[Falco]: The 32nd regular meeting of the Medford City Council will now come to order. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Present.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Caraviello. Councilor Knight.
[Bears]: Present.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks. Present. Councilor Morell.
[Falco]: Present.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Present.
[Falco]: Present. All seven members are present. At this time, I would ask everyone to please rise to salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. In one minute, we will. Councilor Knight, thank you. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting log. Councilor Knight, thank you. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting log. Councilor Knight, thank you. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting log.
[Unidentified]: Councilor Knight, thank you. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting log. Councilor Knight, thank you.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting log.
[Falco]: Councilor Knight, thank you. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting log. Councilor Knight, thank you. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law, General Law, Chapter 38, Section 18, and the Governor's March 15, 2020 order imposing strict limitation on the number of people that may gather in one place, this meeting in the Medford City Council will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. specific information and the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and or parties with the right and or requirement to attend this meeting maybe can be found on the City of Medford website at www.medfordma.org. For this meeting members of the public who wish to listen or watch the meeting may do so by accessing the meeting link contained herein. No in-person attendance or members of the The public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. In the event that we are unable to do so, despite best efforts, we will post on the city of Medford or Medford community media website, in audio or video recording, transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. Okay. A motion of council, council make to suspend the rules. Seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes, 78 members. 7 in favor. 0 opposed. The rules are suspended. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Mr. President, I offer this paper this evening to suspend the rules so that we can take up paper 20559, paper 20634, and 20635, relative to the finances of the city of Medford and appropriations thereof.
[Falco]: I'm sorry. Councilor Knight, you said the 20559? Yes, followed by 20634 and 635.
[Knight]: OK, 634, 635.
[Falco]: 20-559 offered by Councilor Knight. Update on the current fiscal circumstances and projections following the close of the first quarter of the fiscal year. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Yes, Mr. President, this was a paper that the council had kicked around for some time during our budget debates. We talked about how it would be a good idea for us to get quarterly updates as to where we were in terms of our financial stability, our projections, and whether or not we're meeting, exceeding, and the like, Mr. President. So I had the opportunity to speak with our finance director this afternoon, and she is prepared to join us this evening and present us with a presentation where we stand three months into the fiscal year after the passage of our budget at the close of the month of June.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. So we have Aleesha Nunley with us. Alicia.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Good evening, Honorable Councilors. I'm here tonight to present Q1. If you could please unmute Dave Rodriguez as well. Okay. The Chief of Staff. If you could please allow me to share my screen to show a presentation to the Council and the public.
[Falco]: One minute, we're gonna take care of that. Okay, you should be able to share your screen. Thank you.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Can everyone see my screen? Yes. Okay. So for Q1, the city is meeting its target revenue estimates. I apologize. I keep hearing some kind of ruffling when I'm speaking.
[Falco]: Can you hear it now?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Okay. Yes. Should I just go through it, even if it's doing that? Okay, so the city's meeting its target revenue estimates for the year, just minimize that. As you can see, there's a graph of the Q1 local receipts, budget versus actual. You can see the motor vehicle excise tax, which is the blue column for my estimate and the fiscal year 21 actuals in the orange column. Penalties and interest is actually up. Pilots are where we expect them to be. Hotel excise is up. Local meals tax is up. This is the first time we've gotten a community impact fee. It's extremely small. So I didn't budget for that. It's the very first payment we have. That's going to be on the next screen. Rentals, departmental revenue, license and permits is up. Medicaid doesn't come in until Q2. Fines, investment income, and miscellaneous are the last categories. I just want to note that for Q1 CARES Act funds couldn't be used as a revenue offset, and no more federal stimulus is at this point. And the city conservatively estimated a 10% cut to locally, but fortunately the governor committed to level fund. On this slide, you're going to see what we budgeted for Q1 for motor vehicle excise. These are all our local receipts, penalties and interest, pilots, hotel excise, local meals tax, community impact fee, which was really small, which is the only $224.25. Our fees budgeted at a million for this quarter 250,000 rentals, departmental revenue, license and permits. Medicaid, which doesn't come in yet until Q2, fines, investment income, and miscellaneous revenue. So the 31st one budgeted, the Q1 budgeted estimate for motor vehicle is 667,826. And we got in 637,713. And to the far right, I also included a column for fiscal year 20 Q1 actual. So you could actually see what we collected the year before just so you can have a comparison between last year and this year. Boat excise, we estimate 153. We got 153 penalties and interest. 875, we got 118, 313. Pilots, 450. We got the 450. Hotel excise tax, we cut down to 75,000 for our estimate. We actually got in 89,638.95. Local meals tax, we estimated 183, 375. We got in 194, 875. Skip over community impact fees. So for the fees, we estimated 250,000. We actually got in 370,221. For rentals, 1,500. We got 1,615. For departmental revenue, we budgeted 156,890. We received 153,545. For license and permits, 565,862. We received 568,491. For fines, 31,250. We got $8,416, so that is down. Investment income, we estimated $96,250. We received $6577, so that was actually down. And miscellaneous revenue, $50,000. We only have $8,000, so that was down. But overall, our estimate for Q1 was $2,615,606. We received $2,662,642. On this slide, we're just showing you the preliminary 2021 cherry sheet receipts. This is what has passed through the House Way and Means Proposal so far. We had estimated a 10% cut to chapter 70, but as I stated previously, the governor decided to commit to local fund of what we had in fiscal year 2020. So you can see that 12,000,143,306. A charter tuition, 1,000,195,940. Unrestricted government aid, also known as UGA, 12,880,443. Veterans benefits at 85,611. Elderly exemptions, VBS, 154,310. State only, 52,728. Public libraries, 69,107. So total estimated receipts at 26,581,445. Here are the assessments to those local receipts, local aid. $20,303 for air pollution. $31,008 for the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. $53,660 for the RMV non-renewal sue charge. $3,081,497 for MBTA assessment. $723 for the Boston Metro Transit District. $19,055 for special education. $84,917 for school choice sending tuition and charter school sending tuition of $7,714,611 for a total assessment of $11,805,774. Here's just a quick summary of what I just went over so you could see it quickly, what we budgeted versus our preliminary local aid summary. So the difference in chapter 70, that 1,000,089,537, you're on a little lottery program back to the schools. UGA, we budgeted $11,000,916,986. We're actually going to get $12,880,443, a difference of $963,457. Tonight, we have a paper that's reprogramming $740,000 back to the city. And in other receipts, $1,031,317 budgeted. Preliminary, we see $1,557,696, but that's subject to change. We're going to go over the CARES Act, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. So citizens across the United States receive stimulus checks to assist with the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, cities and towns were not given a revenue stimulus. Instead, the city was awarded funds that must be expended only on COVID-19 eligible expenses. Cities and towns have revenue issues and no stimulus package has been announced nor an extension on the CARES funding. The CARES Act was awarded May 14th, 2020, and will end on December 30th. The city has charged 75% of COVID related expenses to FEMA and 25% to CARES. The city is awaiting from FEMA what expenses were deemed ineligible. It must be 100% CARES Act funded. The CARES Act, 5,093,008 in fiscal 20. The city, We had encumbered 65,756.22 and expended 132,155.03. This number is reflective of 25% of the COVID-19 FEMA eligible expenses. In fiscal year 21, the city has encumbered 1,00,507,939.05 and expended 496,271.89. The schools in the city will be using the remaining 2.5 to 2.9 million for HVAC, PPE, additional personnel and backfill, and various other COVID-19 related expenses until December 31st. Some of those other related expenses include food pantry expenses, additional voting expenses that were allowable. FEMA doesn't have an expiration or an award total. The program is open for all eligible COVID-19 expenses. In fiscal 20, the city had encumbered $47,384.03 and expended $288,388.36. In fiscal 21, the city has encumbered $102,493.55 and expended $74,497. The FEMA funds were drawn down on October 15th, and we haven't heard back from the Fed yet, and there's additional amounts of money that I still need to reclass, but I'm in the middle of the close, that's actually gonna go to FEMA and CARES for back. Enterprise fund fiscal year 21 revenues. For fiscal year 21, we budgeted $26,351,329. And for the Q1, we budgeted $5,616,207. Fiscal year 20 budget was $26,232,490. And last year, we received $5,115,441.39. And if you look at the percentages between the two, we're actually right on target for Q1 for our revenues for the Enterprise Fund. I don't know if you want me to go down category by category. I'd be happy to if you want me to, or if you're OK with just an overall summary.
[Knight]: I defer to you, Mr. President. Either way, I'm satisfied with that. I'm very happy with what I'm hearing, Mr. President. So maybe we can move on.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: So for free cash and retained earnings, free cash as of June 30th, we ended with $5,022,079.90. Tonight we have a paper reprogramming back $703,000 back to the free cash to increase the free cash ending to $5,725,279.90. And I have estimated preliminary retained earnings at $5,946,094. None of these have been certified by DOR. I'm still in the middle of the close, so these numbers will change. In conclusion, the city's Q1 revenues are on target, but the city is closely monitoring revenues throughout the pandemic. The city's CARAC stimulus is set to expire December 30th, even though COVID-19 numbers are currently spiking. The city is prepared to assess upon the new year revenues in place a spending freeze if necessary. The city hopes your Honorable body will vote to extend 703,000 of the 5,000,496 510 back to free cash to bolster reserves for the next year. Since the governor level funded local aid, the city able to program funds back to the schools and city to stabilize operations.
[Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. And through you to Ms. Nunley, that was an excellent presentation. And it's very encouraging to hear what we're hearing in terms of the financial picture. So this year's fiscal year budget relies on about a $5.5 million free cash appropriation to balance the budget. And based upon what I'm seeing now, we are achieving about, what, $2.5 million of an increase in state aid from what we budgeted for, if that's correct, Ms. Nunley?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: That's correct.
[Knight]: So that takes up about half of that structural deficit that we budgeted with the $5.5 million for free cash appropriation?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes. And that's why we wanted to reprogram some of that back to stabilize operations because we had to cut so much on the school and the city side.
[Knight]: OK. And looking at moving forward based upon these projections, do you think that we're going to be on pace to eliminate that structural deficit with our receipts?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Depending on how Q2 plays out, yes, I mean, so far, Q1 is very encouraging. We're meeting and exceeding actually what we estimated. So Q1 looks really well. It's now, let's see how Q2 through Q4 look, but yes. Excellent.
[Bears]: All right. Thank you very much.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for the presentation, Alicia. Similarly, Yes, we had a structural deficit and used free cash to address it, but there were significant cuts to the budget. And I'm just wondering what percentage of those cuts has been restored so far on the school side and on the city side.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: So far, well, for tonight, we're asking to program funds. So we haven't restored any funds on the city side yet, but on the school side we have, I don't know exactly what the percentage would be. That would be something to ask the school finance director.
[Bears]: Okay. Um, then on, if we were to approve the, uh, appropriations tonight, how much would that restore on the city side?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: That would restore $740,000, uh, back to the city side for some positions that we need to stabilize operations. Um, I don't have a percentage, but I certainly can give you that after the meeting.
[Bears]: That would be helpful. And I guess just, um, this might be for you or for, uh, chief of staff Rodriguez, but, um, How much of this appropriation would go to restoring positions that were cut versus creating new positions?
[Dave Rodrigues]: The position of Facilities Director was previously in the budget was cut. There was a funded but unfilled position that was there. The 9-1-1 supervisor is a new position, but that is something that we feel is very important to stabilize operations down at 9-1-1 Dispatch. Lieutenant Rudolph from the PSAP is here to answer questions in that regard. We took a very thoughtful approach when we looked to add in any of this, reprogram any of this money to what we needed at the time. So I can take a look at, do the apples to apples comparison as to what was cut and what was being restored, but we kind of looked at it with fresh eyes when we were drafting the paper as to what we needed now and going forward. It's important to note also, and Alicia can shed some light on this as well, that the appropriation that's gonna be discussed later is for full year appropriations. We wanted to give the public and the council a full picture of what this will be a year-over-year cost, not just what we're actually going to need for FY21. But it should be about half of that. Because as we do ramp up the hiring process for those positions, it should be a month or two until we get everybody on board and start drawing down money like that. So we wanted to give a full picture of what this would be, but not what it's actually going to be for FY21.
[Bears]: So I guess that gets to kind of the heart of my question on the thoughtful approach, which is where where does this fit into your, to the plans for long-term plans that the administration has? And, you know, if we're prioritizing the positions listed here, does that mean that there are positions that were cut that we're no longer prioritizing or may not be prioritized going forward?
