the past year and a half. And I would hope that there was proper supervision. I would hope there was proper training policies and procedures set up in that past year and a half. So I'm eager to hear tonight from both chiefs to hopefully dispel the emergency that was stated by the mayor in her email. And hear from both chiefs, Mr. President, and the union representatives as well. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Vice President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I echo Councilor Marks' comments there. I'll wait to hear what the two chiefs have to say. Again, like everyone else, I didn't hear of any grave emergency that was going on there. So again, I'll hold any further questions until we hear from all the officials that are on the call.
[John Falco]: Okay, thank you, Vice President Caraviello. Let's see, we have a number of people. Mayor Lungo-Koehnan has her hand up. So I'm going to try to, there you go. Mayor Lungo-Koehnan.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Falco. I do want to thank both chiefs for being on the call as well as Lieutenant Rudolph. We have President McGilvery from the police union. We also have President Buckley from the fire union and Lieutenant Mon from the fire department. And I just want to, I want to give them all the floor, but I just want to let you know that I do stand by the email that was sent. I think it's really important that we get a 911 supervisor in there for a number of reasons, some personnel, but one of the main personnel reasons for doing so is because we're having a really hard time hiring for the four empty positions. that are in dispatch, which is creating forced overtimes, and it's creating almost an emergency situation just to get personnel in there anyway. We have a number of good candidates that we've offered the job to, but they've turned it down due to the pay. We also feel that now more than ever, after hearing the concerns, especially from the fire union, that it is an emergency to get a supervisor in that role for any additional training to make sure that the first responders we want to make sure we have a supervisor in there. We cannot wait for this until next budget cycle. This is something that I just want to let you know. I stand by as being an emergency. We and he is just recently started. He is going to be working with us for the next couple months. And I think it's imperative that we do get a supervisor in there to work with both unions, both chiefs, Lieutenant Rudolph, who runs the department, and get a supervisor in there ready to go while Mr. Richard makes recommendations for how to fix all the problems that is if there are any that will be explained to you tonight in 9-1-1 dispatch. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could. Thank you, Mayor Longo.
[John Falco]: Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the mayor being on the call tonight. So the question I have to the mayor, Mr. President, is the fact that I can appreciate, and it's the mayor's opinion, that this is a critical need for the operation of public safety in the community. And she has every right to state that if she believes that. My question is that since January of this year, The fire department has reached out on several occasions to not only the city administration, but to both Chiefs, Chief Gilberti and Chief Buckley regarding their concerns with 911 and some of the concerns that they had. that they raised back in January of this year. So I'm just wondering when the mayor figured out that this was a public safety emergency and why did it take almost 11 months to do so?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I thank you, Councilor Marks. In January, February, it was brought to my attention. There was some issues with the training manuals. So at that point, I think Chief Gilberti and I did meet I mean, it could have been March, April, May, depending on the surge in coronavirus cases, which set us back a bit. But the manual was brought to me, and at that time, I did let my chief of staff know that I've reviewed the manual. It's in-depth, but the fire union still had concerns. So as of recent, over the last two months, we've had two very in-depth meetings to review what the problems are and how do we fix these problems. And we've been able to work on a plan collaboratively, one that I feel the police and the fire is happy with, but part of that plan, which I feel is an emergency, is to get a supervisor on board as soon as possible.
[Michael Marks]: Right, so Mr. President, if I could follow up, and I appreciate that statement, but it still doesn't answer what happened from January to the past, even if we say two months that they've been working on this. What happened to the seven months in between that, Mr. President? And I'm looking at a correspondence from Union President Eddie Buckley from January 21st of this year, raising concern, Mr. President. And that email was sent to Fire Chief Gilberti. Police Chief Buckley, Chief of Staff Dave Rodriguez, and Union Rep Harold McGilvery. And if you could, Mr. President, I'd like to just read it briefly. It says, good morning, gentlemen. I would like to formally request a meeting with all interested parties to discuss the future of dispatching. There are too many rumors and scuttlebutt going around, and we as a union would like to meet face to face to communicate our concerns. get a grasp on the future of fire dispatch. Please let me know at your convenience when we would be able to be a good time to sit down and talk. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Eddie Buckley, Union President 1032. The same day, Mr. President, Union Rep Harold McGillivray reached out and gave his availability. Mr. President, but the part that I'm troubled by is Fire Chief Gilberti never responded to the request by the union. The Mayor's Chief of Staff, Dave Rodriguez, never responded to their request. And Chief Buckley responded saying, thank you for your concerns. At this time, I will decline. So I'm trying to figure out, Mr. President, if this was an issue that's been brought up, and this actually dates back actually even prior to January, when a letter was sent out in June 2019 to the former mayor, Burke, asking for a meeting. which was never responded to. So this has been a year and a half, and now 10 or 11 months under this administration, going on 12 months. And I'm just concerned, Mr. President, with the lack of attention for the last, from January to just say September, October. when nothing was done and now all of a sudden meetings are being held and we're being told it's an emergency, Mr. President. But from what I'm being told, there was concerns all along, Mr. President, from day one when this 911 center opened. From day one, there was a lack of a manual, a lack of policies and procedures. And there has been very little put into trying to get to the bottom of what's happening. And I think everyone behind this room, I won't speak for them, no one's opposed to the position, Mr. President. We had some legitimate questions regarding the position, and I'm hoping to hear tonight what's being worked on. But I have other questions, and I'll wait to hear as soon as both chiefs respond, and hopefully the union representatives.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Would either of the chiefs like to respond at this point? Councilor Markswell, do you want to hear from the chiefs next or?
[Michael Marks]: If they'd like to respond, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: Chief Buckley.
[Jack Buckley]: Good evening, Councilors, how are you? Good, thank you. Let me start by responding to the initial premise of the meeting and the request, and that was the mayor's letter. And it clearly said that we have an emergency in filling a staff position, and that is a public safety supervisor position. And that is, you know, we're able to talk about that. I can talk about that in depth, but it appears to me that, That's not really the intent of this council, that they are doing some other bidding here and talking about subject matter.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Councilor Marks. Publicly. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here, Mr. President. When exactly, because We're hearing that they need a coordinator or supervisor for 911. This has been set up for a year and a half, Mr. President. When exactly did the administration and both chiefs figure out that this is now so urgent that it's an emergency now where it hasn't had supervision for the last 15 months, Mr. President? That's what I said.
[Jack Buckley]: That's blatantly false. And we have to stop with the rhetoric, Mr. President. They've been under supervision of the police department since day one. We've conducted proper training, right? We can't have a public hearing when Councilors are using the torque that is causing public alarm. There is no public health emergency. There is no public safety emergency. And we can't keep saying this stuff out loud on your soapbox.
[sVx7vl5ZjhU_SPEAKER_05]: Point of information. Point of information. I'll be honest, I get a little tired that we have a chief that comes out here accusing us of doing something that we are not. You're making accusations that I would never do to you, sir. What I'm telling you is, we haven't heard anything about this, and we get a letter from the mayor saying that there's a crisis at 911. And that is the only intent why this councilor is asking for this meeting for the leaders of both the firemen and police to answer these questions, period. So don't leave the community on like I'm trying to put any fear mongering in anybody. The intent of this- The intent of the meeting is to find out if there is a crisis. That's the intent of this meeting. That's it. There is no crisis. There's not a crisis. Well, Chief, we wouldn't know, Chief. We wouldn't know because the only thing we heard was a letter from the mayor saying there was a crisis in 911. That's why we're here. Nothing else. That's the second time that you've come out here and done this. No one's trying to leave anybody on a negative way. We've done nothing but support the police and fire.
[Jack Buckley]: Councilor Scampelli. If we're talking about the same letter that the mayor sent, the letter says, I feel strongly that filling this position is an emergency. Filling a position is an emergency. Not a public health crisis or some public safety issue. You have to put this all in context, and I really want Lieutenant Rudolph to talk about this, because he's handled this. We have the need to fill 13 in one part-time position for public safety dispatches. We currently have 10 dispatches. That's 14 shifts per week that we cannot fill for dispatching. Currently, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will not train dispatches for us. They have been shut down since the beginning of the spring due to COVID. The only way we can get dispatches and hire them is if we get already current certified trained dispatches. And we have been unsuccessful in doing that. We have been trying since the beginning of this to fill these shifts. What the state has told us is that if we can get a supervisor who has our, excuse me, they don't use this term supervisor, a dispatcher who has certain training and certifications, we can conduct our own training in-house and train virtually through the state and in-house through the city of Medford to hire our own dispatchers to fill these vacancies. The strain that 14 open positions is creating on our civilian dispatches is at critical point. The strain it creates on budgets is at a critical point. That's what this letter is about, but it has this letter from the mayor. In that situation, we can talk all day long and I'll let Lieutenant Rudolph discuss it, but it went way off target with what Councilor Marks is talking about. We have been addressing this dispatch since its inception. The fire chief and I have met numerous times.
[John Falco]: Point of information, Mr. President. Chief Buckley, one minute. Point of information, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. It's great that both chiefs are meeting, but they fail to include the membership, Mr. President. And that's a problem when you have the union, at least on the fire side, that has reached out on several occasions, Mr. President. June 14, 2019, July 27, 2020, October 26, 2020. Raising questions, Mr. President, requesting a meeting to discuss ongoing issues and concerns with Method Fire Alarm. In particular, with delays in dispatching and calls for lack of supervision. This is from the Method Fire Union, local 1032, Mr. President. They also raised concerns on July 27th. Union raises concerns on manpower assignments on multiple alarm fires. Dispatch policy regarding this subject was changed without input from the fire department. That's not coming from this council, Mr. President. So if the chief is working out of a vacuum, which seems to be how he operates, Mr. President, and not hearing what's happening in the community, or at least in the 911 center, then shame on him. Don't point the finger at this council because we're raising concerns that we're hearing from membership of the police and fire, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Chief Buckley.
[Jack Buckley]: We have been meeting since the inception of this dispatch program, civilian dispatch program. And the chief and I have been dealing with all of the issues as it relates to training. And we have been putting together a new program and it has been successful from where we were. That does not mean we have not had hiccups. That does not mean that there haven't been training issues. Think about what we're doing, where we went from decades of police officers dispatching police calls and decades of firefighters dispatching fire calls to combining one unit and one civilian dispatch situation where they have to do both. I don't know fire dispatching and the fire department doesn't know police dispatching. Combined, we put together a program that has been successful. They have been operating on the police side independently since October and operating on the fire side independently since around February. And again, when I say successful, that doesn't mean there isn't hiccups. To Council Box's point, in the beginning of this program, we were putting, training modules in place. We're having difficulties with some training. Those are administrative issues. Every issue that the fire union brought forth to chief Gilliberti, chief Gilliberti and I discussed, but there's no need to have meetings with the fire on my side. I'm a police chief. I don't need to meet with the fire union. We were dealing with issues and we continue to deal with issues as they arise.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President? Point of information, Councilor Marks. Mr. President, it's my understanding that the police oversees the 911 center. Is that not correct? It is correct. So why would the chief of police, who oversees the entire picture, not want to sit down with the fire side, who does not have someone that's up there supervising, and listen to their concerns?
[Jack Buckley]: I think that's sort of missing the point. I was meeting with the fire chief, the deputy chief, discussing their training. We were meeting with the fire all along. There's no need at that time and at that point to meet with the fire union on this. I meet with their staff. To say that we weren't meeting and talking in the fire department and the police department, we're not working to resolve the issues, is just not true.
[Michael Marks]: We weren't. Mr. President, point of information. Point of information, Councilor Marks. With all due respect, Mr. President, I'll let the union reps that are on the phone now dictate whatever their narrative is, Mr. President. Because clearly, that's not their feedback that I received, Mr. President. So I guess there's two different realities going on in this community. And so I'd like to hear from the union representatives as well, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: Okay. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Do you want to hear from them right now or do you want to leave?
[Michael Marks]: At some point, Mr. President, I'd like maybe for the chief to finish his presentation, but I'd like to hear from them too, Mr. President. Okay, Chief Buckley, if you want to continue.
[Jack Buckley]: Yeah, well, just to wrap it up, there is an overwhelming need to fill this supervisory dispatcher position. We can't train new dispatchers because the state has prohibited us from doing so, unless we have certain qualified personnel in that unit. So we need to do this, and COVID is not going to go away anytime soon, and we are not going to be able to train in the normal fashion by sending them off to the state. So we have to take care of this problem in-house. Currently, we have a strain on the system of personnel and on the budgets for these positions, and we have to go and fill these positions. We have to get, increase our training on dispatches for the yearly, so-called in-service training for dispatches. And in order to do that, we need the certified, this certified personnel to come in here and handle that. So that on its basic is the need, the overwhelming, And it is a crisis vote to hire a dispatcher who has certain supervisory and certifications in-house to do this. We need to do this and we need to do it soon. That's the point. Now, I'm comfortable with you talking to both unions, and I'd love to hear their positions on this, because I think for the most part, they're going to tell you similar concerns, but maybe not. Maybe the fire union will surprise them.
[John Falco]: We will. Thank you, Chief Buckley. Chief Gilberti, did you want to speak before I recognize the union representatives?
[_ILL_rSpLCY_SPEAKER_00]: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President, Mayor Lungo-Koehn, and city councilors. As far as the supervisor's position goes, my union has been asking for a supervisor, in the dispatch center from the beginning. And I had asked the previous administration on at least two occasions, if we could get a supervisor into the dispatch center, but that didn't materialize. And I want to thank Mayor Lungo-Koehn for stepping up and hearing our cries for a supervisor and taking the necessary steps for us to move forward with that. I meet with my union on these issues. We talk about it. They bring me issues. Chief Buckley wanted to hear their concerns, but he wanted to hear them through me. And I asked my union and anyone in the department, if they have any concerns to send me a communication and I will address them with Chief Buckley. And I've done that on a number of occasions. Have we had our hiccups? Yes, we have. But we try to deal with them. as they come up. I believe Chief Buckley had a discussion last night with the union, the dispatch union. And I'm hoping, and I believe that we are on the right track. And as soon as we can get the supervisor in there, things will be a little different. They'll have some oversight. They'll have retraining. They'll have a one encompassing manual. So that's my statement for right now.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Chief Gilbert. Okay. At this point, I recognize, do you prefer police or fire? It doesn't matter. Okay. We'll go with, let's see, let's go with Eddie Buckley from the local 1032 Medford Fire Department. I'm going to unmute you, Eddie Buckley.
[SPEAKER_11]: Hello, sorry I'm at work. Can anyone hear me?
[John Falco]: Yes, we can hear you. Thank you for joining us tonight.
[SPEAKER_11]: So what questions do you have? I'm glad to answer anything, sure.
[John Falco]: Council Members, do you have any specific questions that you'd like to ask Mr. Buckley?
[Michael Marks]: I guess my question would be to Mr. Buckley is what have been the concerns for the past year and a half that have been raised by the fire department regarding their concerns with 911 in the community?
[SPEAKER_11]: Beginning with the lack of a training manual, there was no training manual. It was pretty much a couple papers put together at the last second. So our members didn't have the correct training in order to train the new members of the civilian dispatch. We raised our concerns early about that. There still is no training manual. And then when the civilians started taking over in around February, we were noticing a lot of errors and we were trying to address it and see how we could fix it. We did ask in the beginning for a fire department supervisor over there, as well as did the dispatchers themselves. They were asking first they needed a fire department supervisor. Would we love a fire department supervisor? Absolutely. But if the mayor's going to hire somebody to do that job, that's fine. As long as the job is being done and we're being dispatched, to all the calls in a timely fashion, we don't have a problem with who's doing the supervising. In our opinion, yeah, it should be someone on the fire side, as the police have on the police side. But I understand that the police are in charge of it. But we need to have a way of fixing any errors that take place in dispatch in a timely fashion, not sending communications and talking about it a week or two later. These are emergency situations that need to be addressed immediately. Those were our concerns. From what I know, Chief Buckley and Chief Gilberti met. They're addressing the situation. They're addressing our concerns that we have. Yes, it is 11 months later, but they did meet and allegedly they're addressing those issues. So we'd like to see that go forward and hopefully there's no issues going forward.
[John Falco]: Mr. President, if I could. Please continue, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: So based on the October 26th letter that was written by local 1032 regarding concerns of method fire and in particular delays in dispatching calls and lack of supervision. I was wondering if you can address that particular letter that was sent to the city administration.
[SPEAKER_11]: Yeah, I sent that letter in October. We had a meeting in November. I addressed our issues. This union doesn't feel that we really got listened to as the chiefs met last night, which is, you know, over a month since we had the meeting to discuss it. But those were our concerns from day one, delays and dispatches and not getting sent the calls that we should be.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, also, maybe if you can address the July 27th letter, which discusses manpower on assignments on multiple alarm fires and the dispatch policy that was created without any input from the fire department. Has that been rectified?
[SPEAKER_11]: Yes. Chief Gilberti spoke with the police department. I believe Chief Buckley, I don't know if he spoke with Lieutenant Rudolph or if he was in charge at that point, but He readdressed the, we have a dispatch paper for second alarm fires, and he reiterated that everyone is to be, I gotta go to a call, sorry. I'm at work right now.
[John Falco]: Thank you, be safe.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay, so we don't have a, so Mr. Buckley's not with us. He had a call, so he's,
[John Falco]: So we'll hear from Harold McGillivray.
[Michael Marks]: I'd like to hear from Harold, Mr. President, Mr. McGillivray. But also, Mr. President, I guess what it takes to get things done in this community is a resolution by this Medford City Council to get people to act on certain items. And I'm glad to see both chiefs met last night, Mr. President, after many emails going out regarding concerns of a lack of supervision and delays in dispatching over the past 11 months. And now they're being addressed, Mr. President. So if anything, I am happy that I put my name on this, Mr. President, to make sure on behalf of the 58,000 residents of this community that 911 indeed protects the residents of this community, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: Thank you very much. We actually, before I move forward, we got a message. I think Mr. Buckley is actually still with us. So let's recognize Eddie Buckley.
[SPEAKER_11]: Sorry. That was a call for another station.
[John Falco]: I apologize. Do you have any further questions for Mr. Buckley?
[Michael Marks]: I just made my statement, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Buckley. Mr. Buckley, do you have any further comments?
[SPEAKER_11]: No, sir. Like I said, I'm just, I'm happy that the mayor is hiring a supervisor and I'm hoping that the chiefs have resolved the issues that this union has. We appreciate it.
[John Falco]: Okay, thank you. Okay, I see the chiefs have their hands up. So let's go to Chief Gilberti and then we'll go to Chief Buckley.
[_ILL_rSpLCY_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, Mr. President. These issues have come up that had been brought to my attention. And as soon as they were brought to my attention, I would sit down with Chief Buckley and Lieutenant Rudolph, and we would discuss the issues that the union had and that I had. And I want to say that they've both been very receptive in dealing with the issues. I don't want you to think that we met last night for the first time to try and, you know, address everybody's concerns. We have been meeting right along. And as I said, Chief Buckley and Lieutenant Rudolph have been very receptive. And last night's meeting was very, very reassuring. As I said, Chief Buckley spoke with the dispatch union last night, and we had spoke this morning. And going forward, I think that things will be, will be, everybody will be satisfied with the way we move forward.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Chief Gilberti. Mr. President. Councilor Lox. Mr. President, since we trained and lost a number of dispatches, I was wondering if there was any exit interviews given, and if so, what were the sentiments of the candidates that were trained and given a job here in the city of Medford, and then after a short period of time decided to leave, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: Let's see, Lieutenant Rudolph has his hand up. Let's see. There you go. Lieutenant Rudolph.
[Mark Rudolph]: Good evening. Good evening. This is Lieutenant Mark Rudolph. Can everyone hear me?
[John Falco]: Yes.
[Mark Rudolph]: Okay. Well, first of all, I'd like to thank all of you for asking me to come before the council tonight via zoom. And I do want to answer a couple of quick questions for you. Most recently, the three individuals that had left us, all left for a very similar reason. They all lived within 5 to 15 minutes of the location that they got jobs at. So that was up in the north side of Route 93 and 495. Each one of them lived only a very short time away from the location they went to, which was Tewksbury Regional. So having said that, we lost 3 very, very good dispatchers who were also excellent trainers. They had experience doing the training. One of them had previous experience with another agency anyway and was a good training officer there as well. So that was a big hit on our ability to continue a solid in-service training. Beyond that, that was the only reason that all three of them chose to leave, was simply because they were matched with salary by that location as to what they were making in Medford. Because they wanted to lure them away, they went because they simply moved to where they lived. So having that is a major concern for most people. The commute, which typically for two of them was up to 45 minutes every morning, and now it's five to 11 minutes. And the third moved to just southern New Hampshire, so it was very similar for the three of them. Those were the only things they gave to me as reasons for going. They loved the job. They enjoyed working in Medford. They found it to be extremely challenging, even the person that came to us from Tewksbury originally. Had they not been, you know, wooed away basically by another agency that was similar to where they lived, we probably would still have those three and we wouldn't be going through the crisis situation that we are right now.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Lieutenant Rudolph.
[Mark Rudolph]: You're welcome.
[John Falco]: Okay. Any questions for Lieutenant Rudolph while we have him? Okay. Chief Buckley, I believe you had your hand up and Chief Buckley.
[Jack Buckley]: I just want to add briefly to Chief Gilberti's comments that, you know, we have been meeting all along with this, on this, the dispatcher situation. And it wasn't just last night that we met and resolved these matters. We've been meeting all along, taking all these into considerations. You just have to accept that that's been going on. We haven't been ignoring these situations. And to add secondarily to the reasons that the three dispatchers left, Up in Tewksbury area, they have a regional dispatch center that the state funded and they needed bodies to fill that dispatch center. And they were in a similar position as us. They could not hire dispatchers because the state wasn't capable of training dispatchers. So they went out and basically like head hunted active dispatchers left and right. We actually paid more for dispatchers down here and they actually raised their prices up there to attract dispatchers to their center so they could open and they had state funding to do it. And so that hurt us and probably hurt a couple of other police departments and fire dispatchers in the area. So there's a number of reasons associated with why they left and, But I just really wanted my point was that we have been meeting all along on this issue. Dispatching, no problem. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Chief Buckley. Vice President Caraviellola.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I'm going to make it clear that the only agenda of this city council is the safety of the residents of Medford. We have no other agenda other than that. Chief, whoever wants to answer, is the pay that we pay these dispatchers, is it on par with other cities and towns? Are we not paying enough money? I don't know what they get for salary, but are we on par with other communities?
[Jack Buckley]: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes, Council, we are. We're better than most communities. We pay very respectful. And I think that if it wasn't for, you know, the shutdown of state 9-1-1 training, we would have our ranks filled here very easily. What's demand for qualified, trained dispatchers. And so we've had a couple of interviews and we've brought a number of them in here, but they're looking for top dollar. And we can't pay one new dispatcher differently than the other dispatchers because they are technically unionized now. So we can only offer them what we can offer them. It is a healthy, but some of the dispatchers that are out there looking for jobs are looking for a higher rate of pay. And so Um, but very clearly we are very competitive in our salary dispatcher. It's just the only ones out there right now are, you know, qualified trained dispatchers who are looking for something better. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Chief Buckley. Lieutenant Rudolph. Did you want to comment on that as well?
[Mark Rudolph]: Yes, I just want to echo the same thing that Chief Buckley said. Myself and Chief Gilberti have participated in every single interview of multiple applicants, along with Mr. Neil Osborne. We've had some unique candidates that came before us, several that really stood out with tremendous levels of experience. And unfortunately, those two individuals, one did decide to take the job, and then at the last moment decided that it was still too big a pay cut for him to take it. The other person said the same thing. It was just much too big a pay cut. Because they were both working at one, was at a state regional center, and the other was at a major metropolitan location. And that person chose not to take it as well, simply because it would have been too big a pay cut. Are we in a decent range? I think right now, as Chief Buckley said, we are actually in a better position than a lot of departments that don't pay very much around us. So we are very reasonable as far as what we have for salaries. I just want to reemphasize, though, that there is a distinct need for a qualified civilian dispatch supervisor who is not a police officer, who is not a firefighter, because neither one of myself or my My partners on the far side even have any level of qualified training to actually do the job of a true dispatch supervisor. Right now, the dispatches, they're under the watchful eye of a shift commander on the police side. It's always been that way since the center opened in 1997. That does not mean that person who is watching them has any level of knowledge regarding the actual 911 process. We're not qualified to use it at all. We're there to give guidance, and that's it. We can't qualify them, we can't instruct them, we can't teach them anything other than basic common actions. But as far as 911 equipment goes, we're dead in the water as supervisors there. And that's the need for a true civilian dispatcher who has the American Professional Communications Office's supervised training program, who has the APCO certified police training, the APCO certified fire training. They're literally trained as instructors and supervisors. That's the key for us to become truly successful here and have one of the best run 9-1-1 centers locally in a small city the size of ours. Do we have the luxury of being a Boston or some other metropolitan city? Not really. Most of those places all have civilian dispatchers running their operation. They may report to a command officer in the police or the fire department, whoever manages it, but the reality is that dispatch supervisor is a dispatcher at heart. They live it, they breathe it, and they train those around them to do the job that they can do as well. And that's the true reasoning why we need someone who is highly qualified, has a huge skill set to be able to do that type of work. And there isn't a police officer in Medford or a firefighter in Medford, that has that level of skill set and capabilities and licensed certifications to be able to perform that job. I just wanted to let the council know that as well. And I thank you for allowing me to speak.
[John Falco]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: So do we do we have candidates in the pipeline that were interviewing for this job?
[Mark Rudolph]: Lieutenant Rudolph again. We, Chief Gilberti, myself and Mr. Osborne interviewed a gentleman about a week and a half ago. I will have the results of the background investigation tomorrow. And depending on what the background investigation reveals or confirms, we should be able to move forward with a potential offer. But again, it depends on the full results and I don't have that report until tomorrow. We were still waiting for a couple of previous employers to supply us with their paperwork on it. So I should be able to answer that question probably within the next 48 to 72 hours.
[Richard Caraviello]: Are we eligible for any state or federal funds to pay for this person? Or maybe to sweeten the salary to get, as we're being purged, we may have to purge other departments.
[Mark Rudolph]: As far as police funding goes, we don't have any capability of using 9-1-1 state grant money for hiring personnel. It's used for equipment purchases, it's used for upgrade purposes of equipment, it's used for training for our personnel, but it doesn't pay salaries and you can't use it as part of that. It does pay for overtime to send them to training only.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. And again, please understand, please understand that the only agenda of this council is the safety of the citizens of Medford. Thank you.