[Dave Rodrigues]: No, I don't think it's, I don't think it's, these are certainly priorities. It doesn't mean that these are our only priorities. These are the ones that we, that the mayor felt very strongly about re-appropriating back into the budget to help stabilize operations. I'm just looking over it again. The facilities manager and the maintenance lines. We are expecting a final capital improvement plan to be released in December. It was the preliminary finding of the Collins Center, working with our staff, that the number one thing that we needed to do was get a facilities manager on board as soon as possible. This will be a long-term savings for us in terms of facility maintenance costs and addressing some of these long-term needs. It's my understanding this has been a long-term priority of the council. as well, so we want to make sure that that was in there. Ellen Bordeaux is also on board. The call, or she will be, yep, there she is, to talk about the assessing position that's adding in her office. It's always been my role, the way that I looked at it, is investments in the assessing department are investments in the long-term financial health of the community. And the more money that we invest there, the more money is returned back to the community based on being able to fulfill the goals of the assessing department and bring money back to the community to make sure that what we're assessing is accurate and up to date.
[Bears]: Yeah, I think I'm just, and I appreciate this presentation very much. So it's not nothing about this presentation, but I think what might be helpful if we're going to continue kind of going through this quarter by quarter process going forward is an understanding of how much these appropriations are restoring funds and programs and positions that were cut in the initial FY 21 budget, how much of them are going to new positions and kind of how much of that budget we expect to be able to restore going forward. So that's just something that would be helpful for me. Thank you.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Knight for following up on this. These type of presentations, in my opinion, are extremely important and aren't done frequently enough to this council. So I appreciate Councilor Knight following up on this. My question is twofold. First, what regarding the capital plan is part of this current budget now. So anything that's in the capital plan, what would be expended out of the current budget? Or do we anticipate bonding for everything?
[Dave Rodrigues]: The capital plan will outline, it'll be a five-year plan, potentially a six-year plan, depending on how things are structured, and it will identify different funding sources for each different project. Capital improvement plans are generally guidance roadmaps. They're not necessarily budgets per se. Spending would be included within the budget and be subject to appropriation from the city council. But a CIP is just to give the council, the administration, and the community a good sense of what the needs are so that we can plan for in the long term. So there will be, as part of the analysis that was done by the Collins Center, it's not only just identifying the projects, but working with Alicia and her team as to identify potential funding sources. So it's not always It's not always bonding. Sometimes it's using proceeds from the sale of real estate, for example, is a good one. Also, grant funding. I know there's some 9-1-1 funding that's in there. Using our money as intelligently and as resourcefully as we possibly can to address the capital needs. So they took a deep dive of all that. They've been working closely with Alicia.
[Marks]: Right, so online to what Councilor Bears mentioned, do we have any idea what percent of this $740,000 would be actually items that would be part of the capital plan?
[Dave Rodrigues]: There's a $200,000 line item that's in there to address maintenance for the remainder of FY21. As part of the FY22 budget development process, we'll start to take a look at what those needs are and start to fold in some things from the capital improvement plan as it's finalized in December.
[Marks]: So this $740,000 would be an integral part of moving forward with a five- or six-year capital plan?
[Dave Rodrigues]: As part of folding in the facilities manager and this small $200,000 nest egg for facilities maintenance is going to be a huge part in making sure that we get some momentum as part of that long-term plan, that's correct.
[Marks]: So why are we taking this approach that we haven't seen a capital plan but we're moving forward with items that may or may not be part of the capital plan?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: I believe the facilities and the maintenance has been a huge thing that the city council has been talking about. I know the mayor's office has been talking about it with looking at the different fire stations, looking at the different buildings and the different needs within the school system. This is just the first step towards taking care of that need. It's really not, I mean, it's in the capital plan, but this is definitely a need that I think both the mayor and the city council will agree upon.
[Marks]: And the reason why we're moving forward now, although we just did the budget four months ago, is that this newfound money is giving us the ability to progress on some of the issues that the city needs to move forward on. Is that why we're looking at this?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: That's correct. We took a 10% cut assumption with our local aid, and we were very thankful the governor level funded to fiscal year 20 levels, which gave us some flexibility to take care of those needs.
[Marks]: So my other point, and I think you're right with some of these concerns, and I do support many of the items in here. And when we get to this paper, I have other questions on this paper itself. But regarding some of these positions, there's been long discussion, not just this particular year with the election. that the elections department just went through, but for the past several years, this city has requested an election coordinator. We currently don't have someone that coordinates our elections. We do have a city clerk that wears multiple hats, but he is not an elections coordinator. And all the surrounding cities and towns that I looked into have that position. And for some reason, the city of Medford, with a city of almost 60,000 people and 41,000 registered voters, we don't have someone that coordinates our elections. And I think that's a shortfall in this community. And with everything going on nationally, that it's very important that We have someone that can make sure the integrity of our election is what everyone would come to expect. So have we looked into, I know this council has put forward several, and I know I've put forward a couple, and I know my colleagues have, several requests for the city administration to hire an elections coordinator. I believe the mayor has sat down and has discussed the issue. Can you give us an update? where we stand with an election coordinator, and why it's not part of this list here.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Well, thankfully this year, the CARES Act has allowed additional funding towards the election. So I've been allowing this CARES Act funding to help with election costs that are unbudgeted. And I will let Dave speak on the mayor's behalf. But for right now, the best use of the fund was to use our grant funds at this point.
[Marks]: Right, but those are one-time funds, and I'm talking about a long-term plan in the community to have oversight within a very important department. And I think when this list that we're going to go over soon that was presented to us, this is to help the city move forward on some shortfalls that we have. or shortcomings, I should say, in how we operate city government. And in my opinion, election coordinators should be at the top of the list, to be quite frank. So I would hope that we can get some answers tonight on this.
[Dave Rodrigues]: During these were conversations. So the council, you're a hundred percent correct. We did have a conversation with, with clerk Herbies and some of his team shortly after the September election to kind of do an after action to try to debrief a little bit on what we could, what we, what we could do better and some improvements that we can make for November. And we did work together. The mayor's office attempted to provide as much support as we possibly could to clerk Herbies. We hope that it was helpful. And we kind of regrouped at that point and said, All right, let's get through the 18th of November when the election is certified, do the same thing again, and evaluate what that position could look like. What they would do in a 12-month cycle, the duties that they would have to perform, the type of compensation, and really be thoughtful about how we're going to approach it instead of creating something in the heat of the election that might not be in the long-term best interest to do things. But we are certainly evaluating it, and we're hopefully going to have a good conversation with Adam and his team. shortly after the election is certified on the 18th to assess just that.
[Marks]: Okay, so and I appreciate that response, Dave. It's my understanding that a fair amount of work over the past two years has already gone into what this petition position would be created for what purpose, the duties and responsibilities, the actual job title, who they would oversee, the responsibilities, the salary and the position. So I think a lot of the legwork that you just mentioned has been done. So to hear that this is something that we're going to look at once again after the election seems to be, with all due respect, more lip service. So in order to get my support for this particular paper, and I don't know where my colleagues stand, but I can tell you we've all reiterated this over and over and over again ad nauseum. I will not support a paper that doesn't include an election coordinator position. And you can work out the details. The facilities manager, I haven't seen the job description other than the title and the salary. I don't know anything else about that position. But it found its way in this paper. And I would think, in my opinion, that there's been more homework and due diligence done already for the election coordinator position. The need's there, the demand is there, and the integrity of our elections is extremely important in this day and age. And to have someone facilitate and pull this together. I think is vital in this community, extremely vital. So I just want to put that out there. I will not support this paper unless the paper includes the election coordinator position that this council has voted on, I believe unanimously, a half a dozen times in the last two years. And I'll let my colleagues speak for themselves. So I just want to let you know where I stand on this.
[Dave Rodrigues]: I have not personally seen a job description or a compensation study or any of the duties and responsibilities. I haven't seen anything detailing that sort of thing. If that exists, I'm happy to take a look at it and elevate that to the mayor as soon as possible so that we can further evaluate and take those things into consideration. But just to note, we have not seen that information.
[Marks]: I believe it's out there, so we will get you a copy of that. I appreciate it. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Any questions from the council? Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. For one, I agree with Councilor Marks on the elections coordinator position. I think it's essential. I just had one more question and I didn't want to, I was trying not to mix topics too much. In the presentation, Alicia, you mentioned that 2.5 to 2.9 million in CARES will be spent on HVAC PPE and additional personnel. Do we know what additional personnel would be covered under that?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes. So for the school side, they asked if they could have some additional aides to help with the hybrid model. So for the school side, they'll have some additional aides. As far as personnel, also any backfill. Or if anybody gets sick and we need to hire somebody to cover their position, that would be the additional personnel.
[Bears]: And on the HVAC, is that just school HVAC or city HVAC?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: That would be the school's HVAC.
[Bears]: Got it. Thank you very much.
[Dave Rodrigues]: I'm just gonna add on the personnel side, that the personnel costs for, that are being used for CARES also covers the cost of greeters at City Hall, contact tracers, food security folks, as well as a number of other individuals supporting our COVID relief efforts.
[Bears]: Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Council. Vice President Caraviello, then Councilor Morell, Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, do we have a summary of where we are with our HVAC stuff at schools as of today?
[Dave Rodrigues]: I do have that information prepared for this evening. We can circle back to the school department and see if we can get that for you.
[Caraviello]: If we could, I'd be appreciative because I don't know where we're at and I think the people would like to know where we're at. But having that ready to go moving forward.
[Falco]: Vice President Caraviello, if I may, do you want to add that as an amendment to the paper that we receive an update with regard to the HVAC situation at Medford High School or- Yes, if you could add that as an amendment to the paper.
[Caraviello]: Second.
[Falco]: Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: If we can add to that amendment, I know that in the update of who's going back to school, I think that we've asked that at the last meeting, and parents have been calling us that I believe juniors and seniors are going back in the vocational school, and they're very confused. So if we can get an update with that, if that's okay as well.
[Falco]: So you have an amendment by- Second the motion. Councilor Scarpelli as well.
[Caraviello]: Vice President Caraviello. And if we can get one more, Mr. President, amendment to the paper. A report on where our staffing levels are with both the police and the fire departments. I know we were short some people on both the pen. And there'll be some retirements coming up next year. Do we have a plan to put people in classes? because I know it takes about a year to get a policeman out to the floor. So we can get an update on where we are staffing with both the police and the fire, and if we have anybody in classes at the moment.
[Falco]: We have that amendment. Thank you, Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Okay, thank you, Vice President Caraviello. We have Council Morell.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. If, through the chair, I could just ask Alicia just a few questions just to offer, I'm sorry, for clarity. Remind me of the deadlines as far as the CARES Act funding. Is it that services need to be rendered by that December date? It's billed. How does that, I'm just trying to understand how that 2.5 to 2.9 applies as far as regarding, would that only be staff for before the break? Or if you could just offer clarity on how that money and the timing of how it has to be spent.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: services have to be rendered by December 30th.
[Morell]: Okay, so it would only cover personnel for the remainder, I guess, this term until the Christmas break?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: It would cover until December 30th, so they could charge up to December 30th and after that they could not.
[Morell]: Okay, so just to make sure I'm clear on this, so that could not cover staff, that would not support any staff from January through the spring?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: You are correct. You are absolutely correct. Even though COVID is soaring, there's no extension right now, no further stimulus, and it's set to expire December 30th.
[Morell]: Okay. And so, and do you believe you will, you're able to spend all 2.5 to 2.9 or will, might you come back and say, just due to what was accepted and what was available, we spent X number of dollars out of this?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: As of right now, I estimate we will fully spend. My big concern more is with FEMA. FEMA takes a long time to tell us what's accepted and not accepted. And if we, charged it to FEMA, that 75%, and then FEMA comes back and says, no, I got to move that to CARES. So they kind of move in tandem. So I'm hoping that we will hear something from FEMA soon on our first drawdown, so we know what items are rejected versus what items are accepted.
[Falco]: OK, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Morell. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Hurtubise]: Thank you, Ms. President.
[Scarpelli]: My question was, I know that you were in sort of a hot seat last time. Just to be clear, all of our funding will be spent with the CARES Act, correct? Correct. Okay, so there's not going to be the biggest things, how are we leaving money on the table? That's not happening, correct?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: We don't, no. We estimate we're going to fully expend it by December 30th.
[Scarpelli]: Okay, thank you. And then I know I too have a couple of questions with when Council Marks brought up with the facilities and a little bit more detail. I don't know if it was a mistake, but I thought, or maybe my mistake, that when you were talking about the facilities position. That person's only working on city buildings, correct? Johnny McLaughlin's still in charge of the school buildings. Is that person now going to be overseeing all the buildings in the city?
[Dave Rodrigues]: So there will be some crossover on the building and school side, but in terms of, this is more of a facilities, a strategic facilities position in lieu of, in addition to what Mr. McLaughlin does on the school side. So this is designed to complement the work that John does, not to replace it, and look at strategic facilities maintenance in a more comprehensive way across the board, both city and school side.
[Scarpelli]: Okay, and I don't want to keep jumping around. I know that this is different topics, but again, I appreciate all the work we're doing, and I know this is getting difficult, so I'll leave more questions to our other resolutions, so thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor. Scarpelli. Talk all night.
[Knight]: Mr. President, thank you. I'd like to just amend the paper and request that we receive a copy of the Warren Articles from January to date and monthly thereafter. The Warren Articles are where we spend our money, the bills, and how we paid for them. So I'd like to add that in the form of an amendment, Mr. President, or a motion to amend the paper if we want to move forward on it. But it sounds like we have an update on the HVAC system and a copy of the Warren articles from January to date and monthly thereafter as amendments to paper 20559. We have a lot of discussion, a lot of talk about the other two papers that are on the table, and those are the money papers, Mr. President. I'm very satisfied with the presentation that we got this evening, so I'm going to be bold and suggest that we take this paper to a vote and we move on to the money papers.
[Falco]: So we have the amendment, the amendment would be to get year-to-date, that's calendar year, January 1st. Perfect, okay, great. Councilor Knight, if you wouldn't mind, if I ask a quick question. Thank you. So let's see, so Alicia, thank you very much for your report, appreciate it. Would it be possible that the council gets a copy of that report?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Absolutely, I'll send it to the clerk.
[Falco]: Okay, thank you. And with regard to, you talked about your month being closed. You're closing the month of October still, am I correct?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: I'm closing the fiscal year.
[Falco]: Oh, you're closing the fiscal year. Okay, okay. And... I kind of, I guess, have a more specific question because I know we had a lot of discussion in our prior meetings about KP Law. How did those numbers look so far with regard to Q1, what was budgeted versus what was actually spent? I know there's a lot of projects going on. I know we've had a number of meetings for different ordinances. We've had different attorneys from KP Law helping us with each of those projects. And I believe they're also helping out on the 40B front as well. So I was wondering if you could just kind of comment on that as to where we are. Are we in line with what we have budgeted for that specific expense to KP Law?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: I have a purchase order for KP Law, but I haven't processed any invoice payments yet.
[Dave Rodrigues]: So I can speak to that, Mr. President. Yeah, the appearances from attorneys from KPA at council meetings and other, those are all covered under the retainer agreement. So that's not an hourly fee. Any adversarial matters are based on that. that hourly fee that was inside the proposal. And I believe that we are in line with what we were budgeted. They are separate. So the Board of Appeals manages that litigation process of 40 Bs. We can get a breakdown of what they've done so far on that, but it's my indication that everything's been in line with what we've budgeted so far.
[Falco]: So if I'm correct, 40 Bs are outside of the $60,000 contract? The $5,000 a month retainer, yes.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Any adversarial, anything adversarial, any litigation or anything like that would be outside of that room too.
[Falco]: Okay, so can we get a breakdown of that if someone else wants to offer that? So if I, on the motion of... Vice President Caraviello to seconded by Councilor Knight to get a breakdown of the fees so far paid to KP Law under the $5,000 a month contract and with regard to any work that's done, for example, like 40 Bs outside of that.
[Caraviello]: Do you have that Councilor?
[Falco]: And if I may, more specifically, Alicia, have we paid any claims in excess of $5,000 this calendar year that did not come before the council for approval?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Have we paid any what? Sorry, I apologize.
[Falco]: I apologize. Any claims against the city in excess of $5,000?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: I would have to get back to the council and look for that. I don't have that off the top of my head. I'd have to research.
[Falco]: Okay. Could you please actually vice-president. If vice-president Caraviello, if you wouldn't mind, if we could have an amendment to the paper to get a breakdown of all claims that have been paid over $5,000 since January 1st, 2020. Anything pending? Seconded by Councilman. They're all amendments. And if I may, last but not least, and this is for Dave Rodriguez, Chief of Staff. I believe Council Knight has asked repeatedly since January 1st for a breakdown of consultants that the administration has hired. Are we gonna get that breakdown of the consultants, who's been hired, what they're doing, how much they're paid? It seems to have fallen upon deaf ears. I know it's a request that's been made numerous times by this council and we have yet to receive any type of documentation.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Could you please? I will actually correct you. We did send something over the summer after it was requested. So I can look back at my records. I know that it was sent via email so I can send it over. I think it was in a memo that we included regarding the budget process. So I'm happy to send that out, to resend that along.
[Falco]: It was a breakdown of consultants that were hired? In what they're doing? Yep. And how much they're being paid?
[Dave Rodrigues]: Yes.
[Falco]: If you could resend that, I'd greatly appreciate it.
[Dave Rodrigues]: As requested.
[Falco]: A number of my colleagues don't remember seeing that. I know I haven't seen it, so.
[Knight]: I do believe that document does exist and then recently we also asked for a report on whether or not we're using outside council to negotiate salaries, negotiate contracts. We got a response to that as well, I believe. So we've gotten a couple of responses. I mean, I think it might even warrant a committee of the home, Mr. President, if that's the case, you know what I mean? So we can all get on the same page. I'd certainly be willing to entertain that as well.
[Falco]: Absolutely. Any other council, any other questions from the council? Okay, Alicia, thank you for your presentation. On the motion of council and I, Seconded by Vice President Caraviello, as amended by Vice President Caraviello, Councilor Scarpelli, Vice President Caraviello, Councilor Knight, Vice President Caraviello, and Vice President Caraviello. On that motion, Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears?
[Falco]: Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Vice President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. 70 affirmatives, zero negatives. The motion passes. We're under suspension. We have 20-634, communications from the mayor, November 5th, 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 your honorable body approves to partially rescind the appropriation of free cash per council paper 20-464 in the amount of $703,000 that was used to subsidize the fiscal 2021 general fund budget due to the health pandemic and current economic conditions. The balance of free cash before this vote is 5,022,279.90. Finance director Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin is present to answer any of the council's questions regarding this matter.
[Scarpelli]: Move approval, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehnbeck.
[Scarpelli]: I think, Mr. President, move approval. I think that... Are there any questions on this?
[Falco]: I just want to make sure that nobody wants to speak.
[Bears]: Second.
[Falco]: Okay. On the motion of Councilor Scarapelli.
[Knight]: Speak to that.
[Falco]: Seconded by Councilor Bears, Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: An item of this much severity, I just would like a brief presentation from the finance director, Mr. President. We're taking a vote. We took a $5.5 million vote some months back and we're taking a vote now for 700K. So I think it would make sense to get at least a presentation to bring us full circle.
[Falco]: Alicia, if you could please give us a free synopsis of the paper.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes, so we're asking to rescind $703,000 back. Fortunately, our new growth number actually came in higher than we expected. We had budgeted $1 million, but we actually got $1.7 million. And that's allowing us to re-appropriate back to the free cash $703,000.
[Knight]: So this 703,000 represents the $703,000 in new growth that is above and beyond the forecasted estimate at the close of the last fiscal year?
[Falco]: Correct.
[Knight]: Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Peers.
[Bears]: I'll ask you a question too. Was there any consideration to using this money to address budget cuts that were made in fiscal 21?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Well, we used our local aid cuts to address the budget cuts in 21. And we also knew that we had to use our free cash to balance the budget. And we didn't need to use as much as we took. And we know that we're going red. And we're not sure how next year's going to look. So we think the most prudent financial thing to do right now is to reprogram and bolster reserves for next year.
[Caraviello]: OK, thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Alicia, the union contracts that were negotiated, which union is that with? That's the wrong one.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: I don't believe we can discuss those right now, what we're discussing in negotiations, but I'll turn it over to Chief Rodriguez.
[Dave Rodrigues]: And do we have any other brief email sent over to Council a couple months ago regarding the outstanding contracts, which including the police superiors, the newly formed dispatchers, form of inspectors, RAC, and TDW form of the superintendents, as well as the newly formed dispatchers union. So all three of those are still pending negotiation in varying stages of that.
[Caraviello]: I'm sorry, Dave, you said those are pending?
[Dave Rodrigues]: Those are currently in negotiation.
[Caraviello]: Those are currently pending. And the yearly retirement incentive, how many employees took up the yearly retirement incentive?
[Dave Rodrigues]: Well, it was a program that was discussed during the budget process that we took a closer look at after the budget was passed. We got together with Alicia and we wanted to get the mayor's thoughts on this. We don't have an exact number. This is a placeholder number that we're putting in place for now in order to determine exactly how much money we might be able to offer for an early retirement incentive in varying degrees as we figure out part of our net losses. So this is something that we plan to use going forward as a placeholder. We're not 100% sure it's exactly the incentive that we're going to be offering, but we do plan on offering an incentive of some varying degree at some point in time.
[Caraviello]: And the $200,000 for facility maintenance, is that going to be spread out amongst all the buildings? Correct. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. Any other questions? Oh, Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Thank you, Mr. President. Through you to the Chief of Staff. So if I'm understanding this correctly, We're asking for a $200,000 appropriation to go into the negotiated salaries account.
[Scarpelli]: I'm confused.
[Knight]: That funding would or would not be subject to further appropriation after the contract is settled?
[Dave Rodrigues]: It will be subject to transfer. So once it's appropriated, we would transfer it out of the negotiated salaries to appropriate buy-in to address the obligations of the community.
[Knight]: Because the past practice has always been that the administration negotiates the contract. They provide us with the opportunity to vote on the compensation package and fund the contract at that time. So this seems to be a little bit different than that. Is that safe to say?
[Dave Rodrigues]: It's different. I think if that's more style than substance, I don't think there will be the opportunity to discuss all those matters with the council prior to any further transportation.
[Falco]: So if I may, a lot of the questions that are being asked, I think right now are pertaining to the next paper, which is 635. So this is 634, which is for the 703,000. Okay, so on the motion of councilor Scott Peli to approve the paper seconded by councilor Bears. Clerk Cunaby, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. Seven. The affirmative zero in the negative. The motion passes. All right. A suspension to zero dash six, three, five communications from the mayor, November 5th, 2020 to the honorable president and members of the Medford city council, city hall, Medford, Massachusetts, zero two one five five. Dear Mr. President and City Council, as I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body amends the fiscal 2021 budget to appropriate $740,000 in zero cents in available funds to the following departments as follows. 200,000 for union contracts, $100,000 for early retirement incentive, So 200,000 union contracts, the account description is negotiated salaries. 100,000 early retirement incentives, account description is negotiated salaries. $10,000 for translation services. And that's the description of the accounts translation services. $95,000 for facilities, salary expense facility managers, full-time salaries. $200,000 facilities maintenance, that's for maintenance. The assessor, $65,000 for administrative assessor, that's full-time salaries. And for the police, 70,000 for the 911 supervisor, and that is full-time salaries. Alicia, would you like to comment on this paper?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes, so I know that the citizens and the council and the mayor, we were all talking about translation services, that that's important. So that was added to be part of amending the budget. Also part of this paper that 295,000 for the facilities manager and the facilities maintenance would create a new facilities department, which is greatly needed within the city. The assessors, 65,000 administrative assessor position. I've spoken to the assessor and the assessor really needs that position to help out with going out, assessing properties, in addition to helping with other administrative tasks. And the union contracts, the 200,000 would be put into the budget. And then we would come back before you once contracts are settled for us to fund those and accept those contracts.
[Falco]: Mr. President? Yes, actually, I'm sorry, Councilor Scott Peli, that is for Councilor Marks. Councilor Scott Peli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Alicia. Again, I know the administration tried to reach out, and I just didn't have time to circle back with them. I have a tough time tonight without, these are some initiatives that we have talked about and waiting on. But there's a lot of vagueness to it in the sense that the job description of facilities manager, the facilities for $200,000, what that would entail. Because we took a tour of all the fire stations and it's going to be a lot more than 200,000. So I'd like to know more detail what what that would look like, what we're focusing on $200,000 for. And I know that Mr. Rodriguez talked about having the assessor, getting more information and understanding the administrative assessor that how are we going to, we see more tenfold in hiring that position. I want to know more about the 911 supervisor and what role they're playing and how that's working out so far before we commit to a supervisor position. So there's a lot of variables here that I don't know if I'm comfortable to vote on this money until I know more about that. And I don't think that can be done in today's meeting. put a lot of work to this, but at the same time, I do have questions.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: So I don't, um, that's where I stand. I'm on the fire department task force. So I have toured all the fire stations and I absolutely do agree with you. $200,000 is not going to fix them all. But facilities department, that's a step in the right direction. They need somebody that has that skillset to come in and look at those facilities and say, this is what needs to be done. This is what we need to do. This is how we should do it. We don't have anybody on staff with that kind of expertise. In addition, as far as any kind of maintenance that needs to be done, we don't have a maintenance budget.