[Mark Rudolph]: And I agree with you 100% Councilor. And that's the role that I try to ensure that our dispatchers are doing their very best. But again, keep in mind, I have 39 years of police experience. I'm not a firefighter, I'm not an EMT, and I'm certainly not a dispatcher, but I'm probably in my position the single person right now that has the highest level of authority over them, but I can't train them. I can only provide the proper training through the right venues to get them increased certifications and increased training programs.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. Thank you, Lieutenant Rudolph. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Just to answer Vice President Caraviello's question because Lieutenant Rudolph did answer the most recent interview, which is in process, but I just wanted to also make you aware of about six to eight weeks ago, approximately, I did do final interviews for two strong candidates, both of whom were very well trained, had a great deal of experience, both probably capable of being supervisors. We did offer the job of dispatcher to both of those candidates, and they both turned them down due to the the salary. One of those candidates was very well-versed on the police side only, and one was well-versed on police and had an extreme amount of experience on the fire side. So that is a potential for this job. So I just wanted to be extremely clear. We did have two strong candidates about six to eight weeks ago, but we did lose them both.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: So thank you, Mr. President. So to revert back to the first comment we made, and just to be clear, this is why we asked for this meeting. No matter how it went out, the letter went out to the mayor, the word got out to the community that there was a safety crisis with 911. Whether it's with hiring, whether it's with policy, whichever it is, we needed to get answers, and that's it. And from what I've heard from the chief of police, from what I've heard from the chief of fire, from what I've heard from the union representation so far, is to me, exactly what we needed to share to our constituents that brought these questions and these concerns to us. No other reason. That's it. I'm not trying to dig anything up or trying to find something that's not there or say that it's not safe. It's refreshing that Lieutenant Rudolph, frightening but refreshing that he said that we don't have anybody qualified to run that office right now, and that's probably the most important public safety position right now. That's the first line of safety and help for all our constituents, whether it's with violence or whether it's with health. This is the reason why having the communication, having the chief of police and the chief of fire here to answer these questions publicly to us is why it's so important that we did this. No other reason. And I thank them for coming out and doing that. And understand, this won't be the last time, Mr. President, that this councilor will contact or put a resolution through if I feel that we need some answers by leaders in our community. So thank you very much, and I appreciate the answers that were given. And I think that we have a strong understanding of what now these concerns are and where we're moving to. So thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to be able to understand, Mr. President, This issue of civilian 911 was being discussed. And at the time when they decided to move forward, I'd like to be privy to what the discussions were around hiring a civilian 911 supervisor at that time, a year and a half ago, if any. Because I think it's important, Mr. President, there's not one member behind this reel that I've heard once say, we don't need the position. There's not one person for the last three weeks, I've never heard one person say, this is not needed, Mr. President. We have been asking questions on why it's an emergency right now, absolutely. And I'll continue to ask them, like Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Caraviello have mentioned. But I'd like to know, Mr. President, a year and a half ago, when the powers to be sat down and started discussing how this 911 center was going to work. What were the discussions around hiring someone from the start that had that supervisory skill to oversee this department, Mr. President? And to make sure that the proper unified training manuals were set up, Mr. President. To make sure the rules and procedures and policies were set up to set up our workers for success, Mr. President. and not failure. People leave for a lot of different reasons. Some may be location, but others may leave, Mr. President, for other reasons, such as lack of supervision and lack of a clear, defined training manual and other reasons, Mr. President. They may not state it, Mr. President, but they leave for a host of reasons. But I'd like to know why from the inception that we did not hire, don't forget we just went through the budget this June 2020. If this has been discussed for the last year and a half, why was it in the June 2020 budget, Mr. President? Why are we looking at a supplemental after the fact? So I'd like to know why this wasn't discussed, and if it was, I'd like to know why and why it didn't get in to the planning of this 911 center. As Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, to me that's critical to have someone that oversees and has the experience in both police and fire and able to put this together and create the policies and manuals and the hiring and the training. 101, Mr. President, of creating a dispatch center. So I'd like to know why that didn't happen originally.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Would anybody like to comment on that?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I can comment on that. I wasn't around a year and a half ago. I know that the only one present probably, because I know it was Chief Sacco and Mayor Burke at the time, and I know Chief Gilberti can probably comment, but I just want to reiterate that we did have police and then we had fire in dispatch up until February, March, right around when COVID hit. And at that time, the issues of the training manual were being worked on. So I know it did take time, and we got to this point. We had almost a semi-emergency meeting on this in October, and then a second one in November, which is leading us to where we are today, requesting a 911 supervisor, which we did in the supplemental budget. But I understand your reasonings for not I'm here tonight to explain why we're here, how we're planning to fix it and why we think this is so essential.
[_ILL_rSpLCY_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Since the beginning, the union has, my union has always looked to have a supervisor from the fire side in the dispatch center. And that's what I was advocating for with the prior administration to have a, at least at the rank of lieutenant into the dispatch center to oversee just the fire side. The police at the time had their commanding officer was in the dispatch center, and we felt that we needed representation on the fire side. That never came to fruition. When Mayor Longo Hearn took over, we approached that subject again, and we worked on, now we're here at a civilian dispatcher who's qualified at both disciplines, and will be able to oversee the center. So that's where it was back a year and a half ago. I was advocating always for a fire dispatch supervisor only.
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, just so I understand, and I appreciate Chief Gilberti's response. So if the chief was advocating for a fire supervisor, and I'm sure the police were advocating for a police supervisor, we ended up instead of having both Mr. President, no trained supervisor at all for the past year and a half. And this is no reflection on Lieutenant Rudolph, because he stated himself that this is not really his expertise. And he can't really train, he can't really oversee, because he's not aware of what's taking place. in the dispatch to really supervise it, Mr. President. And I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I just don't understand how you may be advocating for something, but it resulted in no supervision at all for the past year and a half. And I should say no trained supervision, no expertise in 911 for the last year and a half. And that's the shortcoming, Mr. President, that I have a concern with. And we've had the last 11 months to do something, and finally we're getting a paper. In my opinion, if this was such an emergency, I would have sent it out as its own paper, Mr. President. Having a reverse 911 supervisor as its own paper, not mixed in with nine other items, like an interpreter. and other things, Mr. President, in there. So that would be how I would have handled it. But again, I'm not the chief executive officer of this city, Mr. President. And that's how they chose to handle it. Because maybe if it was submitted in that fashion, this would have been handled three weeks ago. Mr. President, so I'm still not happy with the answers regarding the lack of supervision, the lack of a trained personnel to oversee this department, Mr. President. And we don't know what this has resulted in, the lack of manuals, policies, and procedures over the last year and a half. We don't know potential lawsuits or anything else that may be brewing in this community, Mr. President. over this 9-1-1, and I guess that'll speak for itself, Mr. President, at some point.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Council Members. We have a number of Councilors that have questions, but we also haven't heard from Harold McGilvery from the Police Department Union. Does Council care if we hear from him and then we move forward with the questions? Just because he was supposed to follow Mr. Buckley, but when Mr. Buckley went, or Eddie Buckley went, then the Chiefs weighed back on, they responded to his concerns. So let's hear from, I'm going to give away from the method Police Department. Union president. Mister Montgomery.
[McGilvey]: Thank you, president. Can you hear me?
[John Falco]: Yes, we can. Thank you.
[McGilvey]: Okay. Harry McGilvery 100 Main Street. I'm the president of the method Police Patrolman's Association. I just want to get off topic real quick before I get going. I just want to acknowledge the fact that the new police station opened last week. And it's pretty impressive building. And I want to acknowledge former Mayor Burke for getting that done. Current mayor, Longo Curran, councillors Caraviello, Mox, Dello Russo, Scott, Kelly, Layton, Falco. It was a really long time coming, and it's now come to fruition. And it's an impressive building. And the membership of the Patrolmen's Union and the Supervisors' Union, I don't think we realized the the conditions we were working under until we got into that new building. It's really something to be in a new building with 21st century technology and some real nice comforts of working in a clean office space. And like I said, when we broke ground the red side is still working in the same building. And I hope that the city does move quickly to rectify that situation. So now I'll get on to the 9, 1, 1, situation. Just to create a timeline, I was approached by a few of the 9-1-1 I spoke with them at the TPW building when they were down there. And I gave them an explanation of what being members of the union would entail. I recommended that they also reach out to Steve Salt of the Teamsters, Eddie Barclay of 1032, and then make a decision. They contacted me a week or so later, said they wanted to really go forward and join our union. And we went, you know, we contacted our office and we put the process in place. They signed union cards and they became members of our union. From the moment they became members of the union, we've been representing them. I have met on a regular basis with Chief Barclay and with Chief Gilberti. I met with Chief Barclay one-on-one. I've met with Chief Barclay and Chief Gilberti together in the old police station. And I am the representative. I am the bargaining agent for those folks. And I want to say that I never had any impression that there was ever a public safety emergency. It was brought to my attention by one of the dispatchers when he saw an agenda item on the council. I reached out to several Councilors, and it was the first time I was hearing all of that. I want to say right now that these individuals that are working here as public safety dispatchers. They're working hard to do a good job. They're getting better every day. They want to do a good job. And we're not reinventing the wheel here. Civilian dispatching takes place pretty much around the country, around the Commonwealth. We're probably getting into this late. I can't speak for the fire union, but we negotiated those jobs away. And I'm taken back by some of the things I've heard here tonight. I'm surprised we're not in an executive session. I'd probably be more comfortable in an executive session. I can clearly state for a fact that the three dispatchers that left did not leave because of a lack of supervision. I'm not going to get into the reasons because this isn't the time or place to be doing this. The mayor set up several meetings at City Hall. They brought in an individual who is a professional civilian dispatcher. And we had a plan in place as to how to to go into an executive session and speak as to what's been going on behind the scenes, but I'm not going to do it here. I've never seen anything like this, actually. My 15 years as a union president that my membership is being talked about like this. It's disheartening. And I'm not very happy right now. They're working without a contract, growing pains. We, both police and fire side, have to adjust to not having police officers and firefighters dispatching us. And it's just, it's heartening as to some of the things that I heard here tonight. If anybody has any questions, I'd be happy to answer any questions. But like I said, I think this is something that should have been done in executive session.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Harold. We have Councilor Bears and Vice President Caraviello. Councilor Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think what Councilor Mark said and what Mayor Legault-Kern previously said actually gets to the heart of the issue around this paper. I don't think there's any disagreement with hiring a 911 supervisor or whatever else is needed to make sure that this office has everything it needs to function effectively. But that's not the decision that this council has. We can't just hire, approve the 9-1-1 supervisor. It's been lumped into a large package, and that package has been tabled. So I'd like to ask the mayor, if the mayor's still here, do you intend to put a standalone 9-1-1 supervisor item before the council, or will a revised appropriation be put before the council to address the issues that we've laid out?
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Peers. Mayor Longo-Kurt.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: that we're able to fund that going forward until fiscal year 22. So that is what we've Dave, I don't know if you have any clarifications on any legalities that need to happen with regard to that, but I think that it's as simple as that.
[SPEAKER_25]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: Point of information, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: I think, and I don't want to speak for my colleague, but I think what he was asking was if the paper for $740,000 was amended or the police supervisor position was sliced out, I don't think you'd get much pushback from this council. I think we all understand that there's a need for that, Um, the question is whether or not we want to support a supplemental budget for 740 K. Um, and there are some items in there that, um, some of us have concern over and some items in there that some of us, um, uh, some items that aren't in there that some of us have, um, but I think all of us behind this rail would be supportive of a standalone paper to amend the supplemental budget. Um, so that we didn't have to go through the process of using the existing funds in the police budget. so that we can use those funds to hire the dispatchers that we so need. We want to hire this police dispatch supervisor, a dispatch center supervisor, so that they can perform in-house training. If we can't get the training done at the state level, we need to get it done somewhere. They need to keep their continuing ed certifications up. We've heard from Lieutenant Rudolph saying that, you know, there's really no one that's in either department that's qualified to perform the functions of training. So I'm just trying to clarify, Zach, I think that's what you were getting at, right? Is that if you give us a paper that's for the, you know, whatever it is, $100,000 or whatever that line item was, I don't think the council will stand in the way of that. Um, that still leaves the argument relative to the other items that the council has been discussing and the other items that are on that paper. Um, however, you know, I think it'll address the issue of the nine one one call center supervisor, uh, in relatively short order.
[John Falco]: Thank you for your point of information. Councilor Knight. Councilor Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, well, Councilor Knight's right. I mean, that's one way out of this as one option. And I would think we'd all be happy to vote for approving a standalone paper. I think the other option would be to have a revised paper that reflects the request of this council so that we're not throwing out anything else that's in the appropriation that we might want to approve as well. So it sounds to me like the answer to my question is no. There isn't an intent to put a standalone paper. We're going to use existing funds. Does the administration have any intent to revise supplemental appropriation before this council, before the end of the year?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: The supplemental budget has to be approved by tonight because you have your tax classification hearing next week on December 8th. So for lack of time, we won't be able to put on a separate paper. I'm hopeful that maybe tonight you will take it off the table and discuss the supplemental budget as a whole. I feel that those are the needs of the community right now. And I hear you loud and clear that there's an election supervisor position that we are currently working on reviewing. And I have meetings set up as early as next week to continue that review in hopes to make sure we do the best we can for our elections department and city clerk.
[Zac Bears]: So if we don't approve that tonight, what's going to happen? Is the intent just that we will no longer appropriate any of the funds that have been proposed in the supplemental budget?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Since tonight is the last night to approve the supplemental budget, yes, the paper will die. And the funds will be reverted to free cash after the fiscal year 21 is over.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thank you, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. We have Vice President Caraviello and then Councilor Knight. Vice President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I think Councilor Marks brought up a point earlier in his discussion. And this is no reflection on this current merit, but why in the beginning when this department was started, why didn't the two chiefs insist on a supervisor? I mean, how do you start a department with no supervision? I think that's really the biggest question. This should have been dealt with 15 months ago, right from day one, not at this time when the horse was out of the barn. As I said, in business, if you're in a business and you start a department up with nobody to run the department, how do you expect that department to ever be successful? These people have no manuals, no training, nothing. And again, this is no reflection on this mayor, because she wasn't there for that. But as I said, the two chiefs should have got together and insisted on this way back when this first came out, and not now at this late stage in the game.
[John Falco]: Chief Gilberti.
[_ILL_rSpLCY_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. A couple of things I want to touch on. When this whole civilian dispatch began, I was advocating for a fire supervisor. My office training division had oversight of the 911 center for the police side when it was in our building. Years ago, there used to be a lieutenant who was part of the dispatching crew in the fire dispatch center. And when he retired, that position was eliminated and then they were all firefighters. And it was the supervision of that was taken over by the training division. So there was always oversight on our side through my training division. But when I was unsuccessful in getting a fire supervisor, that's when Mayor Lungo-Koehn, we began to talk about a supervisor for the entire center. So it's a little bit more difficult now to have oversight now that they're in the new building. So having said that, as far as the money paper goes, I just want to, and the mayor can correct me if I'm wrong, I believe a part of that money that's on the paper before you, has to do with repairs to fire stations. So I would ask that you really consider passing that paper this evening, because a large chunk of that money is going to go towards some major repairs that we have in the outlying stations.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: That's correct, Chief. That's correct. The stations, the schools and routine maintenance for our new police station and new library that's coming online over the summer. 200,000 can go a long way along with the facilities director that the council me included when I was on the council advocated for year after year after year.
[_ILL_rSpLCY_SPEAKER_00]: And I've been asking for that for two, two administrations. Okay.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Chief Gilberti. Let's see, Vice President Caraviello, did you have any further questions? Okay, thank you. Councilor Layton.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. The mayor said something relative to the supplemental budget and how if it's not passed this evening, then it dies and the money would revert to free cash come the next fiscal year. Is there anybody from the administration that can speak to the impact that this will have on our levy limit, our new growth? for the upcoming fiscal year?
[John Falco]: I believe we have Alicia- In terms of dollars and cents, Mr. President. Yes. Alicia, would you like to take that question from Councilor Knight?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Good evening, Honorable Councilors. Yes. Through the Chair to Councilor Knight. So what will happen is we want to raise as much as we can towards the tax levy limit. If this money isn't appropriate to amend the budget, we would have to take it from reserves, which would be free cash. part of the tax rate recap calculation. So because it's coming from unrestricted government aid as a program to the budget, that's why we would need it to be passed before the tax rate is set. If you do not pass it, it just means you'd have to appropriate it from free cash. You could not appropriate it after the tax rate is set.
[Adam Knight]: So it wouldn't apply to the levy limit for the next fiscal year?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: It would not.
[Adam Knight]: And is any of this money applying to new growth for the next fiscal year?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: No. We had new growth already certified at the 1.77, which your honorable body rescinded 703,000 back to free cash of the new growth.
[SPEAKER_02]: Okay.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Certified. And this is the unrestricted government aid from local aid that we're trying to use to increase the city budget appropriation for the positions on the paper.
[Adam Knight]: and the benefit of increasing the city budget is because it would allow you to have an increased levy limit next fiscal year?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Your levy limit is based on the 2.5% of your previous fiscal year's budget, right? Plus your new growth. This paper is just amending the budget. Whenever you're setting the tax rate, what the tax rate's actually doing is it's raising taxes to pay for the budget that was voted. So if we amend right now to add more positions to last year's budget, It has to be raised through the tax rate. Otherwise, the only other funding source is free cash.
[Adam Knight]: Point of information, Mr. President. Just one second, Michael, if I can. But what I'm saying is if the budget is amended, the levy limit is based upon the previous year's budget, correct?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: The levy limit is the 2.5%.
[Adam Knight]: How much money we were able to generate? How much money we spent?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes, yes. So we had estimated a 10% cut, and because the governor level funded local aid, we have additional aid that we can use towards the budget.
[SPEAKER_02]: Okay, and what's the total amount?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: So for Chapter 70, we had estimated $11,053,769. We actually got $12,143,306. For unrestricted government aid, we had estimated $11 million. You can just give me the bottom line for the increase over what we- Okay, so the increase to unrestricted government aid is $963,457.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks, point of information. Just a point of information, Mr. President. It was stated that this paper would die tonight because the tax rate You can't vote on it after the tax rate's set. When are we setting the tax rate, Mr. President?
[John Falco]: We'll have a committee the whole next Tuesday night, and I believe that will be next Tuesday night's agenda, if I'm correct.
[Michael Marks]: So we have another week if the mayor wanted to submit a paper, a revised paper. Withdraw the current $740,000 supplemental amendment amount and submit a revised paper. The tax rate won't be set before next Tuesday, correct?
[John Falco]: That sounds correct to me.
[Michael Marks]: So we do have another week.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: The tax rate is set to be set next week.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So if we vote on the paper Tuesday night, that'll be prior to us setting the tax rate. correct?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Yeah, but I have to, if you're going to do that, I have to put it into the recap to DLR. So it's not that simple as you just pass it. I actually have to go in and put numbers into the recap. So I can't do it a few hours, you know, an hour before and then sit and hit submit. It's not, no. And when we give you your presentation for the committee of the whole, we have to give you the numbers. The numbers will change if you voted the paper. So the package we would give you wouldn't be the correct package for the tax rate.
[Michael Marks]: Right, so if the mayor submits a new paper next week amended to approve the supervisory position in 911, you know what the dollar amount is already. This council, I think, has stated, and I won't speak for everyone, a commitment for that paper. I don't see why that can't be done next week, Mr. President, and added into the paperwork that Alicia is saying, because she's right, she probably needs time to do that. But I think we're able to forecast now, we have a week to forecast that, Mr. President. I don't see why that can't be done.
[John Falco]: I mean, that sounds correct to me.
[Michael Marks]: It almost seems like people don't want it done, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: And Alicia, if I may just kind of throw a wrench into it really quick, but I mean, I think there've been in years past where we've not necessarily set the tax rate on that night of the meeting. We've, I think, tabled it for a week before in the past. I mean, so does the tax rate have to be set next Tuesday night? What if it was tabled to the 15th, the next meeting after that?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: And Alan. I just noticed that DOR is behind on setting a lot of things. I've submitted paper. I've already submitted to them the balance sheet for free cash certification. They're behind. They said they're behind trying to set tax rates. So we're a little concerned to be completely honest with you. I'm not sure if the inundation or why they're moving behind is because of COVID. I can't speak to that, but I'm honestly a little concerned about pushing our tax rate out too far.
[John Falco]: Let's see, Council March is all set. We have Councilor Scarpelli, and then Ellen's waving a hand, so we're gonna call on Ellen next. So, Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: So I know that, obviously, to make it clear, this councilor didn't go put this paper on to get to an unresolved, it seems like this is, like it was being held hostage, now we're discussing the real issue, and that's not the true intent from this councilor. We had concerns about this issue, I wanna make sure that stands alone. But now that we're talking about it, Let's go a little bit through the timeline. We all want what's on that paper. I think it's important that we get that facilities position in. I think most of those things that we were given some information, the positions without any job descriptions. We got the job descriptions. We understand how important they are. Everything's in order. We talked to the Chief of Staff a few weeks ago. Chief of Staff Rodriguez mentioned that he would set aside $100,000. I think that one of the scenarios this council brought up is if we could look at a date certain saying like I believe he said 90 days and he said he would not do that. So now that we have the mayor on the call and I believe you said that the mayor said that she's already been in discussions moving that position that we're interested in moving it forward. And I would assume that our committee would support, I think that's what we're going with a few weeks ago, that if it was a date certain that we would support the paper knowing that we're coming to a resolution for the position that's needed in the elections office. If I'm right, if I'm wrong, forgive me, but Could we possibly look at a date certain this evening saying that the 90 days, I believe that's what the Chief of Staff Rodriguez said, that 90 days is the process. It looks like, if I could remember it then, but he wouldn't commit to that because he's, I believe that he's not the mayor and he wouldn't do that to the mayor. So I don't know if maybe the mayor can add some light to that. If it's not, I understand that. If she doesn't feel comfortable, that's fine. But if we can have that assurance tonight, I would move this off the table, and I would vote forward with, you know, because from what I gather from Cora Kirby's, we're hoping that three months will give us enough time for our next election, unless the special elections come up after the Georgia runoff. So if you can, Madam Mayor, that'd be appreciative.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Sure. Sure. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. What I can do is, within three or four months, give you a full report of my review and investigation and let you know what we find with regards to if there is a need for that position. And that position, three or four months would be far before the next election. So that's something I can commit to. But I can't go and say I will institute an election coordinator when the clerk's office and the board of registrar voters, it is completely fully staffed. And I cannot commit to that until I know that there is 100% need for it. If I could use that money for a teacher, a firefighter, a police officer, there's need there. There are other departments in this city. We have two missing positions that need to be hired in the treasurer's office. In our assessing office, we have the need for an additional assessor. Engineering office, need for additional personnel. Poor Todd Blake, need for our traffic engineer for an assistant. Diversity, need for an assistant. My communications director, 18 hour days, need for an assistant. There are so many needs in this community that I have to do my due diligence as your mayor to make sure that any position I implement is necessary and is the right decision. I hear you loud and clear. I hear the clerk. We had a plan. Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Hurtubise, and myself, we sat. We discussed the primary. We discussed the issues, the successes, and the setbacks, and how we were going to go and address that. After the election was certified, we were going to sit down again. And I was going to meet with additional personnel, as well as the board, that we need to figure out what the need is. There's also other issues that I spoke to many about over the phone that I need to make sure if it's necessary that we have the right person in that position. And I want to do what's best for our clerk. Believe me, I do. I hear you loud and clear. But there's a lot. It's very difficult to manage many, many departments with hundreds of employees and to do the right thing. And what is absolutely the need of this community, it's my job and I take it very seriously. With that being said, I can commit to giving you a review of my investigation within 90 to 120 days, three to four months. We can get that done.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I would hope that it could be done faster than that. But in any case, just to Director Nunley-Benjamin, If we do not, and this is just going off of what Councilor Knight was saying earlier, if we do not approve the supplemental appropriation, it will not affect the revenues for next fiscal year. Is that correct?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: That is correct. What I'm saying is if you don't pass it before the tax rate, then you have to fund it through free cash.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And then the free cash would come in at the end of the fiscal year. Got it. I just wanted to make that clear for myself. I think we're still at an impasse, to be quite frank. Thank you, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Council of Peers. Any other questions from the council regarding this issue? Okay. Any other questions out? Clerk, do you see anyone with their hand up? I just want to make sure I don't see anyone, but. Move approval, place on file. Okay, on the motion of Councilor Scarapelli. You approve the paper and place on file? Seconded by Councilor Knight.
[George Scarpelli]: Receive and place on file. 9-1-1, right, it's off of the paper. Yeah, so it's 9-1-1, it has nothing to do with the paper.
[John Falco]: Right, 2-0-6-4-7, nothing to do with the table of paper. Yes, correct. So on 2-0-6-4-7, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, Second. To approve and place on file. Seconded by Councilor Knight. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks?
[John Falco]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell?
[John Falco]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[John Falco]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: President Falco?
[John Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. Suspend the rules, Mr. President. On the motion of Councilor Knight to suspend the rules, seconded by?
[George Scarpelli]: Second.
[John Falco]: Councilor Scarpelli, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice-President Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks.
[John Falco]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell.
[John Falco]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Falco.
[John Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes and the rules are suspended. Councilor Knight.
[SPEAKER_25]: Mr. President, we have a paper on the agenda this evening, a communication from the mayor, paper 20656. I don't think it's too sassy,
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Communications from the Mayor, 20656, November 25th, 2020, to the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council, City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. Dear Mr. President and City Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that the City Council authorize me, as Mayor, on behalf of the City of Medford, to enter into a tax increment financing, TIF, TIF, agreement with Monogram Gourmet Foods LLC in accordance with the Massachusetts Economic Development Incentive Program, EDIP, and Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 23A, Chapter 40, Section 59, and Chapter 59. I will be present at the meeting with members of the administration, Chief Assessor Ellen Bordeaux, Jeffrey Monica from Monogram Gourmet Foods, and Maria DeStefano from the Massachusetts Office of Business Development to discuss the agreement as well as Monogram Gourmet Foods plan for the proposed operation in the city of Medford. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Thank you very much, President Falco, and thank you, Councilor Knight, for moving suspension of the rules. We have our assessor on to answer questions, Ellen Burdeaux. We have Aleesha Nunley, our finance director, on as well. We have Ms. Hunt, Office of Community Development, is present, as well as Jeff Monica and Maria DeStefano. So I want to take you through this slideshow with the help of the team. Monogram Gourmet Foods LLC, this is a proposed, as I said, For the past several weeks, the administration has been in discussions with Monogram Gourmet Foods LLC, located, hopefully, at 300 Middlesex Ave, which is the old Whole Foods Bakery site. This is the site in front of BJ's Wholesale across from Dunkin' Donuts on Middlesex Ave. Monogram Foods has been looking at several sites, including additional locations in Massachusetts, and we are one of those sites. If Monogram comes to Medford, they're going to be putting $40 million into the property as well as providing 250 new jobs to the community with Medford residents having preference. We are seeking a 10-year tax increment finance agreement with Monogram if the council approves this tonight. Mr. President? The property right now, you'll see on the screen, this is the location, this is the condition the property is in. Currently, it's generating about $118,000 in taxes each year. With no improvements and without Monogram Foods, we would be estimating the taxes that we would bring in at about $150,890 by the year 2031. At this point, I can turn it over to Mr. Monica, if you have any questions with regards to the improvements, the $40 million in improvements that will be brought to this property if this agreement is approved. Or Jeff, if you wanna just elaborate a bit.
[Adam Knight]: I just have one quick question before you pass it off, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: We have a question, Councilor Morell first, and then Councilor Knight. Councilor Morell?
[Adam Knight]: I just heard if Monogram Foods comes here as opposed to is Monogram Foods coming here or is it contingent upon whether or not we give them this tax incremented financing? I mean I'd hate to see us pass it and have them shopping around from city to city to city and then say wherever they get the best deal they're gonna go but we're making a commitment to them is there a commitment back you know I mean that this is where they want to be or is this a shopping spree?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: No I believe there's there is a commitment and I can let Mr. Monica explain further.
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Jeff Monica. I'm the vice president of warehousing and logistics for Monogram Foods. We're based in Medford, Tennessee, where I currently reside and appreciate the opportunity to appear before the council and the mayor this evening. And I'll be happy to answer any specific questions. The question appears that, you know, this facility would meet our needs. Our decision to make this our site is contingent upon the TIF award. It is critical to help us with our investment of approximately $40 million in the facility. It is our preferred site for a couple of reasons. We want to operate and open a state-of-the-art USDA bakery. And in combination, a USDA bakery is unique. There aren't many of them in the United States that allows us to do unique products with meats and proteins that aren't available in a normal FDA bakery like the Whole Foods bakery. So we need this facility to support our rapid growth. We have two other plants. in Wilmington, Massachusetts. So we have been a strong employer within the state of Massachusetts. This is going to involve the complete renovation of the bakery, which is detailed in our application, but it's a complete renovation of the walls, the floors, the HVAC, the refrigeration system, complete floor drain systems, as well as the installation of a state-of-the-art continuous bakery oven product, oven equipment, I should say. So it's all new equipment. It's an substantial investment for Monogram Foods in the range of $40 million. We anticipate employing over 250 employees after the facility is up and running with two full shifts. We have been told by the city that there is an experienced pool of bakery employees with experience either with Whole Foods or other previous tenants of this facility. So we are excited about that opportunity to put 250 employees to work, are back to work if they were employed previously, and particularly with experience in a bakery. So that is a positive. And one of the reasons why this would be a primary location, as well as we have a substantial commitment within Massachusetts, and this would fit well with this, with our other two plants that we currently have. So I'll pause there, Mayor, and hopefully that answered Councilor's question.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you very much, Mr. Monaco. Next slide, please. to be able to do that. Mister Rodriguez, do you want to explain this one?
[Dave Rodrigues]: background for folks watching at home or on the zoom that are familiar with tax increment financing agreements and kind of mechanics of how they work. So they're public-private partnerships that are used to encourage redevelopment or development in the community. The tax incentives only realize that the developer makes the investment. It's made in that there's So as you can see on the chart here, in the blue area that's marked as number one, this is the property taxes before the investment, what we call our base value. And so on the spreadsheet that you'll see in just a little bit, the base value that we see is just under $6.5 million. That's a base tax level. We're always derived taxes on the taxable level for that amount. that's the area that the exemption would apply to. So anything that's That's your increment finance. So that's the, that's where the exemption would apply. And that's, we have some, some analyses that were sent over to the council previously that kind of map out how we think that's going to go. But that's the area that would, would receive the tax exemption as, as agreed to in principle with bottom line. it's only good for the duration of the agreement. So this agreement is for 10 years. After that 10 year period, the entire value of the property comes online and is taxed at the regular value with no exemption. So I know Maria DeStefano from MOBD is on the call as well. She's a tremendous resource. I know that a couple of folks have spoken with her about the TIF process and the TIF structure and kind of the state role in the EDIP program. So if she wants to add in anything that I may have missed, which I'm sure is plenty, as well as Ellen Purdell, please feel free, Ellen and Maria.