[Scarpelli]: I love the concept but again it when I'm voting on something I want to know more details of what this person is doing and where if this person just focus on just doing the fire stations there's a lot of the questions that we're talking about a building facility here, what we're doing with outside buildings, what are they going to be working with the school system? What are the roles that they're going to be doing combined? Is it going to be too daunting for one facilities manager that if they are working as part of the total facilities, being with the working, giving time to the schools, considering that that's a daunting task. So there's a lot of questions that, and I appreciate what you're saying, but again, the job itself. To me, it just needs more of an understanding what it's for, so I can wrap myself around and understand this. Because this is something we've all pushed, and this is something that we all want. But again, to look at the big picture, this just looks like, in a sense, another round of budgets. And because these are the changes we have, the additional money that we have, so it'll be nice to work on it. Well, I'd like to talk about it and get more details on it. That's all I'm saying. I appreciate you being on the task force. And we all know that we can spend $200,000 on one of the stations. But like I said, I know we need the facilities manager to outline that. But I do think that I need more information for what we're trying to do with that position and where we're going with it. So thank you.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Thank you, Councilor Scott. Councilor, through the chair, I think that that's always been a real, that's always been kind of a large question when it comes to facilities maintenance is what are the absolute needs? What are the must haves? What are the wants and what are the wishes? And how do you categorize those? And how do you prioritize those? And how do you make sure that what needs to get done absolutely has to get done? And what can wait, can wait? And how do you budget for that in a strategic, comprehensive way? And I think that's what this knowledgeable subject matter expert is going to be doing largely. We have a large discussion internally about how that would work. Is this person somebody who's going to roll up their sleeves and actually work on facilities maintenance? Or is this somebody who's going to be more of a higher level strategic facilities manager. We're still discussing that and how we think it's going to be a little bit of that hybrid, at least at first, in order to get the work done and think about how these things have to get done in a long-term way and not just hop from one project to the next based upon questionable criteria. So we know that there's a lot of needs. We understand that there's a lot of asks and a lot of needs and a lot of must-haves, We want to make sure that we get this done thoughtfully and that we're spending the money in the best possible way. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli. I think he hit the nail on the head. As a member of this council, I would like to see Mr. President for any newly created position, which this request has several, that we receive a full job description on the position itself. I realize that the city administration probably put a lot of time and effort into this, but they have to realize we weren't privy to these conversations. Secondly, Mr. President, I would ask that when my colleagues are done speaking, that I would like to evoke rule 20. for this particular paper. It's the first time it has appeared on the council agenda and it's a financial paper and any request of a member of this council for a financial paper appearing for the first time gets automatically laid on the table for one week. So I would say when my colleagues are done speaking, I would like to evoke rule 20 Mr. President. I would also ask that within this week that the city administration which is the chief of staff, along with the mayor, sit down with the city clerk, come up with a job description for the election coordinator, a salary for the election coordinator, and what their responsibilities would be, and come back to us within a week with that title added to this particular list. And if there's no money for the appropriation, I would ask that it be taken from the facilities, line item of 200,000 minus whatever the salary for the election coordinator position would be. And when we receive the job description for these other positions, that we also receive a new job description for the election coordinator, Mr. President, as well.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. So just to repeat Councilor Marks, we'd like to invoke rule 20, which rule 20, section four states, any finance paper appearing on the council agenda for the first time shall be automatically laid on the table for one week when such action is requested by any councilor. On that motion by Councilor Marks, seconded by Vice President Caraviello, Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. I want to echo my fellow council colleagues in that I, I understand the acute and immediate need for these items listed here, but there's, there are a lot of items with acute and immediate need. And I think just there's more information that this body requires before we can make a decision on this. I think as other colleagues have pointed out, just the understanding of which positions are new positions, which positions are, You know, replacing something that was cut, which I think there's just a real lack of information here. I do have a question. Um, if through the chair for Miss Emily Benjamin, if there was consideration for any of this 700,000 to be put towards the schools and any of that budget, I know they had a bit of a larger hit than the city as far as cut. So I'm curious. I'm curious what the thought process was there as far as applying this entirely city side as opposed to looking at the schools as they're obviously due to the pandemic. I understand there's a lot of money through CARES and everything else going to the schools, but there's a serious need there for support as well. So I'm curious the thought process behind that, why the funding is all on the city side versus considering the schools as well.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Right, so when we did the local aid, when we looked at that, we did the 10% cut to the chapter 70, we gave the million dollars back to the schools to leave them unharmed as we had promised. With the unrestricted general government aid, we had deeply cut the city. A lot of the city, where it looked like it increased, it really didn't. It's because the fixed costs are so high in the city side, which encompasses the schools, that it get that view of, oh, the city's went up. It really hasn't. When we looked at the positions, because we had cut the city so slim, we wanted to make sure to add things back that we thought were really, really important, such as the maintenance, the facilities manager, the 911, assessor position that's needed in the assessor's office, translation services that were requested by the citizens, was a really thoughtful, thoughtful process of what our needs were. It wasn't just a wishlist, but what's needed. But at the same time, still keeping conservative, because we don't know we're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that.
[Morell]: We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that.
[Falco]: We're not going Councilor Morell, could you please repeat the amendment just so the clerk can get that?
[Morell]: Sure, if we could get a list of the city side positions that were requested in the previous budget and not funded exclusive of, you know, separate from the ones that are listed on this request. Thank you.
[Falco]: And that was seconded by Councilor Knight. So we have Vice President Caraviello, Councilor Knight, Councilor Bears. Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to support Councilor Marks on his issue with the election coordinator. As we see as we just got through an election throughout the country, elections have become more complex than they've ever been. And the longer we wait to fund this position, the harder it's going to be. Because again, not only are we going to need a coordinator, but the rules and the way we've done the elections over the years have vastly changed over the last four or five years. And again, it's time that we bring our election department up to the standard that it needs to be. And let's say, if we're going to wait until after this election, and then before you know it, it'll be after January, and before you know it, The new election is going to be around the corner, and we're going to be still arguing about this. So I'm not going to support anything that doesn't have the election coordinator in this package here, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. Counsel night.
[Knight]: In looking at this, I certainly agree with my colleagues in their positions. I have concerns over the $300,000 in union contracts and only retirement incentives. I also have a concern over the $200,000 in facility maintenance budget. That's $500,000 of a $740,000 paper. But there is one item that I look at, Mr. President, on this list, and that's the 911 supervisor. And this is a position that's my understanding was created out of need and necessity. So I'm wondering if there's anybody available from the administration to talk a little bit about this expense, if a job description does exist for it, so on and so forth. I know that as we've been transitioning from professional to civilian dispatches, we've had some bumps in the road. a need for us to revisit this, then we should. When this council moved to support a move to civilian dispatching, we did so as a cost savings measure. But we don't want those cost savings measures to get in the way of public safety. So with that being said, Mr. President, for a $70,000 appropriation salary expense on this, I'm hoping that the administration has a type of job description. And the reason I say that is because there was somebody that was already doing this work before. It went to civilian dispatch. So if there's anybody available that could speak to this, I think that that might be very helpful for us in preparing. I mean, the paper is going to get laid on the table no matter what. So it's not going to be voted on this evening. But if there's someone here that can provide us with some of that information, I think that'd be very helpful.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Lieutenant Rudolph, I'm from the Medford Police. I'm the head of the Peace Office here to answer your questions about the 9-1-1 supervisors.
[TH89eXSxkYo_SPEAKER_24]: Thank you. Good evening, everyone. This is Lieutenant Mark Rudolph of the Medford Police Department. I am the PSAP Director, meaning I'm in charge of the 911 Center. I'm dispatching for both police, fire, and our EMS partner, Armstrong Ambulance. The reasoning behind looking to hire a supervisor at this time, we've been operating the center now since June of last year with originally 13 dispatchers. We are at a level right now of 10. due to some individuals that left for better paying positions at other locations once they had been trained, unfortunately. Currently, the purpose of hiring a dispatch supervisor is multifaceted. The amount of work done inside a 9-1-1 center of approximately 85 to 9,500 of them across the country is extremely critical. It is time driven simply by The fact that these are the very first first responders who initiate receipt of the calls, they dispatch police, fire and EMS appropriately. The dispatch supervisors role simply is a shift supervisor is also a working dispatcher, but has a much higher level of certifications and training from the association from professional communications officers, which is a nationwide professional organization that certifies these individuals as well as other individuals that work as police, fire, and EMS dispatchers. The goal behind hiring a dispatch supervisor obviously requires some of it, a lot more experience. There is a job description that was created with input from my chief, my administrative captain, my operations captain, and I, in fact, wrote that dispatch supervisor job description. I provided it over to the personnel department, Mr. Wasbon has that as well. He's also trimmed it a little bit to go out as a, if we do in fact get the positions, monetary appropriation, he's already set up a slightly shortened version to send out to outlets that would be hosting it for potential hirees looking for that job. Currently there are about 9,500 dispatch centers in the country, so having a dispatch supervisor at most locations, including in most of the PSAP 9-1-1 centers currently in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, typically have a shift supervisor on every shift. We're looking for one dispatch supervisor that can basically handle that same workload, rotating schedules, so that he or she can actually interface with all of the dispatchers, continue their in-service training programs, as you all know, The State 9-1-1 Center Training Academy has been shut down since the beginning of COVID. It's hit across the country. So we are at a disadvantage, along with every other peace app across the country, in trying to hire people who are currently trained. Hiring someone who is an APCO certified training officer, as well as a dispatch supervisor with experience, provides us the ability to be able to train our own personnel without having to send them through an in-house program. Most all of the supervisory people that are working in 911 centers have currently APCO certifications for police dispatch, fire dispatch, and EMS dispatching. So the purpose is multifaceted to have a dispatch supervisor that can not only handle day-to-day routine situations, but also conduct training as a certified training officer under APCO certifications as well as state certification. And that gives us the opportunity again to hire personnel that are currently not trained. There are a number of applicants who have submitted applications to us over the past five months, but unfortunately we have not been able to hire anybody that has training because the vast majority of them, about 98% had no training or experience as a dispatcher in any 911 settings. So bringing those people in is impossible at this time without having a certified training officer. who is also a dispatch supervisor. It is not just a single shift job. They would be rotating throughout all three shifts, seven days a week, on a rotating schedule, so that they could interface with every dispatcher on each shift, find out who continues to need additional training, if anything, offer a new training, continue annual certification in the different dispatch center jobs which are basically police, fire, and EMS on the other side. We are moving into a new dispatch center in probably about a week or two. And the purpose of having a dispatch supervisor at that point allows us to professionalize our dispatch center even more. We have some really good dispatchers. They've already completed state training. They've been doing this now for over a year. in most cases over a year and a half. And, uh, for a couple of them that came in later in October, November, uh, close to a year now. So they are doing a very good job. There's still work to be done to continue their training. You don't learn this job overnight. It is one of the most difficult training programs going. It is pressure driven. And, uh, individually, each of these individuals has been doing a very good job. We continue our training program in house. but without the ability to hire a dispatch supervisor that can maintain training programs, that can help with the budget process, can help with any disciplinary issues that may arise, that can help with continued training of all of these individuals. That brings about the ability for us to create a better environment, a better working environment, a better training environment, and an environment of professional dispatchers that are here to do their job, to the citizens of Medford. So if you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. And I'm here to listen and answer what I can.
[Knight]: I just want to thank you, Lieutenant, for that presentation. I think that that made me feel very confident and comfortable. Moving forward, when I do take a vote on this paper, that that's something that I will be supporting. So thank you very much.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Counsel Beers.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Question for, I believe, Mr. Rodriguez. When could we expect another supplemental appropriation to come before the council? Do you have a timeline for that?
[Dave Rodrigues]: Supplemental appropriation would be dependent on supplemental revenue. So outside of that happening, I don't see another supplemental appropriation happening before the continuation of the budget process in the spring. Yeah.
[Bears]: Got it. And I would just like to join with my colleagues and say that I think this supplemental appropriation should include the elections coordinator. And I would not be voting to appropriate additional funds until such appropriation includes the elections coordinator. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you. Council appears. Any other questions from the council? If I may really quick, um, uh, I get a question regarding, um, Well, first of all, I want to say support Councilor Marks, you mentioned the election coordinator. I think everyone has through the last few months. It's definitely something that is needed. And I think at one point there was maybe a recommendation that had come from maybe the facilities expense, but Alicia and Chief of Staff Rodriguez, with regard to the billboard agreement and the extra $250,000 that was not included in the budget, has that been allocated yet? Is there any plans for that money? I know I have recommended that it goes to the schools, but if not, I mean, is that something where we could allocate some of that money or some of that facilities money to the election coordinator and then backfill the facilities maintenance with some of the money from the billboard agreement?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: As of right now, as Chief Rodriguez had spoken to before, we're working on finalizing the capital improvement plan. That's not finished yet, but there are some items I know that the mayor was looking to use that money to fund.
[Falco]: And can you elaborate on those?
[Dave Rodrigues]: Anybody? Yeah, that'll be part of the final CIP report, which we're expecting in December.
[Falco]: I'm sorry, what's the expectation?
[Dave Rodrigues]: So that will be part of the final CIP report, which we presented to the council sometime in December. December, okay.
[Falco]: Any other questions from the council? Okay. So rule 20 has been invoked and this will lay on the table until next week. Okay. On the motion of council tonight to revert back to the regular order of business.
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Falco]: Seconded by Councilor Bears. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. 70 affirmative. Janet, the negative. The motion passes. If you've worked to the regular order business, we will go to hearings. This is actually a hearing, 2-0-6-0-0, petition for grant of location, National Grid, gas main locations, Meffin, Massachusetts, City Clerk's Office. This is a continuation of a public hearing that we had two weeks ago, and I believe at that time there were a number of questions that the council had, and let's see, National Grid was going to come back to us to answer those questions.
[Knight]: Motion to waive the reading and reconvene the hearing.
[Falco]: On the motion of Council of nine to read and reconvene the hearing seconded by Councilor Bears. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. And let's see, we have, do we have a representative from National Good on the line?
[Diana Cuddy]: Hi, yes, good evening. I'm Diana Cutty from National Grid, 70 Sylvan Road, Waltham, Massachusetts.
[Falco]: Thank you for being with us tonight.
[Diana Cuddy]: Thank you.
[Falco]: There were a number of questions last time, I believe. Mr. President.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. If I could, there was a number of questions. The major question I believe was by many of the council members was why this work was taking place. Gas work, first of all, during the holidays and secondly, during cold winter months. where it potentially could impact residents of this community. And we asked what the nature of the emergency was to do it at this particular time. So I'd like to hear a response from National Grid.
[Diana Cuddy]: So I don't know the urgency with MWRA, but the staff engineer that did the design of the project reached out to the consultant that's doing the project management for this project for MWRA. and they are willing to wait until the spring. I can give you the exact words. They're waiting until April to start the work. There is no immediate need to have this be winter work, but we would like to get all our ducks in a row, as they say, so that we're not holding them up when they're ready to go.
[Marks]: So Mr. President, that's good news as far as I'm concerned. Another issue that I brought up, I believe it was last week or the week before, not week before because of the election, was the fact that item bullet point number 12 was the scope of the MWRA section 57 project includes the resurfacing and striping this portion of Riverside Ave. The engineering division requests that National Grid contribute the cost of final restoration to other paving in the city. And we got a commitment from our city engineer at the time that the restoration and other paving will indeed take place on Riverside Ave to make sure the curbing is brought up to standards, Mr. President. Currently, much of the curbing on Riverside Ave, in this particular project span, the curbing is level with the street, which poses a safety concern and a public safety risk for area residents that are walking. And I know that language wasn't changed, but I want to make sure that that indeed is what's going to happen. So I'm not sure if we formally need to change this scope. of service, bullet point 12, if there's a need, or if the city engineer feels that that's not necessary. I know he's on the call, I thought I saw him earlier. I think he did actually, let's see, so.
[Diana Cuddy]: I think one of the things that was raising the curve then gives you a trip hazard between the sidewalk and the new curb, even though the curb to the street is DOT compliant. So it opened up more cans of worms type of thing. But I thought I saw.
[Falco]: Yep, Tim's on the line. Tim McGiven, our city engineer is on the line. Tim.
[McGivern]: I think, good evening, honorable council. I believe my response is the same. So the, The scope of work for adding curbing to Riverside Avenue is a separate type of scope than what MWRA has committed to resurfacing. So what I'm committing to is reviewing the condition of Riverside Avenue, which I have started. and putting together a scope of improvements on Riverside Avenue. How that gets done, I don't know the answer to that question yet. I know it needs to get done, but the utility work that is happening, they're obligated to And I've looked into this. They're obligated to put it back the way it was or better, but adding design scope that could involve shifting entire sections of the roadway elevation-wise, curbing-wise, that requires a review by the professional engineering, probably a firm. We could probably do it in-house, but it's even a little... something that we'd probably want one of our on-call designers to look at. So it's, in my opinion, it's outside of the scope of what they're obligated to do. My idea of saying, well, they're obligated to restore it back to the condition it was or better, that obligation, my idea in item 12 was to say, well, MWR is doing that already, so can we take that obligated money and use it elsewhere or contribute to improvements on Riverside Avenue? And I have since received correspondence from Ms. Cuddy that the opinion of National Grid, and she can obviously speak to that, is that that wouldn't be possible from a legal standpoint. So I did reply with similar language to what I just made as far as what they're obligated to do when they open the street and to try to figure out a way to use that obligation somewhere else. But they're pushing back on that, and I'll let Ms. Cuddy speak to that.
[Marks]: So Mr. President, if I could. And I appreciate the city engineer. So it's my understanding that the MWRA is going to pay for the resurfacing and the striping of the portion of Riverside Ave that's going to be torn up. This also states that National Grid is supposed to contribute to the final restoration project. Whereas the MWRA is paying for it, that money that the national grid would be kicking in goes into, just say, a different pot now. And the city engineer said, okay, we'll take that different pot and we'll use it for other paving in the city. So my request two weeks ago was rather than looking at other paving areas in the city, that's put it towards Riverside Ave. We know there's work that needs to be done on the curbing and so forth. So I can appreciate the fact that this is not part of the scope of the overall project. What I'm asking is as a city that that money be dedicated to the curbing on Riverside Ave. I don't know what the actual final restoration cost is. So is there any indication what this would cost National Grid or what money they'd be giving to the city?
[McGivern]: I'm not sure if that work has been. has been done, it would, you know, if you were to calculate it based off of square footage of asphalt based off of the length of a trench they're doing. And again, I think last week when we talked about that, I thought that seemed like a reasonable approach to have a contribution to the curbing redesign effort, basically. I thought that was reasonable. And again, I received correspondence, legal type correspondence from Ms. Cuddy, pushing back on that. And I've since replied, saying that, you know, that's a cast iron line in Riverside Avenue. It's gotta be replaced anyway. There isn't only a sole reason that they're doing this project. The Riverside Avenue gas line needs to be replaced at some point. It's been leaking for, So I thought that was a reasonable approach. I still believe it's a reasonable approach.
[Marks]: So my question to you, Mr. Engineer, is that if we were to allow the resurfacing and striping take place at this particular juncture, that would preclude us down the line for raising our curbing. Or would it make it more difficult? at that particular point to do maybe curbing and sidewalking at a later date?
[McGivern]: No, it wouldn't preclude it. I think there's a question of creep when you talk about pavement and slopes and how you tie things in. So it's always a shame to put down new work and then have to dig it up. a whole bunch of utility work happens, and then they put it back to the way it was, better condition, obviously, than it is today. MWI, I'm talking about. And then if we come in with a curbing and sidewalk design, we're doing something very, very similar on Winthrop Street, actually. The timing of things is such we would prefer to coordinate those two efforts so we're not duplicating work. That would be ideal, and that's what I would strive for. But does it preclude it? No.
[Marks]: So just so I understand, National Grid's exception to this is not the fact that we want to do curbing, it's the fact that they don't want to be involved in curbing, but the money that they give towards the project, we can put towards curbing or whatever we want to do as a community, correct?
[Diana Cuddy]: Not exactly.
[McGivern]: Yeah, I was going to let Ms. Cuddy respond to that.
[Diana Cuddy]: So we've been asked by MWRA to move our gas main because it's above their main and they need to access it to do the infrastructure work that they want to do. So this isn't a planned project for us. So MWRA will reimburse us to move our gas main to this other location, which I'm here requesting the grant location for. But any additional costs, this is a different type of grant allocation because it's a main replacement versus a new main where we pass additional costs to the customer. This type of added cost goes into our rate case, which then is paid by the customers. It's inequitable to have gas customers paying for road improvements and non-gas customers not, or people in other communities paying for road improvements in Medford. So our legal department is really starting to scrutinize this type of stuff and push back. This got their attention because 1,500 feet times 30, 40 feet wide times $7 a square foot, which includes the police details of, you know, $400,000 that we would have had to incur and pass through the rate case for a project that we didn't initiate on our own. So, you know, so this funding for the paving isn't really something we're, we can do at this point. Like I said, I'll be back next week with another one for a customer who is willing to pay for these these other charges because it's to service them and their need. And so we as National Grid will pass that cost on to the customer. It doesn't go into the rate case and it is an effect, you know, people trying to make ends meet with their utility bills.
[Marks]: Right, right. I mean, I think we're well aware of projects like we're going through right now with 3.2 miles of Eversource coming through the community that gives zero benefit to this community other than ripping up our streets, 3.2 miles of our street, and we get zero benefit. So I think we can appreciate the fact that National Grid is doing this on behalf of the MWRA. My question is then the way this is worded. It says the scope of the MWRA section 57 project includes resurfacing and striping. So from what I understand is the MWRA is going to pay for resurfacing and striping. Am I correct with that?
[Diana Cuddy]: Yeah, because they're the last ones in. We're moving our gas main.
[Marks]: OK, just so the MWRA is paying for resurfacing and striping the portion of Riverside Ave. Then it goes on to say the engineering division requests that National Grid, not the MWRA, National Grid contribute the cost of final restoration to other paving in the city. So it's our engineering department requesting not just MWRA do their surfacing and striping, but also now that National Grid pay something towards other paving projects in the community. Is that not correct?
[McGivern]: That was the wording, yeah, you got the wording correct. And since last week, I said that your approach sounded reasonable as well, and I'd be open to changing.
[Marks]: Right, but from what I'm hearing now is that the other project can't be us putting that money into curbing on Riverside F. Not National Grid, us as a community going off on our own and putting that money into curbing on Riverside F. Is that what I just not heard?
[Diana Cuddy]: from Tim or from me? From Tim? You were saying that it involves, to bring the curbing up to, I mean, you can correct me, Tim, but then now the sidewalk's too low. That's a trip hazard. And you're creating.
[Marks]: We would replace the sidewalk as well. We wouldn't just raise curbing and leave the sidewalk.
[Bears]: Point of information. But I just want to make sure. Point of information.
[Marks]: Point of information, Council of Peers.
[Bears]: I just want to clarify. are you saying that no payment will be made at all regardless of the purpose?
[Diana Cuddy]: Right.
[Bears]: Okay.
[Marks]: I'm sorry, I didn't hear what Councilor Bears said.
[Falco]: Councilor Bears, can you repeat your question, please?
[Bears]: My question was National Grid is saying that no payment will be made regardless of the purpose, and I believe Ms. Cuddy's answer was yes, no payment would be made.
[Diana Cuddy]: An arbitrary amount, like, you know, just some
[Marks]: OK, so the request from the engineer that would be voting on tonight that states that National Grid would contribute to the final cost is now different. That's for Tim. Anyone that wants to answer it.
[McGivern]: National Grid is pushing back on that. National Grid does not want to have
[Marks]: Okay, so if we were gonna vote on this tonight, we're voting on this language that's in front of us, and we're hearing that they're not gonna honor this language. That is what you're hearing.
[Diana Cuddy]: Yeah, because the scope of the work, 1,500 linear feet times whatever, whether it's curbing on both sides, it's 3,000 linear feet, or the paving of the street curb-to-curb. Like I said, that comes to about $400,000,
[Knight]: Point of information, Mr. President? I don't think anybody behind this rail cares how much it costs because once you guys pack up your trucks and put your shovels in your car and you drive away, we're stuck with the mess. So we don't really, I don't think anybody back here cares what it's going to cost National Grid.
[Diana Cuddy]: Well, it's costing the rate payers and legally, there's a legal obligation through our rate case.
[Marks]: Right, so let me, just so I understand. So if we made it as a condition, this says the engineering division recommends that the grant location be approved with the following conditions. Now, he doesn't recommend it unless it has these conditions. Am I correct, Mr. Engineer?
[McGivern]: Well, it becomes a legal question because National Grid is pushing back and saying, we don't think item 12, we can do that legally. And from my understanding of the research I have done since we spoke last and what the legal obligations are, according to my understanding of it, the legal obligations when street opening permits happen to utilities would be to repair the surface, to the condition it was or better. So you're putting it back to the way it was or better. So there's a cost associated with that. That national grid is not paying for this project. So I'm recommending that that value be still put into Riverside Avenue.
[Marks]: From who?
[McGivern]: So if this was only National Grid doing this work, then National Grid would be obligated to repair Riverside Ave to existing condition or better. So back to the way it was. But they don't have to... Right now, MWI already has that scope, so MWI would be paying for that. They don't need to do that.
[Marks]: So why can't National Grid go back to the MWRA and say, you know what, we applied for a permit and the city's requesting these conditions. And if you want the work done, these are the conditions they're requesting. Why can't that be done? I understand National Grid's the middle man, but they're the ones applying for the permit. And if we're saying that we want X, Y, and Z done, these are the conditions, and National Grid says we can't do that because legally we can't obligate ourselves to fix that that way for whatever reason, they can't do it. Then they need to go back to the MWRA and say, this is the pushback from the city. The city wants X, Y, and Z done in order for you to get this project moved forward. I don't understand why we have to back off as a community. Point of information, Mr. President? Point of information, Councilor Layton.