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_34]: Thank you, David. Actually, you did an excellent job.
[Dave Rodrigues]: The blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_34]: Now, be careful, because if we're missing a regional director, I think I know where to find one.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: that. Thank you. Do you want to the next slide, Dave? I think we have
[Ellen Brideau]: That's an excellent overview of what a TIF does for the community. And truly, we have a baseline. Keeping commercial properties in Medford and growing commercial properties is what we need to do to stabilize the diversity of the tax base. And so this is definitely a win for the city.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: This slide shows you the proposed TIF agreement terms, and it It breaks down the percentage of the exemption over the course of the 10 years. It also breaks down the personal property exemption schedule 10% from year 1 to 5 and 0% year 6 to 10.
[Dave Rodrigues]: And I just admire that. So the reason that it was broken down as such is because of the breakdown of the investment that's being made by Monogram and a cross section between building improvements as well as equipment improvements. So we wanted this agreement. We want the city's offer to be assertive, not overly aggressive, but to be assertive and welcoming to the investor. If these conditions aren't met and we have every expectation that they will be met, there is the option for the state to decertify the agreement through the EIP process and through the AEACC. So, you know, God forbid that, you know, when the investment doesn't hit the projected value or the jobs aren't met, we will be able to go to the state and ask them to decertify that, the agreement and bring the value of the property back online. with every TIF, there's a but-for test that's applied. So the but-for that goes, so monogram will come if they get the agreement, but they won't come if they don't. So that's kind of how it falls down to it.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: This slide shows you the value to the city of Medford. So if you take the total real estate tax revenue to the city from 2022 to $1,421,000. With this TIF agreement, including the total of 3 million 432,000 and then a total property tax revenue $2,040,972. The exemptions would be the $668,000 and that would bring a total tax paid from 2022 to 2031 $5,473,273, which would be an increase in tax revenue over that 10 year span of over $4 million to the city of Medford. This just breaks it down a little bit further, and I know the council was provided this prior to this meeting, because I know it's a lot to digest, but we did want you to have all of this prior to, and we're happy to answer any other questions. that you have.
[John Falco]: Mr. President, we have a number of council questions. We have Councilor Morell, Vice President Caraviello, Councilor Marks, Councilor Knight, Council Bates.
[Nicole Morell]: Councilor Morell. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I have a number of questions. First of all, we're looking, I guess, the main incentive to the community that is being touted, or really the only incentive, is the 250 permanent jobs. What type of wages are we looking at for these jobs?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: If I could address it, yeah. These wages are in the approximate $20 an hour wage. That includes full benefits, health insurance, and participation in the retirement plan.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay, thank you. And then the permanent in this terminology, obviously it's not contract work, but what does permanent mean? That's the entirety of the 10-year agreement or just to your best ability to keep these jobs that are being promised?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: Is that a question for me, Dave, or is that?
[Nicole Morell]: I'm not sure whoever can answer it.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Yeah, I think it's 250 jobs. That's the labor force that they need to maintain throughout the life of the agreement. I think Maria had her hand up as well.
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_34]: I'm sorry, you're saying? Yeah, just a quick addition to that is, so when the state talks about full-time jobs, I'm sorry, when we talk about jobs created, we're only talking about full-time job, not equivalents or part-time.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay, and I'm sorry, the chief of staff's point, I believe it was, so these do need to, are required to be maintained for the 10 years? Okay. Thank you.
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: Yes. Yes.
[Nicole Morell]: Um, and then, uh, another question. Just, I don't, forgive me. I do not know what unique meats and proteins mean when it comes to, to bakery products. And we're talking about something that runs continually. So 24 hours a day. Is there any impact as far as, you know, smell exhaust odors, you know, to the, to the dense neighborhoods that surround this?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: No, that's a great question. First of all, let me, I can bring this home. Two of our largest customers are large coffee companies. One starts with the letter S and the other one starts with the letter D and it's Duncan. So if you've ever had the pleasure of having a ham and cheese croissant at a Dunkin Donuts, that is probably our croissant. So it's got ham and cheese combined as opposed to just a bakery croissant with butter. So that hopefully that explains what I mean by the proteins. No, there are no odorous orders that will permeate in the community. There is no other than normal sanitation There are no hazardous chemicals involved. There will be no noise, big noise issues. We do plan on operating two full shifts, two full time shifts. So there will be activity for approximately, I'm going to say 18 hours of a 24 hour day, primarily Monday through Friday with some Saturday work as well.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay. Thank you. And then if I guess someone from the city or yourself as well, what is remind me that the square footage of this actual facility?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: I believe it's approximately 65,000 square feet. I don't have that in front of me.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay. So either to yourself or representative to the city. So this would qualify under the requirements of the solar ordinance that was recently passed in the city that I believe the qualifying part of this is that non-residential or residential projects which involve the substantial rehabilitation of a structure containing 10,000 square feet or more, a floor area, or the addition of 10,000 square feet or more of the growth floor area would be required to have the, I believe, 50% solar on the building. Is that correct? Can someone from the city confirm that, or have you been looped into this?
[Dave Rodrigues]: I know Alicia Hunt is on the call. She might be able to answer the question. The building commissioner isn't on the call.
[Alicia Hunt]: I would definitely want Paul Moki, our building commissioner, to confirm it. What is the definition of rehabilitation or renovation, major renovation of a building, which may qualify it, which would mean that they'd be required to submit to us an assessment of the ability to put solar on the roof of the building. And then if the assessment shows that the building could handle solar with no additional structural other than what was already part of the rehabilitation, then we would ask them to move forward with the solar on up to 50% of the roof area. which do monogram foods. We've found that many large businesses have found that to be a very lucrative and profitable thing for them to be doing in our region. But I would want Paul Moki to confirm whether what they are proposing qualifies under the rehabilitation portion of that ordinance.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay, thank you. I mean, I would hope that $40 million counts as substantial rehabilitation. So I'm just curious to Mr. Modica, is this $40 million inclusive of potentially a solar array, should it be deemed possible? Or are there any other sustainability improvements that are included in this proposed $40 million rehabilitation?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: I'm, I'm not aware. I'm not aware of any specific solar modifications planned for this. We're in our final construction forecasting. No work has started obviously because there's approvals not been granted at this point. So I can't answer if there's been any specific, I will tell you the monogram foods is a very green conscious company. In our other eight facilities across the country, we have, a methane digester system in Martinsville, Virginia. We have solar gardens in Minnesota with Xcel Energy. I personally worked on that project. So we would be supportive of that. Obviously it would be contingent upon the amount of investment. it would take to do that. And if that has an economic return, obviously, if it's a city ordinance or state law that we would have to comply with, we would ask that we'd be given the opportunity to review the regulations and the expected costs, but we're all, we are supportive of green energy. So yes. we're going to look at that. But we have not today.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay. Thank you. And then my final question, if the chief of staff could confirm this, and I did, I had the opportunity to speak with Maria yesterday as well. When presenting the benefit of this project tax-wise to the city, it is under the assumption that this benefit of $3 million is if no other company were to come in and not ask for a TIF, correct?
[Unidentified]: Correct.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Morell. Vice President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Monica, for coming here and considering our community with your company. Now, the $40 million you're talking about, that also includes the buying of the property, correct?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: We are leasing the property. Yeah, we're just going to be a tenant of the property. It is owned by Medford Bakery Realty LLC is going to be the continued owner. I believe they're the owner of record today.
[Richard Caraviello]: And how long will you lease me for? 50 years.
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: Yes, it's a 20-year lease with six five-year options. So a 50-year commitment, which is very similar to the other commitments we have made in our other plants. We're a long-term player in the food space.
[Richard Caraviello]: And you did say you're only going to operate two shifts because I know Whole Foods, when they were in their bread and circus, they operated a 24-hour facility, correct? And you're only going to operate two shifts, correct?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: Our current plan is to operate two shifts. As business volume needs dictated, we could go to a 24-7 operation. But we would prefer to commit to what we can deliver and not over promise at this point.
[Richard Caraviello]: And you mentioned about the jobs. Are these union jobs or just jobs paid through your company?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: They are not currently union jobs. We do have union representation in our other plants.
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay. And how many trucks are you going to have at this facility?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: Well, by trucks, do you mean trucks that monogram gourmet foods would operate? Yes. Yeah. That's to be determined, but I would estimate that we'll probably operate three transfer trucks. The finished product produced there, there is a small freezer, about 1300 pallet locations. Our customers normally pick up at our plant and they use common carriers in most cases. So there, our own assets would probably be three to four trucks to move ingredients between our warehouses. and our other plants into here and out of there. We currently ship a lot of our products out of a cold storage, public cold storage located down in Taunton.
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay, and will those trucks be registered here in Medford?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: Yes, they would be, and those would be part of the employment base of our employees. And when I, I should clarify the $20 an hour wages, that's for the hourly production workers. We would obviously have supervisors, managers, and a plant manager and a management team as well. So there's a lot of, quite a few higher level paying jobs, management jobs within this plant facility.
[Richard Caraviello]: And how many, How many vehicles will be coming and going off the property during the working hours of the day?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: Well, if we took the 250 employees and assumed that 80% of those were- Well, I mean, aside from the employees, I mean, commercial grade trucks coming in there. How many commercial grade trucks? That's a little hard to determine. The facility we believe has operating flower silos. So that cuts down the amount of dock unloading. We'll be able to bulk fill the flower tanks and such. So I'm going to guess, I'm going to estimate maybe three to four trucks a day unloading materials, finished goods, probably three to four, maybe as many as six picking up product a day, finished goods.
[Richard Caraviello]: It seems to be less than we were doing there before. And again, I want to thank the mayor for bringing this forward. I think projects like this are always good for the community to hear about them. And it's a good private-public partnership. So I look forward to possibly having you in our community.
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: If I could add one more comment, I forgot to mention. One of the other things that Monogram Foods does, we believe in giving back to our communities where we have plants and employees. And we have a charitable 501C3 Monogram Loves Kids Foundation, which is independent of the company. And last year we gave almost $600,000 worth of grants to our six different communities, cities where we have plants. And those funds or grants are given to organizations to support children, whether it's the boys and girls clubs, a variety of things. And the decisions of where that money is given back to the community of Medford would be made by the local management staff. None of us in Medford have any say over that. So we want to be an employer of choice. We want to be a good corporate citizen. And we want to support the community, the children of the community, where that makes sense. So that's part of the culture of Monogram Foods. We are a rapidly growing company. The plant in Wilmington, when we bought it five years ago, was doing $25 million in revenue. This year, it will do over $150 million in revenue. So we have the opportunity to grow. And we are thankful that Medford is considering supporting us and our growth in your fine city, so.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, and I appreciate the fact that you're looking to be a good neighbor and contribute to the community.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank the Mr. President, I have a few questions on the same line as Councilor Caraviello. Can you get a little more specific on the types of trucks that will be entering and exiting your particular facility? Are we looking at 18 wheelers? Are we looking at refrigerated trucks? What type of truck?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: It would be a traditional Class 8 semi-tractor, most likely 53-foot refrigerated trailers. The majority of the bakery products are produced and shipped frozen. So reefer trailers, we anticipate live loading, which means we will load that trailer, they'll back up, we load it and they leave. We're not going to be leaving trailers idling on the lot. As I said earlier, we're not a noisy business from that perspective. We have a 1300 pallet freezer that's inside the building that if we retrofit it, should meet our needs for inside storage. So class eight tractors, 53 foot trailers are the equipment.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, and you're aware that you have residential neighbors on both sides, correct? Yes. Okay, and regarding your plant that after full build out, compared to what's there currently, how much more manufacturing will be done on that site?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: I don't have, yeah. Could you give us a rough percentage? I don't have, I don't know how much business Whole Foods was doing out of there. We're not privy to that confidential information. I can tell you that, and our revenue is we're a privately held company. So I would tell you we're going to be producing probably more poundage, more annual poundage than was produced before. I don't know why Whole Foods closed that bakery down. It was part of the Amazon acquisition is what I believe we heard. through the trade industry, so I would anticipate us to be producing more annual pounds once we're up to full speed than was previously produced there.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, and did you state that you do both retail and wholesale?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: Yeah, well, I would say we do retail food service. Some of our largest customers are large consumer. We produce products for ConAgra Foods. We produce products in Wilmington for B&G Foods, which is the Green Giant brand. If you've ever had their, or your children have had their breaded vegetables, cauliflower and broccoli, we produce that product in Wilmington. So both food service and retail grocery, we are not a branded company. You will not find Monogram branded foods in your local grocery store.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so regarding, get back to the trucks. Are you aware that there are many surrounding roads where you're located that do not accept heavy trucking?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: Well, we are aware that there are streets that do have weight restrictions. I guess I'll have to defer to our operations team and we can look further into that. Were there problems in the past with ingress and egress of trucks into the site when it was Whole Foods Bakery?
[Michael Marks]: Well, that's a tough question to answer because as you just alluded to, you're not sure what the older capacity was at the existing site. And it seems like you're going to be growing the site. And I could just tell you from a first hand experience that The Felsway, many of your class A trucks cannot use the Felsway. They cannot use Mystic Valley Parkway. And I would be very curious to see if this work has been done ahead of time to see what the potential truck routes would be. Because in my opinion, they would be cutting through many neighborhoods. And I think that's extremely important for us to know, as a council, the impact this may have on surrounding neighbors. And that leads to my other point that I think, Mr. President, before we move forward with this, this would require community input. And I realize this is a council meeting and it's open to the public. However, it's the first time it's appeared on the agenda. And I think the neighborhood where this is, I realized there was a baking facility there on a smaller scale. I think this is going to have a much larger impact on the Wellington area. And, you know. Haines Square and so forth, Mr. President. So I would ask that we have a public meeting on this where we invite the Wellington, Haines Square area, Mr. President, and notify them of what is taking place to see if residents would have any particular questions. There's a host of questions that I rather do in committee of the whole regarding, I could just tell you first hand, I go to that Wendy's. I hate to say it, quite often. And I can tell you at night, Mr. President, that the rats are rampant in that back area. If you want to check out rats, go by the back of the Wendy's. And so there's a lot of issues regarding, and I'm sure these are addressed by the company, but there are a lot of issues I'm sure residents are going to have. I know my colleagues already asked about odor and smell and so forth. We've had a number of issues. Mr. President, with docking stations. We've experienced them in Salt Method with the Dunkin' Donuts that has a distributor off of Mystic Ave. And even though businesses say they're quiet, when you take pallets to and from the trucks, especially if they're outdoor docking stations, that noise travels. And as you know, we just built 145 condos behind the Wendy's in that particular area. We have residents off to the left, which is right next to BJ, which is probably 100, 200 yards away, a couple hundred yards away. So there's definitely a neighborhood in that area, Mr. President, and I would ask that we set up a committee of whole. or if we want to have a next council meeting, serve as a public meeting to invite the neighborhood, Mr. President, and area residents so they can have input and see this presentation and ask questions. And I appreciate also the fact that the administration is looking into bringing in additional businesses in our community. I've always stated the Office of Community Development is supposed to be out there soliciting new businesses into the community. So a TIF is another way. Would I rather do it differently and not give any incentive? And I probably would prefer that, Mr. President, but that remains a vote of this council and to see how this works. So far, the last TIF I voted for, which was the sausage establishment on 9th Street, seems to be running very successful. They're a good neighbor. They're located within a residential area, but there were a lot of issues on that TIF that we had to work out, Mr. President. A lot of neighborhood issues, as this gentleman mentioned, with the silos, noise, trucking, trucks that are idling. It always happens, Mr. President. The BJ parking lot, which is a giant parking lot right next to this building, go there at night. There's 18 wheelers idling there at night, Mr. President. Maybe not trying to get it to BJ's, but just a place to stay. Also, Mr. President, the city just approved a gas station for the BJ's parking lot. So we're going to add a brand new gas station with, I believe, eight pumps located right in the frontage on Middlesex Ave of a new gas station there. So there's a lot going on in this area, Mr. President. And to be quite frank, Middlesex Ave is deplorable. The sidewalks, the street, it looks like a third world country. It really does. It's deplorable, it's a state owned road, it gets zero attention. from the state, and Natural History City has zero responsibility. So if we do move forward, Mr. President, and the TIF is with the state and so forth, I'd like to see a commitment from the state to do some work, Mr. President, on Middlesex Ave. And bring it up to the 21st century regarding crossings, pedestrian safety, cars, and everything else, Mr. President, bike lanes, and everything else that needs to take place on Middlesex Ave. So I would ask that, Mr. President, I am not going to vote on this tonight. That doesn't mean I don't support it. I want neighborhood input and I want the questions to be asked about the roadway and neighborhood concerns addressed. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. It appears to me that this would be what's classified as a bakery wholesaler. Am I correct in making that assumption?
[John Falco]: Mr. Monaco, would you be able to answer that?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: Yeah, we would be a producer of bakery products for both wholesale and food service and retail. So wholesalers end up delivering it to retailers in the end. So yes, sir, I can live with that definition.
[Adam Knight]: And in this Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I do believe that. Because you'd be considered a bakery wholesaler and you'd be subject to USDA approval and inspection, you wouldn't be subject to the authority of the local board of health, is that correct?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: That is correct. As I stated earlier, this would be a USDA federally inspected bakery under all regulations.
[Adam Knight]: Okay. And we talked a little bit about the jobs that Monogram's going to bring. And I'm relatively familiar with Monogram Foods from my day job working in the insurance industry. And I understand a lot of these positions are packaging jobs and manufacturing almost type jobs? Yes. And then you'd have also a smaller array of positions that were mid to upper level management and then you'd have some drivers?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: Quality assurance people, supervisors, financial accounting people, general plant management, drivers, warehouse men, yes.
[Adam Knight]: And is there any local hiring preference that's part of the TIF? I'm sorry, any local- Local hiring, if you're located in Medford and you have two applicants, and one of them's from Medford and one of them's from Everett. Does the Medford person get the job? Is there a local hiring preference?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: Our plan is to give Medford, experienced Medford employees, those that particularly have bakery experience, that's of great interest to us. As you covered earlier on your other topics, employees in your particular area of greater Boston, proximity to work is important. The commutes can be terrible. So we're hopeful there's a good pool of applicants within the greater Medford City area that will work for us. And there is a Medford hiring.
[Dave Rodrigues]: There is a Medford provision built within the agreement.
[Adam Knight]: There is. Awesome. Awesome. Great. Thanks, Dave. It's in there. OK. Well. I personally have supported tips in the past. I think that it's a great way to jumpstart our economy and bring jobs to the community. The jobs that pay $20 an hour, the jobs that pay $800 a week. Those aren't necessarily the jobs I'm crazy about. I'd like to see jobs that pay a living wage so the people that work here can live here. And that hiring preference isn't going to go too far if the people working there are going to make 800 bucks a week. With that being said, there are other positions and other jobs and other benefits that come with having an employer of this size in the community. But I would agree with Councilor Marks. In the past when we've done this, we've taken a slow and deliberate approach to be sure that we don't all arise cross LRTs and also listen to the concerns that the residents have. In looking at the location of this facility, it's, I believe, located in an industrially zoned district. a wholesale bakery can be stationed there by right. The option, the ability for the council to bring this entity to the table right now is purely based around this TIF. So I think it would be a good exercise for us to allow the opportunity to entertain Councilor Mark's motion, and I would second it or support it if he offers it. And move from there, but this is something that historically I've supported, and I certainly see no problem with it based upon the preliminary presentation that's been made, but I would like to hear from the residents as well.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. On the motion of Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Knight, Councilor Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I've done a dive on this, done some research around TIFs. I spoke with Maria from MOBD as well. You know, and from what I've understood, these have been used as an incentive to address areas of low demand, areas of blight, kind of that's the intent here. I wouldn't necessarily say that Medford is an area of low demand or an area of blight. I know this has, you know, bakery has not been operated in for a little while, so there might be a little wiggle room there. But, you know, that's one of the concerns I have. And also in my research and speaking with MOBD, it does seem that tips are mostly going to large corporations versus looking at small businesses. So that's another area of concern that I have in general around the process. I do have a couple questions for Mr. Monica from Monogram Foods. The first of which is, have you discussed or would you consider any curbing, driveway, or traffic improvements around the property?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: Would you be referring to on the actual property we would be leasing, or are you talking on city-owned property?
[Zac Bears]: It seems to me it might even be state-owned property. Essentially, I drive that road a lot. It's not a very safe area. I would expect that trucks are going to have some issues coming out of your location. And during your study of this location as a potential location, have you noticed or considered working with the state or the city around state-owned or city-owned property as well as your property?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: Yes, we do. Normally, as part of a plant remodel of this size, we would look at all ingresses and egresses, primarily from employee safety and where the employees would park, where trucks would come in and unload or back trailers in. So, yes, we would look at that. We'd be open to improving curb cuts, making sure they were in the right locations and they were safe. Obviously we can't have damaged equipment. So if the facility's parking lot is in bad shape and has potholes, we're going to fix those things as part of our normal rehab of a facility.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. Next question is, you know, are you considering any other locations for this plant other than Medford?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: We have considered four alternative locations, two of which are in Massachusetts and two of which are not, are located in other states where we have plants. So that's as much as I can say on that. We have two substantial plants in Wisconsin and that was one of our other sites as well. So yes, we went through a complete search. I think the original list had eight potential sites. We narrowed that down to four.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, gotcha. And I do have a few more questions, but I think on the note that Councilor Knight was sending and my fellow councilors as well, you know, If we make a commitment to you, we'd want a shared commitment there. So I do think that should be part of a deliberative process to move forward. It sounded like you're privately held. You might not be able or willing to answer this question, but what is Monogram's net revenue annually?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: This year, it will approximate 750 million. So I'm not sure what you consider to be a large company. We are only 16 years old. And so we're very proud of our growth, but we don't consider ourselves a large company at that revenue level.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And that's just kind of goes to my next question, which is Is $600,000 really going to be the difference for you? I would consider you, maybe we'll call you medium-sized, but $750 million sounds like a lot of money to me. Is this $600,000 really the difference maker for you in making this kind of long-term decision versus all of the other factors that you've mentioned, like the location and the building and the silos and all of the other conditions? Is it really the $600,000 that's the make or break?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: All state incentives and local TIF incentives are relevant to every decision that we make. It's not the only decision, but in this case, it is a relevant decision. As I said, we're not a large company, and between the real estate tax incentive and the personal property, it's approximately, David can answer this, I think it was 950,000. So it is material to our decision, yes.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Okay. The 950,000 number that Jeff mentioned is what we view as the upper limit of what it would be. So when I was talking about a TIF, there's always some flexibility, there's always some unknown variables. So in the modeling that we did that showed the $4 million net value back to the city. The more Monogram invests, the more market forces impact the value, the larger the exemption, but also larger the revenue back to the city. So there will be some fluctuation there, but based on Ellen's best guess and Ellen's hard work, I think that that number is exactly where, it's definitely gonna be in that window.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I understand. I'm just saying, you know, regardless 600,000 at the low end, 950 at the high end, we're talking about like 0.1% of the annual revenue for a 50 year investment. It just, you know, it's a small relative to this amount that you mentioned of $750 million a year and that you're a quickly growing company and that you sextupled the amount of revenue that was coming from your plant in Wilmington. You know, it's, it seems like in some sense in your account book, it might be, worth a little bit less to you than to us. Our revenue is not $750 million a year here in Medford. And thank you for answering my questions. I think maybe more directed towards Alicia Hunt or Dave Rodriguez, I do have some concerns that this sets a bad precedent, considering that we are a pretty high demand community. Our property values are growing. It seems that that's going to continue for the foreseeable future in the greater Boston area. Do you have any concerns that this sets a precedent for offering public subsidies and discounts in order to get new businesses in the future after this project?
[Dave Rodrigues]: Well, I can't speak for and I think this is a good conversation for the mayor as well. And I've always viewed TIFs as case by case. So I don't view this as precedent setting. I view this as looking at bringing this business to this location and for the city and the value that it provides to the city based on that analysis. Every TIF is going to be case by case based upon some of the factors that you talked about. So I'm not worried about creating a precedent because there is a strong check on this through the council process to say, you know, some cities and towns have given out TIFs pretty tightly. Others have given it out pretty loosely. So it's a case by, I've always viewed this as case by case, what's best for the community, for the business that they're bringing in and the site that they're being located at. So I'll defer to Alicia as well as to her thoughts. on that, but I'm not concerned about setting a precedent.
[John Falco]: Is Alicia not my Alicia? I have the wrong Alicia, sorry. Alicia Hunt.
[Alicia Hunt]: that we've been seeing is that Medford is a hot demand for residential. And every developer that has been knocking on our door, almost every developer, has been wanting to build a large multifamily residence. And that is something that has caused this council a lot of angst. It's caused the mayor a lot of angst. And one of the things we have been looking to do is to bring in more commercial entities that bring jobs with them. and this business is bringing jobs. I don't have another business knocking on the door saying, can we give you jobs? We didn't make a big deal of it when Whole Foods closed last winter, but they did close and all of those people were laid off. And this is somebody who actually wants to not just put another business there, but actually a business with the hopes of rehiring the people in this area who were recently laid off by that entity there. They'll be bringing back similar jobs. They'll be doing similar kinds of work. it'll be no more disruption to the community than we had there previously. We're hoping because it's a new business and we're having conversations with them, that disruption that notice would be less than what we had there. But the basis, bottom line is, those people don't have jobs right now unless they've gone off and found them in other areas. This is something that we would like to see here in the city.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I understand the idea of jobs, And no disrespect, if it's been 11 months, I would guess that they've had to get another job at this point just to pay the rent. I understand bringing in jobs, but to Councilor Knight's point as well, it might cost more than $20 an hour to live in Medford. At least that's my personal experience.
[Alicia Hunt]: I guess- We have a large number of people that actually make and live here that make below the area median income. Our area median income is lower than the regional area median income. So that is something to consider. It is very expensive to live in Medford because of the housing prices. But we've also been going through a pandemic and we have very high unemployment rates. We're seeing unprecedented usage of the food pantries here in Medford. So I would not assume that the people who were working there have found jobs. that there's a high unemployment rate going on.
[Zac Bears]: No, that wasn't what I was saying. I was saying I assume they've had to find some way to make money in the interim period. They're not just waiting for Monogram to move in here to take an old job back. So, you know, I guess it sounds like it's case by case. It's not setting a precedent. At least that's the position of the administration. And I understand all the other factors. I do think it is a of concern to set a precedent to say, if we want a business here, we're going to have to give them hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax breaks to do it. So that's a concern that I have, in addition to the other concerns that have been raised by fellow councilors. And I look forward to more deliberation on the matter. Thank you, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. Point of information, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: Point of information from the Vice President.
[Richard Caraviello]: I've been on this council ten years, and this is only the second TIF that's come my way. Council March has been here longer. I don't know if anything has come. So let's say, so TIF's not given up very generously in this community. Let's say this is only the second one that I've been involved with in ten years. And by the way, I think they're a useful tool to bring business to the community, especially where things are very competitive these days. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. Councilor Villescaz, I'll start with your question.
[Zac Bears]: I would just add, just for the notes, for the record, for the future, that we look into using some of the proceeds if the TIF is approved, into tip accountability that's been one of the recommendations, policy recommendations around tips recently, making sure that they are being held up, that the agreements are being held to. So I'd just like to put that for the record, maybe for a future committee of the whole meeting to discuss further. And I understand it's not something we've done in the past. I'm more concerned about what we're going to do in the future. We do have a new administration. We're hiring economic development director. Is this going to be our economic development plan going forward to bring in this business because we have this high residential demand? So I understand we haven't done it in the past. I think that's probably a good thing, good stewardship, that we're not just giving these out willy-nilly. I know there are a lot of communities that do that and have found themselves in trouble. City of Chicago, 33% of their property tax revenue is wrapped up in TIFs right now. I know that's A little different from Medford, but I also know Malden, Salem, and other communities have used these tools pretty extensively. So just saying we need to keep a close eye on the future. I think the last thing we want to have is that if a business is coming here, they expect a TIF. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. Uh, again, I echo the sentiments of my colleagues and the, uh, fact of really stretching this out for the fact that we have public input as we move forward with this. I think this is a great idea. I think this is, uh, you know, uh, be interesting to see if there's any data that shows the amount of method residents that worked in the whole foods plant. Um, prior to their closure and just so they could reinforce the need and the support that we'll be giving if voted with this TIF. So again, I think. all of our cows will bring up some good points. But, um, one thing we're seeing, especially during the COVID times, there's a lot of empty spaces and this is a big space. And, uh, as long as we do it correctly and get the input from our neighbors, um, I think this is, uh, an area that, um, we'd like to see some growth and some movement. So It'll be interesting to see if I could it would be interesting to see if our traffic engineer Has done we could ask them if we can't to invite him to the next meeting just to get a traffic assessment moving forward with this this company this company and its growth and and and again you know with the weight restrictions for You know, our major thoroughways, the Middlesex and Fellsway. And the fear that some neighbors have always stressed, even with Bianchi's, is that are the trucks going to be going down the side streets? And especially those side streets are full with children playing in a pretty tight-knit residential neighborhood and making sure we keep those streets safe. I'm sure this company will support us in moving forward any decision. But I'm excited for the process and appreciate them for coming to Medford. looking to make Medford their home. So, um, but again, supporting, uh, Councilor Marks is resolution, a thousand percent. I think that, uh, community, uh, involvement to get the communities impact behind this decision, I think would be very important.