[Knight]: What this sounds like to me, Mr. President, is almost, you know, the street opening permit gets issued and the street gets ripped up and there's an obligation to restore the street to its previous condition, right? And if we have one entity that's gonna do that and pay for it, there's two utilities that are involved, MWRA and National Grid. Well, the obligation is to restore it to what it was. So it's almost like a double recovery, right? We're getting paid for the same scope of work twice, but it's only getting done once. So I think that's what the preclusion is. We're getting paid double time. for the work that's being performed because one entity's responsible for it. The person that closes the street's responsible for that. So that money's getting spent by them. And that's going into the community to restore it back to that original condition. Anything above and beyond that, I think, would be like a double recovery on the impact of the mitigation, you know what I mean? On the impact of the assessment above and beyond their obligation. That's what it sounds like to me anyway. But I can understand what Councilor Marks is saying. We were given a paper here that says, approve it with these conditions and these conditions aren't being met. So I guess the question is, does the city engineer want us to approve it with the conditions that he's put forth aren't being met?
[McGivern]: Through the chair, what I would respond to that is that those are my recommended conditions. The council does have the ability to change, you know, to adjust that. You know, I've granted permission for that to happen. And I think it's reasonable the way that Councilor Marks described how he would like to change that. And then the last time we met on this, I said, yes, that was reasonable. And I would be more than willing to support that change in language for that item 12. And then also, if the council has an understanding here that what National Grid is saying, and if you agree with that and you want to strike out in 12, then I believe you can do that as well. So I mean, I'm always put in the position to say, the utility company is coming to town. What should we be looking at? What is the scope that they should be doing on behalf of the city? So that's what I'm always trying to do. So I'm trying to get what I can out of this work. And I would respond to Ms. Cuddy as well. I don't think anybody was looking for $400,000. I think it was a contribution based off of
[Marks]: Exactly, exactly. A contribution towards that particular project that we will do as a city. We weren't looking for National Grid to take on that project.
[Scarpelli]: Point of information, Councilor Scarpelli. So my question's simple. We've always done this for these recommendations. Curb to curb is what we're always, we're stressing. The permit, requested permits coming from National Grid. The only question I have before I vote no on this is why can't we have MWA, why isn't MWA asking for this permit as pot as this? Because right now, the answer I want to vote on this is to make sure that that street is put back the way we said. And what we just heard from National Grid and the representative, they're not doing that. So why should I even vote for that?
[Diana Cuddy]: Oh no, I believe MWRA will restore the road curb to curb and the parts that are not under their scope where we're tying in on a side street about 30 feet on a couple of side streets. We will also, since we're disturbing it, we're bringing that also back curb to curb. M, oh, I forgot what I was gonna say. MWRA, Well, so yeah. I think what I was going with is they don't, I guess my understanding is they don't need a new grant of location because they're not moving their location. We have to move ours so they can get to theirs. And Tim, you can correct me if I'm wrong on that.
[Hurtubise]: You are correct.
[Diana Cuddy]: Okay. But they already have a permit, I think, too, right? Yes. They already have a permit? Yeah.
[McGivern]: They own easement rights in Riverside Avenue.
[Falco]: Okay, Councilor Marks, you had the floor. There are a number of points of information, but there are a number of Councilors that want to speak. So I wasn't sure, did you want to continue your questioning or?
[Marks]: Mr. President, I would just ask that we get a commitment tonight from National Grid that a portion of funds be allocated to curb work on Riverside F. And that could be discussed between the city engineer and National Grid. And that's what I thought this originally was requesting. And I just wanted to make sure that what the request was that it stayed on Riverside Ave, because the original request was that that money be spent somewhere else in the city for paving somewhere else. So I understand what National Grid's stating. I understand that. I would just hope they make a commitment tonight. If they don't, I cannot support this paper, Mr. President. based on what I see in the community. I don't think the city gets a fair shake, to be quite honest with you. Everywhere you look, they're digging up our streets. They're a mess. They're never put back the way they should be, Mr. President. You've got sinkholes everywhere in the community. You've got double poles all around the community, you see popping up everywhere. And these utility companies thumb their nose at us. Mr. President, to be quite honest with you. And if they want to come up and move their pipes underneath the national grid, it's going to move for the MWRA, let them figure it out. Let them figure out, Mr. President. But I'm not going to stand around, Mr. President, while we talked about these curbs. And I live off of Riverside Ave, not this general area, but I live off of Riverside Ave, and I witness, Mr. President, every time I go by there, curbs that are level with the street. And the gentleman that called me up just recently that his front stairs were totally annihilated, brick stairs at the Conner Locust and Riverside Ave. If anyone remembers that, a cop plowed right into his home, Mr. President. And partly because that the street is even with the sidewalk. Partly because the person was probably a bad driver, God knows what else was going on. But it lends itself, Mr. President, for a very dangerous area. And if we're going to do total work like this, that's complete the work, Mr. President. And if the city has to step up and put some obligation, fine, but let's get it done now. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Falco]: We have Councilor Peers, Councilor Ntuk, Councilor Morell, Councilor Peers.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Tim, in your opinion, does the delay to the spring need to be included in some way in this petition?
[McGivern]: No, through the chair, the default position is no work after November 15th. So they have to ask permission from the DPW commissioner and myself before any work would be allowed in there.
[Bears]: Great. And then just getting back to this question of coordination, have you been made aware of or do you have confidence that MWRA and National Grid We'll do the timing on the project in the spring so that the road is open for the, you know, is the road going to be open for months, or are the projects going to go one, two, and it'll be addressed relatively quickly?
[McGivern]: If I understand the question correctly, it will be sequential. It won't be at the same time.
[Bears]: No, sorry, not at the same time. Is there going to be a gap between the two projects where Riverside Ave is cut up for six weeks before MWRA gets in after National Grid finishes their portion of the project?
[McGivern]: So the state-of-the-road post, immediate posts work, utility work, is a temporary asphalt patch. So you see them all over the place. So when we're getting ready, or another entity is getting ready to do a full resurfacing, you put temporary patches down, which is asphalt, and they're obligated to be at the same slope and level and quality as the existing pavement around it. They don't last as long, obviously, and they deteriorate quicker, but once MWR is complete, then service happens. So how long the lag between the projects, I don't know. I'm not sure if there's someone from MWRA here to talk about that. But there would be a lag. I just don't know exactly how long it would be.
[Bears]: Yes.
[McGivern]: Or what it would be.
[Bears]: Got it. That's just something I think, when this comes back to us, it would be important to have, National Grid to have from MWRA some commitment that they'll be able to come in quickly after National Grid does its portion of this work. Thank you. Yeah. We want the same thing.
[Diana Cuddy]: Thank you. And I just had two things. One of the other things that the city council had asked for is a representative from National Grid with a cell phone number. So the project manager on this job is most likely going to be Matt Carmody. He thinks some of the members of the city council have his cell phone, but he'll provide that to everyone and it will go on the letter notifications for people to call. And the other thing before I forget, with regards to the double poles, National Grid reached an agreement with Verizon that we own the pole going in and Verizon's in charge of coordinating the other utilities to come off the old pole to the new pole and they own it going out. So I have a phone number at Verizon for this particular thing and I'll send it over to Tim tomorrow that might help you with some of the double poles in town. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Pierres. Let's see, Councilor Nait, then Councilor Morell. Councilor Nait.
[Knight]: Thank you, Mr. President. So, Mr. President, what I'm hearing here is the city engineer saying Riverside Ave is a mess. Riverside Ave needs a new gas line. It's leaking everywhere and the city has been requested it for some time. I'm hearing Ms. Cuddy saying that this isn't a planned project. This is a project that we have to do. Most likely, they're holding their nose in doing it because the MWRA has an easement. And because of that, they're not willing to expend any extra dollars or resources in our community. That's the way that sounds to me, Mr. President. MWRA wants the work done and they have an easement, so now they're willing to do the work. The city was calling for the replacements of the gas mains due to the leaks, and they weren't willing to do the work. This was not a planned project. So I guess the question is, if the MWRA didn't want to do this work, would National Grid ever even be looking at replacing this gas line?
[Diana Cuddy]: No, this wasn't a planned project, which took a little while to design over because of COVID. So no, this wasn't an immediate future.
[Knight]: Right, so we have a street that has multiple level 2 gas leaks on it, that we've all made phone calls on, that National Grid wasn't willing to fix, but now they will fix it because the MWRA needs access to their easement. We are getting some community benefit out of it, in my opinion, Mr. President, because if the project doesn't go forward, the gas main doesn't get fixed, right? So at the very least, we're getting the gas main fixed with the approval of the paper. But I commend the councilor in his position on this because This is something that we have all talked about, but most significantly, Councilor Marks, the level of the pavement on Riverside Ave with the sidewalk is something that, as long as I've been on the council, he's been talking about. And I don't blame him for pursuing. If he sees an opening, pursue it. Try to get through that crack and get that money. So I certainly have no problem with that. And I think that he's doing a great job advocating for the residents in that neighborhood. On the side of things, on the flip of the coin, we are getting 1,500 new feet of gas main that wasn't going to be replaced. And based upon the commentary of the city engineer, that gas main does need to be replaced. And it's full of leaks. And the city's been asking for it to be replaced. So it's a catch-22. It's a conundrum, Mr. President. That coupled with the fact that the grant of location for MWRA has already been issued. And they have an easement. They're replacing their pipes in the same location that they're granted to exist. So they're not going to have to come before this body again. But the people that are going to have to come before us are the National Grid. So I can see exactly why National Grid is on the hook for some of this. I'm of the inclination to support the paper just based upon the simple fact that the gas line wasn't going to be done ever in the foreseeable future. The city engineer has indicated that it's one that does need to be done. So that's going to be a benefit to the community. However, I will support my council colleague. this evening if he's looking for more information or the like. Just from my view of it, Mr. President, it feels as though this is a forced project, a project that's being forced on national grants. So they're not really willing to discuss anything because they don't have to. They have to move it. And then MWRA is coming in and MWRA already has the grant. So they're not really over a barrel.
[Falco]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just have two questions. The first for Ms. Cuddy. So you said that the MWRA is who is going to start work in April. That's correct?
[Diana Cuddy]: We need to go in first. Their pipes are much lower underground.
[Morell]: So National Grid will be starting in April? I'm sorry. I just want to make sure.
[Diana Cuddy]: Yeah.
[Morell]: OK. National Grid starts to work in April. OK. Thank you.
[Diana Cuddy]: Or earlier. If it's not a bad winter, we could start earlier. And that better guarantees seamless us coming in and MWRA coming in behind us because we're not geared up for all the jobs that parade out of the gate. So if we have a mild winter, which I don't think we will have, but if we do, and we can start in March, that will help with some type of seamless progression.
[Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[Diana Cuddy]: Point of information, Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Mr. President, do we have any understanding what level leaks exist within this span of work? What level gas leaks, I believe there's level one, two, and three. What level leaks are within this span of construction?
[Falco]: Tim, do you want to talk to that or National Grid?
[Diana Cuddy]: Yeah, well, I can. So level one, a grade one leak is an emergency leak. A grade two leak is a leak that's discovered and needs to, by regulation, needs to be repaired within a year. Internally, we've added a, level 2A to our classification. And those are more, you know, like it's a grade 2 leak in front of a school or, you know, in front of a facility like that. So those we try to get fixed in six months instead of a year. And a grade 3 leak is a leak that just is under surveillance. It's surveilled, surveyed every year. And, you know, just the classification stays the same. Or if it gets worse, it grades up to a 2 and then a 2A, and then it's fixed according to those regulations. But how many leaks are in that section, I don't have that answer.
[Marks]: I don't know that. My question wasn't how many leaks. What level leak is in that particular area? Are they grade one, two, or three?
[Diana Cuddy]: Well, it couldn't be grade one, because a grade one has to be fixed immediately upon discovery. So I would say they're either two or three.
[Diana Cuddy]: Two's have to be fixed within a year or six months.
[Marks]: Right, which is very common in the city of Medford. We have hundreds of them. around the community, hundreds and hundreds of grade level two and grade level three leaks. And I realize this wasn't a planned project, but by no stretch of the imagination, we're replacing these because they're leaks that are emergency in nature. So I would differ with my colleague a little bit. I appreciate the fact that he may see this a little different, but these aren't leaks of emergency nature. This is work being done on behalf of the MWRA, which has nothing to do with gas. Right? They have nothing to do with gas. They're looking at their own piping underneath the gas lines and naturally have to move gas lines in order to get to their piping. So I think that's why I believe strongly the MWRA should be ponying up some money into this project, Mr. President. Like we do with all other projects, like the Eversource and so forth, that we look for mitigation. And I don't see that other than just resurfacing and restriping an area that we're getting any mitigation on this project, we're getting disruption. And a lot of it, Mr. President, in a highly traveled street. So again, I will not be supporting this paper on behalf of area residents, Mr. President, because I don't think we've done our due diligence as a community to negotiate with these two particular utility companies in order to get the utmost benefit on behalf of our residents and our city, Mr. President. So I will not be supporting this paper tonight.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Morell, you had the floor.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. So my second question, um, through the chair is actually for Tim. I'm just curious, based on the conversation we've had tonight, um, how often are these conditions that we vote for? Do we, does the utility come back and say, you know, I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you're talking about. No, thanks. Like, is this an is this an aberration? Or does this happen commonly where we vote on something and then the utility doesn't agree to it?
[McGivern]: So the something that this doesn't happen is that often as far as I've been around. I personally receive pushback like this. You know, I try to stay reasonable with my conditions and the law and, you know, things that make sense to do. So, first time.
[Diana Cuddy]: I can add to that. The reason is because when we come before the City Council for a grant allocation for a main extension, It's because a customer has prompted that request. They need gas service and they pay for the main to be extended and the service to be connected. And they also agree to do road restorations or other conditions that are brought back. This particular, when it's a main replacement like this, this goes back into our rate case, which then goes to the DPU and then is passed on to the customers. So... Yeah, thank you.
[Morell]: I understand National Grid's reasoning. I was just trying to get more information from our city engineer as we, you know, we see a lot of grants and locations. I was just trying to get clarity on that. Thank you. That's all.
[Falco]: Okay, thank you, Councilor Morillo. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Again, not to beat a dead horse, but Councilor Marks makes a good point. We've just listened to our traffic engineer who said this doesn't happen. I too think that unfortunately, Ms. Cuddy, the MWRA is in front of us right now, National Grid is, so I cannot support this paper either. So thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Are there any other questions from the council before we move forward? Okay, at this point, I call upon the clerk. I believe at the last meeting we had, there were a number of amendments that were made to this. Is that, am I correct?
[Hurtubise]: Yeah, I'm looking through my notes at the last meeting. I apologize, I switched notebooks in the middle of that meeting.
[McGivern]: But one was the Opticom system.
[Hurtubise]: One was the Opticom system. One was the installing the Opticom system one was to look at the intersection of Riverside I think it was locus and and also have the city engineer Redigitize some of the underground utility plans after consulting with the superintendent of wires There were a number of amendments that were added on last week. I don't have those. I'm going a little bit from memory To redigitize those drawings and then And then I believe you, Councilor Marks, you had an amendment on about making sure that there was full repaving and curb restoration.
[Scarpelli]: Which we just discussed. And that cell phone, we asked a representative to have a cell phone. Yes, correct. And I believe Ms. Cuddy said. They haven't answered yet.
[Hurtubise]: No storage of equipment or materials in the public way, absent a mitigation agreement. Correct.
[Falco]: And Ms. Cuddy did mention earlier that she would have someone with a cell phone number, people would be able to contact.
[Marks]: So, Mr. President, while we have the city engineer on, has he had a discussion with the head of WIAS, Mr. Randazzo, about the OptiComm system at the corner of Riverside and Locust Street, which is used to allow ambulances and emergency vehicles to pass through quickly at major intersections?
[Falco]: Mr. McKibbin, could you comment on that, please?
[McGivern]: I didn't touch the Steven Dalzell, but I caught Blake in my office, and we do have the capacity to do that. I wasn't aware of the exact request on that one, but I know we have the capabilities to do that. And it is something I think we're looking at moving towards the future. And also, while I'm speaking, I might as well put in there, someone would need to deal with item number 12, just to change that language. to have it be a contribution to Riverside Ave, sidewalk design, as opposed to paving the city.
[Scarpelli]: I think that... They've already said no, point of information. They've already said no, they're not going to. So I think that's futile, I believe.
[McGivern]: Right, I was just talking, if it's voted on now and it's item 12 is the condition, then that's the condition that gets passed. So that's why. All right.
[Falco]: So are you recommending to change the language then, Tim?
[McGivern]: I am, well, right now the language, the language in item number 12 says contribute to paving elsewhere in the city. Councilor Marks, brought up the idea of having it spent on Riverside Avenue. And it sounds like a sidewalk design scope. And I don't know what that value is or what that project looks like. That has to all be evaluated, but it'll be a contribution to that. So I would recommend that that language be revised in item 12, regardless of how this vote goes down or national grid's position on item 12.
[Marks]: So Mr. President, I believe I offered the language last week, but I'll do it again, that item 12 be amended to read the engineering division requests that National Grid contribute the cost of final restoration to Riverside Ave curbing project. So I'll add that, however, Mr. President, knowing what we heard tonight from the representative from National Grid, that they are not going to fund such a project or even partially fund a project. Mr. President, I will not be supporting this. And I would ask my fellow colleagues, in order to send a message to National Grid and the MWRA, let them go back and work this out, that we do not support this, Mr. President. even with this language, because this language is, as Councilor Scarpelli stated, a false sense of security. Because ideally, I believe we've all, not ideally, I believe we've all heard that it's not going to happen, Mr. President. So that's why I will not be supporting it, even with that language. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: This question is for Ms. Cuddy, Mr. President, through you. Based upon what I've heard, it sounds like National Grids not willing to do anything extra because they don't have any rate payers to pass the cost off onto.
[Diana Cuddy]: No, we definitely have rate payers, but it's not equitable. It's actually, we're not legally, we have a legal obligation to, um, to the rate payers. And we actually have a rate case that's being submitted now. So it's through the legal department and they're happy to talk with the city solicitor. One of the things I was just going to mention is that an open-ended contribution like that with no maximum limit or something like that isn't something I have. the ability to- Point of information, Mr. President.
[Marks]: Point of information, councilor. Mr. President, no one's looking for a blank check.
[Diana Cuddy]: No one's- But it's worded that way, I know.
[Marks]: I know, and we can word it, as you see, we're the legislative body. We can word it any way we can strike an agreement tonight. So if you're willing to strike an agreement, we're willing to word it that way. But by no means are we looking for a blank check or an open-ended proposal. We're asking that you contribute towards a project that the city will implement and work on, having nothing to do with your scope of service. And if we can get that commitment tonight, you'll have my vote. And I don't know where other people stand, but if not, you may have to go back to the drawing board.
[Diana Cuddy]: But I was just going to suggest that, you know, something like that can be, you know, we still have to get the permit. It can be in condition of the permit.
[Knight]: Once we give you the permit, what leverage do we have to get everything?
[Diana Cuddy]: When there's a more definitive plan, a definitive engineered drawing, because that has to be designed.
[Knight]: Mr. President, through you to Ms. Cuddy, does National Grid have a charitable division?
[Diana Cuddy]: We have a lot of charitable divisions. We, different initiatives for green communities, for elderly people that can't pay their bill. Yeah, they're really pretty good about that.
[Knight]: Certainly, in lieu of this language, the city would be very willing and welcoming a donation equivalent to the amount of money that it would have cost for us to have that portion of the street resurfaced. And then those funds can be placed in the general fund and then appropriated whichever way we'd like to see them appropriated. So there is opportunity and options, it sounds like.
[Diana Cuddy]: I have to check on that. I don't know if they're blanket donations. I think you have to apply for whatever the program is. They give out incentives for replacing your heating system and no interest loans and things like that.
[Knight]: When we built the park right across the street over here, National Grid gave us five grand.
[Diana Cuddy]: But did you have to apply for it, right?
[Knight]: No. We asked, can you give us a donation to build a park? And they said, yep, here you go. Crystal Campbell Peace Garden, here's five grand. So now we're asking for a donation to build some sidewalks.
[Marks]: But I can look into it. Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Marks. Mr. President, I think what Councilor Knight just brought up a great suggestion. Maybe if we lay this on the table for one week, asking the representative, Ms. Cuddy, to go back and ask whether or not they'd be willing to give the amount of the resurface and the striping towards the curbing. if they would be willing to make that type of commitment to the city. Or any commitment to the city, I don't know the cost.
[Diana Cuddy]: So- $400,000, that's the cost.
[Marks]: So $400,000, so if we can get some type of- We'll take half. You got a deal? If we can get some type of commitment, Mr. President, between now and next week, I'd be willing to support this, Mr. President. And like I said, it doesn't have to be done under their scope of service. This will be something that the city will embark upon at a later time. But I would ask if the representative is amendable to that. If she doesn't think that will happen, then I'm prepared to vote no tonight.
[Falco]: Ms.
[Marks]: Connie, would you be able to comment on that?
[Diana Cuddy]: Well, I honestly don't think they have programs like that for that type of a donation?
[Marks]: I'm not looking for a program. That was Councilor Knight. I'm looking for you just to make a commitment, a mitigation commitment to this city to put funding within, uh, the curbing for Riverside F. And if you can't, I can appreciate you can't make that commitment, but if we give you a week, are you willing to come back or?
[Diana Cuddy]: I'll ask again, but that is the condition that drew the attention of our legal department, which prompted me to reach back out to Tim because Like I said, $400,000, that goes back to the rate payers. And it's just not- Who's coming up with this $400,000 figure? Get off the $400,000. Maybe if you downgrade that a little bit from the $400,000, we'd be happy with a commitment, as I think the council mentioned, even 50% of that, we'd be happy with that type of commitment.
[Marks]: I think that would go a long way to doing sidewalks and some curbing. It's not the entire lane, if you look at it. There's some sections that don't need to be done. So I think that would go a long way. So if you're willing to do that, I'd be willing to lay it on the table for one week, if my council colleagues see fit.
[Falco]: Ms. Cuddy, would you be willing to go back to the people that you would talk to about this?
[Diana Cuddy]: In the meantime, maybe the city solicitor could reach out to our legal, our legal team, and just, they could kind of iron this out a little bit more definitively. But yeah, I'm happy to bring it back and come back. I'm going to be here next week anyway, so.
[Marks]: Motion to lay on the table for one week, Mr. President. Pending response from National Grid on the mitigation response for the curbing on Riverside Ave. Thank you, Councilor Markswell.
[Falco]: I motion by Councilor Markswell to lay it on the table for one week. seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, Clerk Hertovich, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Stephanie Kelly? Yes. President Dela Cruz?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The paper is tabled for one week until our next meeting, which will be Tuesday, November 17th. Thank you.
[Diana Cuddy]: Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Falco]: Notice of a public hearing petition. Actually, do we have someone off from Comcast? Let's make sure we have that first. Is he here? There he is. One minute. Okay. Notice of a public hearing 20-621. petition for grant of location, Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, underground electrical, I'm sorry, underground electric conduits, manholes, wires, and cables, Medford, Massachusetts City Clerk's Office. You are hereby notified. By order of the Medford City Council, public hearing will be given via Zoom at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 10th, 2020. A late to be posted no later than Friday, November 6th, 2020 on a petition of Comcast Cable Communications Management LLC for permission to lay and maintain underground conduits and manholes with the wires and cables to be placed therein as requested in the petition dated October 2nd, 2020. Files herewith and available for inspection in the office of the city clerk Under the following public ways and ways of said city of Medford, City Hall Mall, locating the existing conduit in front of City Hall and placing a two by three vault over the conduit. From this newly placed vault, excavating a place one, four inch PVC conduit, 136 plus or minus across City Hall Mall to number 26 City Hall Mall. On the motion of Councilor Knight to waive the reading for brief synopsis by the city engineer. Seconded by Councilor Bears. Clerk, you're to please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Let's see. Did you want to hear from, was it the city engineer? Yes, let's go. Tim McGivern. Tim, if you could give us a brief synopsis of the project and talk about some of the conditions that you placed on this.
[McGivern]: I can't do that. Comcast should speak to, it is their project, but a summary, they would like to bring conduit, I believe it's one or two four-inch conduits from the island in front of City Hall, the grass island in front of City Hall, to across City Hall Mall in the approximate location of where the stop line is on City Hall Mall. to Salem Street, to the business right there. I forget exactly what the business is. So that would be this project. And this is a, it's going across the street. It's not longitudinal on City Hall Mall. City Hall Mall was paved in 2015. So I'm recommending that they pave a swap, basically, from an existing seam to a point on City Hall Mall. I forget the exact number. I think I wrote it in the condition. So to bring it back to the way it is today. So that's what we try to do with the five-year guaranteed streets. And there's also some trees that are nearby and some sod work that they'll need to do to restore the island. And then I'm recommending that they They keep an eye on it for a year. So they own the sod and the trees, any tree work that they do for a year. And I'm also recommending that they coordinate with the tree warden on any tree trimming or root work that needs to happen to get by the island trees. I think that's a summary.