[John Falco]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: One thing I'd just like to add to the records, uh, for the committee report, um, for the committee of the whole to be held. If that motion passes, which I expect that it will, um, is that we amend, the TIF or add language to the TIF agreement that Monogram Foods would not contest a card check or an LRB election if the workers chose to unionize at this facility.
[John Falco]: Is that something you want to discuss in committee at all?
[Ellen Brideau]: Yeah.
[John Falco]: Okay. Okay. Thank you. I thank all the councilors for their questions. If I may, I have a couple of quick questions. And Mr. Monica, thank you very much for your interest in the city of Medford. With regard to the construction, when would the construction begin and how long would it last?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: At this point, the facility is becoming available. We would not start any construction until we make a decision. Obviously it's contingent upon the approval of a TIF program with the city of Medford. So at this point, it would be very soon after that, We have a demand and a commitment to have production up and running within six months. And if it isn't going to be in Medford, it will be somewhere and it'll be within six, I'm going to say six to eight months. So we are ready to move forward quickly if approved. And if not approved with City of Medford, we'll have to move forward and go anywhere because we have a large customer who is asking for the production as soon as possible.
[John Falco]: So would the construction be done by July 1st?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: I would say right now we're estimating it's going to take six to eight months. So pretty close to that. Sir, again, you never know when you're doing a major remodeling, if you run into any issues, right? If there's a structural issue with the roof or a wall or drainage or something. So we can't commit that. This is an older facility and they're all different and they're all unique.
[John Falco]: Okay. Thank you. And I have another question. This might be for Alan. Seeing it's 2020, anything can happen. I don't mean to sound negative, but what happens with regard to the TIF, if Monogram was to be sold or if you were to go out of business, what happens with the TIF and are there any safeguards to the city? Let me unmute you. I'm trying. One second. Can you try and mute it? Why don't you let me ask my question? Thank you, Councilor.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Yeah, Mr. President, I think Maria can answer the question. I can also weigh in. It's fine.
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_34]: Maria, if you wouldn't mind weighing in, that'd be great. Absolutely. Thank you, Council President. So actually, Ellen and I had this conversation. She had asked a similar question. So the TIF is for the company, so not the location. So in other words, you know, you know, in the event of, as you said, you know, another 2020 happens, um, and, uh, monogram foods, you know, leaves in three years. Right. So they, um, that tip ends on that location. Okay. Someone else moves in. And if you want, and if you were so inclined to want to give them a tip, the new company, they'd have to go through the process again. Okay.
[John Falco]: And are there any callbacks with regard to the TIF, if that was to happen?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_34]: So you could do that. That would require, you know, going to an EACC meeting and, but yes, certainly.
[John Falco]: Okay. And with regard to, Councilor Beeson had a question about, I think it was TIF accountability. And with regard to that, I believe if I'm correct that, monogram would be subject to regulatory filings. Am I correct? Is that?
[Dave Rodrigues]: Yes. Annual reporting to the city and to the state.
[John Falco]: Okay. So the annual reporting to the city with regard to, was it the amount of investment they made and to the amount of employees that reside in Medford that were hired? Am I correct in that?
[Dave Rodrigues]: Correct, there's different things. So usually with TIF accountability, it's done at the staff level. We can request information from the TIF holder, but we can ask for whatever information that we'd like. In terms of that, there is specific information that needs to be reported back to the state through the EACC, including a monetary amount of improvements, the number of jobs created, et cetera. Okay, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just one last quick question. Are you currently leasing the facility right now or are you under agreement to lease the facility?
[L-hLu0ibDYc_SPEAKER_20]: We have got, I'm aware of a signed letter of intent to lease subject to final financing and any incentives, either state or local.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much.
[Dave Rodrigues]: And just to clarify, the lease and the lease structure will be a triple net lease. So Monogram will be accountable for all taxes, water, electricity, et cetera. So the property owner, just a property owner at that point, they're not on the hook for any of this.
[John Falco]: Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the council? We have Councilor Morell.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't know if this is a question for you or the administration. Does council approval of this, is it a simple majority or two thirds vote?
[Dave Rodrigues]: I'm not sure if you know.
[John Falco]: Simple majority, I believe would. Okay.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Okay.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the council? Okay. Any other questions? Oh, we have a question here. Will Mavar. Hey Will, name and address for the record, Will.
[William Navarre]: William Navarre, 108 Medford Street, apartment 1B. Thank you for recognizing me, President Falco. On the one hand, this TIF makes a lot of sense to me. We want this company to invest in our community. We want them to bring these jobs to Medford. And it's true. If we tax their improvements in the usual way, they don't want to come and make those improvements. And they don't make the jobs, et cetera. But I think the obvious question to me is why can't this sort of incentive be given to all taxpayers? As I've often said, by switching to a system where we reduce the tax on improvements and increase the bill rate as needed to make up for it on the land, businesses and homeowners and anybody else generally would be encouraged to invest in our community, just as this step will encourage monogram. As you go forward with considering this stuff, I hope you'll think about how lowering taxes on improvements generally will encourage investment without requiring that businesses strike a special deal. And it's not for any corrupt reason, as Councilor Bears alluded to, that this tends to go to larger corporations. Makes a lot of sense, because you're only going to bother to go through this process if you have a large project going in. You're not going to be able to do it for a very small process. It wouldn't be worth the time. But an across-the-board swap over to land value taxation would remove the burden of taxation on every investment, no matter who's making it, rather than just those projects that are large enough to go through the process of getting a TIF, where you have a specific company going through a process and they're concerned of, you know, it's not available to everyone. So I hope you'll consider that point and how this idea relates to the idea of land value taxation I brought before you so many times before. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Will. Any other questions? Okay, hearing and seeing none. On the motion of Councilor Marks. Mr. President, if I could just clarify. Please, Councilor Marks.
[SPEAKER_06]: So my motion was to, as part of the regular agenda, have a public meeting in which we notify the residents of Hague Square and Wellington via the reverse 9-1-1 on the public meeting that we're going to have. And to also give, Mr. President, because I don't believe we can have
[Michael Marks]: that we provide in the reverse 911 call, a description of the project, a very brief description and the intent and how to get onto the Zoom call, Mr. President. So we can do that.
[John Falco]: So you want to make that as part of the regular agenda and not a separate committee?
[Michael Marks]: That's the way I would prefer it rather than the committee of the whole.
[John Falco]: Did you have that, Clerk Hurtubise? Okay, on that motion, offered by Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Knight. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yep. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[John Falco]: Yes. 7 in the affirmative, adjourned, the motion passes. On the motion of Councilor, Vice President Caraviello, to revert back to the regular order of business, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco? Yes.
[John Falco]: Yes, 70 affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. 20-650, this is on the motions, orders and resolutions offered by Councilor Knight. Be it resolved that the City of Medford implement a no trucking ban, I'm sorry. Be it resolved that the City of Medford implement no trucking along Boston Ave between Route 16 and Route 60 until such time as the gas leaks are repaired and the roadway resurfaced. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. Over the course of what's been about two summers now, two and a half years now, I've been working with National Grid to get the level two gas leaks repaired. They would be right on Boston Ave, right around the corner of Harvard Canal, right in that stretch. And I've been getting a lot of complaints, Mr. President, from residents in the neighborhood when I'm out down the park walking and the like, that the condition of the roadway is so poor, Coupled with the gas leaks, the people are very concerned. Their houses are shaking when trucks are coming down off Route 16, down Boston Ave to Route 60. And I'm hoping that we can provide these residents with some relief from the heavy trucking and the noise and impact that it's having on their quality of life and the foundations of their homes. Through no fault of their own, but for the fault of the fact that our public utilities repair our roadways terrible. and that street maintenance is not the greatest, Mr. President. So with that being said, I'm asking that my council colleagues support this resolution to request that no trucking be posted or implemented along that stretch of the roadway until such times as these infrastructure and public utility problems can be addressed.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor. Any questions for the Council? Any comments?
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[John Falco]: Okay. Get a second from Councilor Bears. Anyone online here? No. Okay, the motion for Councilor Wright, seconded by Councilor Bears. Clerk Urnavies, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[John Falco]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli, looks like he's briefly absent from the chamber. President Falco.
[John Falco]: Yes, six in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent. The motion passes. 2-0-651 offered by Council and I. Be it resolved that the City of Medford apply to participate in the Google Tree Canopy Lab, a mapping tool designed to identify where trees are needed most in urban communities. Council and I.
[Adam Knight]: Yes, Mr. President, this was brought to my attention through a very famous resident on Mystic Street, one of Councilor Caraviello's neighbors, a gentleman who's very involved in a number of issues in the community, whether it be the Chevalier Organ Society, or Trees for Medford, or the Shepard Brooks Estates, and the like, Mr. President. But Mr. Krause sent an email out identifying this tool that Google's put out, allowing communities to use Google's mapping technology to determine what areas in their community could benefit from more tree cover and tree canopy to address the issues of urban heat and the like. So with that being said, Mr. President, I thought it was a very good idea and a very good opportunity for the city of Medford to implement some technology that we haven't had in the past and for us to move forward in addressing some of these concerns that we have over the degradation of our tree canopy. So with that being said, I'd ask my council colleagues to support the paper and move approved.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. On the motion of council, actually, any questions from the councilors? Oh, yes, Councilor Morell.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank Councilor Knight for bringing this forward. Tree canopies are a moving target with development, disease, and age. And as we look at the number of high heat days only increasing due to climate change, our tree canopy is more important than ever. So hopefully this can aid our very small, but very in demand forestry division. So I thank the council for bringing this forward.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Morell. Any other questions from the council? Anyone online? Okay, seeing and hearing none. On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Vice President Caraviello. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[John Falco]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[John Falco]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: President Franco?
[John Falco]: Yes. Senate affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I will withdraw paper 20652 as the matter is scheduled for a committee of the whole tomorrow evening. Mr. President, I will withdraw paper 20653 as the paper is scheduled for a committee of the whole tomorrow evening.
[John Falco]: There will be a committee of the whole regarding these papers tomorrow night. Okay, 20-654 offered by Councilor Morell. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council request that the city administration work to establish and promote an internet exchange safe zone in Medford. Councilor Morell.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, this is just a simple request. I had a resident reach out about this. A number of cities have established these safe exchange zones for people purchasing exchanging items through Craigslist, Facebook and having an area that whether I know a lot of communities do it in the parking lot of police station or somewhere that They know there is our cameras to add a level of safety so that people can support the circular economy, keep things out of the landfill and get them to new owners, but do so in a safe way. And noting that there actually has been some incidents in the past in Medford where people were going. They were lured by online sales that were not to be, I believe, over in Duggar Park a little, a year or two ago. So I think just seeing if the administration can see working with the police are the best way they see fit to establish this safe zone, promote it, and I think cities, you know, just go as far as putting a sign up and letting people know where it is. I believe I've heard about this incidentally in the past, but if it's something that is still being offered, it's very hard to find. So it would be great if we could offer this for the safety of our residents and people looking to buy and sell online.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Morell. Vice President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague for bringing this forward. I think we've all heard many horror stories, both in the news and other things, about people buying stuff online and getting robbed and beaten up and our homes getting robbed. So again, I think this is a good motion. I will second the motion.
[John Falco]: Okay, thank you, Vice President Caraviello. Any questions from the council? Anyone online? Okay, seeing and hearing none. On the motion of Councilor Morell, seconded by Vice President Caraviello, Clerk Bernabeu, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes.
[John Falco]: Great.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight? Yes. Thank you. Council Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Falco.
[John Falco]: Yes. Seven affirmative, zero negative. The motion passes. 20-655 offered by Councilor Marks. Whereas the Massport Community Advisory Committee, MCAC requested the FAA conduct an early feasibility assessment on runway 33L departure solutions, and whereas due to the August 14th, 2020 letter sent by the Northeast Regional Administrator for the FAA, indicating the FAA had rejected all eight dispersion proposals for further study, then be it resolved that our state federal delegation continue to communicate a message to the FAA that due to continued noise concentration, which has created a permanent problem in Bedford that will not go away until the FAA commits to address the problem and develop a procedure for runway 33L at Logan International Airport that geographically disperses jet departures more equitably than the current plan. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I know myself and other members of this council, I believe Councilor Morell put this on within the last couple of months. Asking for an update of our Massport Community Advisory Committee, who have been doing yeoman's work, representing this community for issues that are confronting the noise pollution that we experience on a daily basis. Recently we received a response from a representative to the MCAC who is. Peter Hauk is our representative, he's been doing a great job. But Mr. President, the reason why I bring this up is he made a recommendation of this council and also for our state and federal delegation. And I want to make sure, because this council has been on top of this issue for many years now, back in 2010, and then back in 2016 when the MIT study was initiated to look at departure and arrival procedures at Logan Airport. And how to more equitably find solutions to dispersing flight traffic over the city of Medford. As was stated in my resolution on August 14th, 2020, the North Regional Administrator for the FAA, sent a letter to Massport Community Advisory Committee stating that they were no longer going to look at the dispersion proposals that came out of the MIT study. So that was a big hit to us as a community, because we were really counting on having at least someone from the FAA consider how to ease up and disperse some of the flights that are impacting our community so daily. On October 15th, the leaderships in Method, Cambridge, Arlington, and Malden responded to the FAA, their feasibility assessment with a request back to the FAA to earnestly and promptly apply the considerable resources at its disposal to propose an alternative departure procedure for runway 33L that would disperse jet noise more equitably. So that was sent out on behalf of the four communities, Mr. President. Then on October 21st, six members of the federal delegation sent a letter to the FAA regional administrator reinforcing the October 15th letter sent by the municipalities and their proposed ideas to reduce overflight noise over the city of Medford and the surrounding communities. So I just ask, Mr. President, in follow up to the response that we received from Peter Hulk, dated November 16th, 2020, that we request that our state and federal delegation commit to reinforce the message. That noise concentration has created permanent problem that will not go away until the FAA addresses the problem with a procedure change. So I would ask that we send that to our local delegation as well as our federal delegation, Mr. President, asking that they keep up the request to make sure that the FAA and Massport realize that this is considerable noise, pollution, and destruction to the quality of life for area residents, and that we stay on top of the issue, Mr. President. And I appreciate, once again, our representatives on the MCAC for their due diligence, Mr. President, and their foresight on this issue. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Clerk, do you have these? Okay, you do, okay. Thank you, council. We have a councilor Morell, councilor Bears, councilor Morell.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I do want to thank Councilor Marks for raising this. And yeah, I did have the resolution a few weeks back, really piggybacking on one of his previous to get an update on this. And this is the recommendation that came out. And I think it's worth noting that with our federal delegation, with Representative Clark, now Assistant Speaker, and her being a member of the Quiet Skies Caucus, hopefully she can hear what we're saying above the airplane noise and really be able to make some moves on this. And I also want to credit Our representatives, the administration, the previous administration for taking the approach of working with our neighboring cities on this, because in the Globe today, there was a story about Milton and Quincy kind of going at each other as far as plans to mitigate their airplane traffic and noise. And I think moving forward together, hopefully, hopefully we'll get some movement on this. But again, I thank Councilor Marks for raising this.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Morell. Councilor Peers.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to Councilor Morell, Councilor Marks for your work on this issue. It was particularly bad this weekend. I live in North Medford, but it wasn't the departures, it was the arrivals. So I would just propose an amendment that, I don't know about the I guess the FAA, but especially Massport, explore alternatives to using runway 15R for arrivals. It's a little bit different than the issue with departures, which as we know is complicated by these waypoints and all the other things that have been discussed for years. But there's been a huge spike in the number of arrivals coming in on runway 15R in 2020. It's the highest, I think, since 2014 or 2015, literally in the thousands. So permanent alternatives would be great. I also think alternatives during the pandemic, if maybe for the language for the amendment, if Massport can't find alternatives, permanent alternatives, consider alternatives for the duration of the pandemic. As we know, people are still spending a lot of time at home. I'm trying to work. It's a huge disruption. The noise to people trying to work, people trying to go to school online, et cetera. So if the amendment would be that Massport review alternatives for arrivals on runway 15R and also review pandemic related options for those arrivals.
[John Falco]: Councilor Bears, thank you. Any other questions from the council? Anyone has a hand up? Okay, on the motion of Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilor Bears. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice-President Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Falco.
[John Falco]: Yes, 70 affirmative, zero negative, the motion passes. Reports to committees. Reports to committees. 20-625, November 21st, 2020, Community of the Whole report. We had a Community of the Whole on Saturday, November 21st, 2020 at 11 a.m. It was a site visit that was well attended. And there was a really good discussion regarding, it was actually at the intersection of Fulton Spring Road and Fern Road. And the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the safety concerns related to the traffic in the North Bedford neighborhood Councilor Marks, you brought forward that resolution. And it was a really good discussion and conversation about the issues that are going on, the traffic issues specifically with regards to everything that from, and that whole North Bedford neighborhood there. Just to let everyone know, the crosswalks have been installed and the stop lines have been installed as well. So some work has begun on that initiative. So, So we will have a follow up meeting. I think we're going to, I'm sorry. They're all working. Well, that's a good question. Actually. And they actually had enforcement there the other day as well. So the police were there enforcing them. So, uh, there's a number of people get pulled over. Uh, it actually got someone, someone get pulled over tonight too. So, um, with that being said, it looks like they're working on some of these, uh, things. And, uh, I believe we're going to have a follow up meeting on this as well. Uh, just to, uh, kind of see how we'll move forward in the future with some of the other suggestions that were made.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank you for setting up that meeting and inviting all the city players to the table. It was a great meeting and my council colleagues couldn't ask better questions to get results on behalf of the neighborhood. I would just ask that we do set up the follow-up meeting because that was our commitment. to the neighborhood and also I know we met at the corner of Fulton Spring and Fern, but there were a number of other hotspot areas going up Fulton Spring Road that also need to be addressed. And I'm hoping that on this next meeting, we can start picking away little by little on some of the other areas and staying on top of them. And I just want to thank my colleagues for taking a Saturday out and going down there and thank the residents for coming out. I firmly believe we have to do more of that because I think it's a good way. We can talk and talk and talk. It's a good way of getting issues addressed. We bring the department heads and actually witness firsthand what's going on. How many cars do we see roll through that four way stop?
[John Falco]: You are correct, many.
[Michael Marks]: Many, we could have given out 100 tickets. Mr. President, it was really, it was a dangerous area, but we slowed them down. There were so many of us, we actually slowed them down, but I think it shows you what's happening in our community, in every neighborhood of this community. So I thank you for your leadership, Mr. President, and look forward to the upcoming meeting.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Zac Bears]: I was just, you know, there were 50 of us out there and they were still blowing through the intersection. So it was just amazing.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. Thank you, Councilor Marksley. Thank you to all the councilors. Councilor Marksley hit it on the head. There were a lot of great questions. And thank you to the residents who came and asked those questions and pointed out the many issues that need to be addressed in that area. So on the motion of Councilor Knight to approve the report. Seconded by Vice President Caraviello, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice-president Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell.
[John Falco]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Falco.
[John Falco]: Yes. 70 affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. 20-641, November 24th, 2020 committee, the whole report. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the small cell telecommunications equipment siting in the city of Medford and the potential litigation stemming from the same I believe the outcome of that was that we were going to, I believe that the... Yes, that is correct. That is correct. On the motion of call tonight to approve, seconded by... Vice President Cabral, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? President Falco?
[John Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. We have a, okay. On the motion of council of the night, to take papers in the hands of the clerk, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Clerk Garnerby, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice-president Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell.
[John Falco]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Falco, go.
[John Falco]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Okay, we have two papers in the hands of the clerk.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Yes, Councilor Marks. I would just ask that the entire council be named on both those papers. Okay.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. It's offered by the Medford City Council 20-657. Be it resolved that a moment of silence be held for a long time Medford resident and educator Sandra Sacco on a recent passing. Be it further resolved that this meeting be dedicated in her memory. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. This truly is a big loss for the community. You know, Sandy was one of the first people I met in public office back some 26 years ago. And you couldn't meet a kinder, gentler person that just, for many years she served as the Program Administrator for the Early Child Care Program within the Medford Public Schools. She was just a sweetheart of a person. She was devoted to her family and friends, a truly loving mother, wife, sister. And what I didn't know about Sandy, and she was a woman of many talents, she was an accomplished and published poet, which I never knew. And she was an accomplished world traveler. And, you know, she really is, There's going to be a hole in this community that's missing, Mr. President. Because when you lose someone of that character, someone of that stature, someone that put kids first, I don't know if you can recover from that. And I just want to, on behalf of the city council, wish her family well and her husband Rick, who we all know. I wish him well, Mr. President, in this very difficult time.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Scarpell.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I think Councilor Marks really hit it right on the head. Ms. Sacco was a great person. Two great sons, Eric and Brian. Brian's actually a teacher in the system now, and she handed those traits off to her children. And again, a great family. You know that if you drive down Ridgeway Road, you know that they were they were very very committed to that neighborhood and the safety of that neighborhood and just just great people and like we said we'll lose you too many of the patriarchs of this community and It's it's sad to see so our heartfelt sympathy to the family.
[John Falco]: Thank you Our thoughts and prayers going to the Sacco family on the motion of on behalf of the city council clerk her to be as could you please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice President Kirby on council night. Council marks. Yes. Council Morell.
[John Falco]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Falco.
[John Falco]: Yes. 70 affirmative zero in the negative motion passes. 20-658 offered by the Medford City Council, be it resolved that a moment of silence be held for a long time after resident Ralph Surrett on his recent passing. Councilor Locks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. For those that have been around this city for a number of years, Ralph Surrett was our faithful cameraman for a lot of years in this corner room. You probably never saw him because he was very behind the scenes, never wanted any public light, was truly a kind, gentle man when you talk to him. He'd always tell you about what's going on in local news and he was a real animal lover and someone that was an advocate for animals within this community and a graduate of the Medford Vocational School and someone that was a true Methodite for a lot of years, Mr. President. And on behalf of his family, I want to dedicate this meeting and dedication to Ralph Surrett for his many years of service to this community and to the Method City Council, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilman Marks. Thank you. On that motion, seconded by? It's got the motion of the city council, seconded by Councilor Knight. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[John Falco]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Feldkamp?
[John Falco]: Yes. And the affirmative is zero and the negative. The motion passes. At this point in time, I would ask everyone to please rise for a brief moment of silence. Thank you. Vice President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Before we adjourn this evening, I'd like to reach out to the community. Christmas is three weeks away. A lot of need in the community this year. A lot of families are going to need some help. There's a lot of good organizations that are out there doing some work, the Rotary, the Kiwanis, the Medford Family Network. Reach out to them, help them out with the donation for this year's holidays. Again, and if you don't want to reach out to them, ask around your neighborhood, ask for a family that could use some help, some food, some things. I've already sent out five families for adoption, and you'd be surprised what the kids ask for. They're not asking for toys, they're asking for clothes, things for their mother, so again. I would hope people in the community step up and help all these families. If you need a family, call me, I'll help you out. But let's say a lot of organizations in the city that are all stepping up and businesses stepping up to help out these families. Indeed, especially during, let's say, this year more than other years, people need more help than ever. So reach out and help them out.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[John Falco]: Can we have a hand up here? There you go, Harold. Harold McGill.
[McGilvey]: Thank you, President Falco. Harry McGill, 100 Main Street, president of the Metropolitan Police Patrolmen's Association. I brought up the new building earlier during the meeting, and it's been brought to my attention that as of right now, we do not have a contractor or a maintenance company working in this building to keep the building clean. I don't want to use the word emergency because I think it's been thrown around too much tonight. But that needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed quickly. The building's been open for a week now. It's a 24-7 building. The city seemed to get this right. Let's not get something right and then turn it into a wrong by not maintaining this building. The council needs, the council, the mayor, however it has to happen, that needs to happen as quickly as possible. We need some people in here to get the building clean and to maintain the building.
[John Falco]: I remember specifically asking that question during the budget because building maintenance has always been a big concern, not only to me, but I think the entire city council. And here we are, we're building new facilities and we need to make sure that they're maintained. and we need to make sure that the preventive maintenance gets done, because if it doesn't get done, you know what happens. So it's a huge, to me, it needs to be a huge focus. It wasn't in the budget. I'm not sure if Dave wants to take that question or answer on behalf of the administration, but to me, and I think to many of the councils, it's a major concern.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President.
[McGilvey]: Can I just, can I add something? Yes, please. The first weekend we were in the building, we had barrels all flowing. We have nowhere to put this trash on. So I know there's something about a facilities manager that's supposed to take care of the police department, the library, and other cities' buildings. That should be looked at. We actually were in the old building today. We did some training in the old building. And that building's not being maintained either. The contract over there is expired. If the city doesn't address these issues, that building is going to deteriorate rapidly. So I urge the council. I urge the mayor to, to, to get that done as quickly as possible. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Okay. Carol, thank you very much, appreciate it.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Mr. President, just very briefly in response to Mr. McElroy, there's two separate issues, the preventative maintenance facilities management aspect of it, which we've kind of talked a great deal about the last couple of weeks. The other issue is the cleaning contracts that have since expired. There were several contracts that were expired. We're looking to, procurement is working on consolidating those and getting a better value and a better service based upon those. working closely with Chief Buckley in order to make sure that that building does get clean. We'll take all the steps we need to in order to make sure that that building is taken care of. It's a priority of the mayor that that's done. We don't want it to go down the tubes at all, especially not in the first week that we've got the building open. So we are working on it as quickly as possible. Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, just if Dave could, how long is as quickly as possible?
[Dave Rodrigues]: we're going to be able to do that within the next couple of weeks. As long as it's he has to be procured under 30 day. So procurement office is working on that very. We had people walk through all the buildings recently to give us an adequate price. There is going to be a price differential between this is a big new that has to be that has to be clean. So there is a price differential, but they're working as quickly as they can within the confines of is there a cleaner working in the police station now? I'll have to check with the chief. It was my impression that the contract has since expired for that particular service and we're in the process of looking into it.
[John Falco]: It sounds like that trash is just piling up. We have a point of information offered by Councilor Scott Peli. Councilor Scott Peli.
[George Scarpelli]: To the chief of staff, we don't have an active member of DPW that can at least empty the barrels. That's one of the options that we're looking into.
[Dave Rodrigues]: We're not going to let it go to waste. We're working on it now. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Okay. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Harold McGillivray.
[McGilvey]: Yeah. I did say the barrels are overflowing, but they are getting empty by administrative personnel over here. Oh, okay. They are getting empty, but I'm not quite sure that lieutenants, captains, and chiefs of police should be emptying barrels. So I think we need a cleaning company.
[John Falco]: Very good point. Harold, thank you very much. Okay, so we are on to the records. Records, the records of the meeting of November 24th, 2012 were passed to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, how did you find those records?
[George Scarpelli]: I found them in order, Mr. President, move approval.
[John Falco]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve the records, seconded by Councilor Bears. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[Nicole Morell]: Yes, what?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell? Yes. I'm mumbled, sorry. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Falco.
[John Falco]: Yes. 70 affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. Is there anyone on that? There's public participation. Is anybody on for public participation? I don't see anybody's hands up, so I'm thinking no. Any further motions from the council?
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[John Falco]: On the motion of council, I'd like to adjourn this meeting seconded by Councilor Bears. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice President Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks.
[John Falco]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell.
[John Falco]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[John Falco]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: President Falco.
[John Falco]: Yes. Setting the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Good night. Be safe and healthy. Thanks. Good night. Meeting adjourned.
|
total time: 22.51 minutes total words: 2052  |
total time: 9.86 minutes total words: 617  |
total time: 32.44 minutes total words: 1710  |
total time: 10.51 minutes total words: 1055  |
|
total time: 5.57 minutes total words: 551  |
total time: 13.94 minutes total words: 954  |
total time: 7.53 minutes total words: 748  |
total time: 5.08 minutes total words: 504  |