[Falco]: Thanks. Thank you. Dave, would you like to speak to the project?
[SPEAKER_02]: Yes, Dave Fullerman, Comcast. I'd like to speak in favor of the petition.
[Falco]: Actually, David, if you could just give us a brief synopsis of the project, then we'll open up the hearing for those in favor and those against. So if you could please just give us a brief synopsis of the project, anything that the city engineer left out.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yes. Thank you. So we received a request from number 26, City Hall Mall, and it is Artist Health that has requested our service. Therefore, we put together an engineering plan. We submitted it. for the petition. And we're basically hoping that, and I know it's late in the year, but we are hoping that we will be able to hopefully get the service to this customer this year and not have to wait to the spring, especially where it is for a healthcare facility.
[Falco]: Okay. Thank you. At this point, I declare the public hearing open, open to anyone in favor of the proposal. Dave, I assume you're in favor. If you could please give me a name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_02]: The following nine Forbes road.
[Falco]: Okay. Anyone else in favor of the petition that would like to speak? Okay. Hearing and seeing none. I declare this portion of the hearing closed. Anyone in opposition to the petition? Anyone in opposition? Okay. Hearing and seeing none. I declare this portion of the hearing closed. Are there any questions from the council?
[Knight]: Councilor Knight. So as I understand this, Mr. President, this is going to come straight across the street from my parking lot, cut a little bit through our parking lot underneath some bushes and trees, and then go right to the Harvard Vanguard building.
[Falco]: Is that correct?
[Knight]: Thank you very much.
[Scarpelli]: Mr. President. I just have one. So again, could you just explain the patchwork? I just don't, I just want to make sure that the roads aren't left, uh, with divots later on. And, um, even if it is going across our parking lot. So is it just trench work? Is it not curb to curb?
[McGivern]: Obviously I could speak to that. Yes.
[Falco]: Mr. Engineer, if you could please speak to that, that would be great.
[McGivern]: Sure, I'll just pull up the exact wording of the condition, President Paco. Yep. So there's an existing seam and stop line on City Hall Mall. So City Hall Mall was paved from that scene all the way back to Riverside Avenue not too long ago. This is a guaranteed road. So because they're making a proposal to cut into it perpendicular as opposed to longitudinal. There's no curve to curve, it's not even an option. So I'm having them offset three feet from the trench to give plenty of space. So there's a good wide patch, I guess you'd call it, from one side of City Hall Mall to the other. And one of those seams would be hidden in the stop line. So that's the theory. So at the end of the day, there will be a seam where there wasn't one before. But there's no way around that.
[Scarpelli]: All right, Tim, now being that it's later in the season and we're right in the cusp of the deadline, how long do we have a guarantee that if it doesn't sink or have issues later, even if it is three feet?
[McGivern]: If we were to allow them to work past the winter moratorium, I would recommend, and this is typically what we do in my office, that they don't do the final paving in the same season. That results in compaction issues, so it sinks basically. So when we're talking about a final mill and overlay, we want to wait at least a season, and hopefully it's a winter season. We haven't even made a decision if we're gonna let that, this is the first I'm hearing tonight if they wanna do this in the winter. So there's lots of things that myself and the commissioner would need to look at before allowing that to happen.
[Scarpelli]: All right, thank you.
[Falco]: Okay, any other questions from the council? Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Would any of those items that the engineer needs to look at and discuss with the commissioner result in potentially further recommendations for conditions of approval?
[McGivern]: They would be, one of the things that I set up in my office is called an MSE. It's a winter moratorium exception. So any requests or conditions on a street opening permit would be tied to that moratorium special exemption. I get it.
[Knight]: Thank you. Thank you. Perfect. Thanks Tim.
[Falco]: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the council? Okay. This was approved by the engineer with the following conditions.
[Knight]: Move approval, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Second. On a motion of Councilor Knights, seconded by Councilor Bears. Clerk, please call the roll for approval.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice President Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knights. Yes. Councilor Martins. Yes. Councilor Morell.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Falco.
[Falco]: Yes. Sending the affirmative, zero to the negative. The motion passes. Motions, orders, and resolutions.
[Caraviello]: Motions, orders, and resolutions 20624 offered by President Falco be it resolved that as this meeting of the Medford City Council is taking place on November 10th, the 245th birthday of the United States Marines and on the eve of Veterans Day, that these proceedings be dedicated in appreciation to the many contributions of all veterans, especially all Method women and men who have served us in the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, and National Guard. This service has provided all of us with the freedoms that we enjoy, freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, and the due process of law. And further, that on this day, the Medford City Council extend happy birthday wishes to all Method residents who have served us in the United States Marines. As Marine Commander John Lejeune said that when the state was first recognized, since the birth of the corps, Marines have acquitted themselves with great distinction under the term Marine has come to signify all that is the highest in military efficiency, and soldierly virtue. President Falco.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President. Thank you, President Gabrielo. I just wanted to acknowledge those who protect us by their service to our country. And on behalf of the Medford City Council, just say thank you to everyone. And also, happy birthday to the Marine Corps. So thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, President Falco. On the motion by President Falco, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Council Knight. Yes. Council Marks.
[Caraviello]: Yes. Council Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Vice President Falco. Yes.
[Falco]: Sorry, I called out of order. President Falco. I was just saying yes to the seven affirmatives.
[Caraviello]: Seven affirmative. Zero negative. Zero negative, motion passes.
[Falco]: President Caraviello, if I may suspend the rules to take a number of resolutions out of order.
[Caraviello]: Yes, you may. The motion by President Falco to take papers out of order. Second.
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Caraviello]: Second by Councilor Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Caraviello]: Yes. 7 in affirmative. Motion passes. Offered by President Falco, be it resolved that the DPW paint the crosswalks and stop lines at the intersection of Tinker and Park Street in the interest of public safety. President Falco.
[Falco]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I was walking through the neighborhood just about a week ago, through that Tainter Street, Park Street neighborhood. And I couldn't help but notice that the crosswalks in the vicinity of Roberts Elementary School, that particular crosswalk in that location needs to be painted. Looks like it hasn't been painted in quite some time. So I'd like to request that that be painted ASAP in the interest of public safety. And if I could amend the resolution that if the DPW could please just check into the various crosswalks in the vicinity of each of our schools to make sure that they are painted, or if they need painting, painted as soon as possible, since we do have students that are attending schools, and if they need to be painted, we should make sure that that gets done as soon as possible. It should have been done by now, but we just need to make sure it gets done as soon as possible. Move approval.
[Caraviello]: Second. Any other discussion? The motion by President Falco, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Caraviello]: Yes, 7 in favor, motion passes. 2-0-6-3-1, offered by President Falco, be it resolved that the DPW have the street sweeper clean the parking lot at the Roberts Elementary School in the interest of public safety. President Falco.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. As I was walking during the same tour, I was actually walking through the neighborhood, walked into the Roberts Elementary School parking lot, and I was talking to one of the neighbors. And I guess during the summer, parking lot. There was a portion of the parking lot. I believe that was maybe used as a staging area for some work that was done, I believe, in the Salmon Street location. And I believe there was a pile of dirt that was left that was basically in the parking lot. The dirt has been removed, but there's still a layer on the ground there that, you know, It's a bit of a safety hazard. It's blowing into people's yards, windows, if they have their windows open. So if we could please have the street sweeper, if the DPW could send the street sweeper by to clean up that lot in the interest of public safety, I'd greatly appreciate it. Move approval.
[Caraviello]: A motion by President Falco, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Bears? Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight?
[Caraviello]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, affirmative motion passes. 20632 offered by President Falco, be it resolved that DPW rake the leaves, trim the bushes, clean the soil of Tainter Street entrance of the Roberts Elementary School parking lot. President Falco.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. Just the Tainter Street entrance of the Roberts Elementary School, it's The trees that abut the neighbors on the side, a little bit out of control, they need to be trimmed back. And the sewer, the Tantor Street entrance is covered over with leaves. I don't think it's been cleaned in some time. So if we could please have the DPW go by and clear the sewer and clean the drain out, clear the leaves and trim the bushes in that side of the parking lot. I greatly appreciate it. Move for approval.
[Caraviello]: Motion by President Falco, seconded by Councilor Bears, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Caraviello]: Yes. Yes, 7 affirmative motion passes. 20633 offered by President Falco being resolved that the crack sidewalk panels in front of 248 Park Street and 44 10th Street be replaced in the interest of public safety. President Falco.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. 248 Park Street, the panel is raised and it's a trip hazard for anyone that's walking down Park Street. Actually, I'm sorry, that one's cracked and it's got a number of cracks in it. It's right near the, I guess the, It's kind of like right out there on the corner. So there are a number of cracks in that panel that really, it really needs to be replaced. It's definitely a trip hazard to anyone that's crossing in that location. And the panel at 44 Tanker as well, that has lifted up and definitely a trip hazard. So in the interest of public safety, we could please add those to the list of sidewalk panels that need to be replaced or repaired. Move approval.
[Knight]: Mr. President, if I may offer a B paper in relation to this, it's also related to sidewalk panels. Only this B paper is related to the sidewalk panels that would be located outside of the former Lawrence Memorial Hospital. Just this past week, we had a bit of work being done along that stretch of Lawrence Road between, let's say, Governor's Ave and Lawrence Road, right to the entrance, the old entrance to the emergency room, Mr. President. And they ripped up the sidewalk panels, and they did some work, and then they put sidewalk panels packed down. And we used to have nice gray concrete sidewalk panels, and now this asphalt cold patch. So I'd like to ask the question. to our friends at Lawrence Memorial Hospital as to whether or not this is a temporary or permanent patching. Because I certainly do not find it acceptable that they take out the concrete sidewalking, which quite frankly, there was nothing wrong with, and replace it with this asphalt sidewalking, Mr. President, that doesn't fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Well, actually, it does fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Actually, it doesn't, Mr. President. The reason it doesn't is because if you look directly across the street, At the bottom of Summit Road, you'll see seven sidewalk panels that are gone, that haven't been there for five months. All right, so on one side of the street, we're tearing up the entire side of the street that has a nice concrete sidewalk, and we're replacing it with black asphalt. And across the street, where we have a stump that needs to be taken down, the stump's been there for, I don't know, I think it was 11. Now the sidewalk's been ripped up, but the sidewalk hasn't been replaced. So on one side of the street, we're tearing it up and we're replacing it with an inferior product. But on the other side of the street, it's just being ignored, Mr. President. So I believe that's something that needs to be addressed in post haste. And I'd offer that in the form of a B paper, and I thank the council for bringing this measure forward.
[Caraviello]: And thank you. On the motion by president Falco, seconded by councilor Beers. On the B paper offered by councilor Knight.
[Bears]: Second.
[Caraviello]: Seconded by councilor Beers. Mr. Scarpelli. No, I'm good. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Bears. Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Morell]: Yes.
[Caraviello]: Yes. Yes. Yes. 7th affirmative amendment passes. The B paper passes on the original motion offered by president Falco seconded by count by councilor biz clerk. Please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, 7 in the affirmative, motion passes. Motion to revert to regular order of business.
[Bears]: Second.
[Falco]: On the motion, a motion to Council of Mayors, seconded by Councilor Knight to revert back to the regular order of business. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Caraviello]: Vice President Terrio. Yes.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Stroud-Billings. Yes.
[Falco]: Yes, seven affirmative, zero negative, the motion passes. 1-9-660. On the motion of council night to table the ordinance amending, actually, I'm sorry, to table the promote, prevent, support behavioral health commission ordinance, seconded by?
[Knight]: Mr. President, the reason I offer the table is because Councilor Marks made a number of amendments when we took this paper up and those amendments still have not been integrated into the document.
[Falco]: Okay. So we will table that until we can get this updated. Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: If I may, yeah. And also I believe I had one change as well in the representation section that wasn't made. And I've also found a typo in the attendance section. Just if we want people to send us back the right document, the last sentence of the section attendance, the word or after the word absences should actually be R-A-R-E.
[Falco]: Where's that again?
[Bears]: If you go into the section attendance, I think it's the third section. In the last sentence after the word absences, it should read are not or.
[Falco]: Do you have that change? On the motion of table offered by Councilor Knight, seconded by?
[Bears]: Second.
[Falco]: Councilor Bears, Clerk here to please call the roll. Councilor Bears?
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. Yes. Yes. 7 affirmers during the negative. The motion passes. We already took up two zero five five nine two zero six two five offered by consular marks. Whereas public safety concerns raised almost two years ago to city officials by residents living in the neighborhood of Fulton spring road, bells at Murray Hill road and fells out of terrorists have gone without any response or relief from the city. And whereas it's known known fact that many roads in North Medford are used as cut-through, and whereas the Medford City Council requested that a complete traffic study be done of the entire area to help alleviate concerns of area residents regarding speeding and cut-through traffic. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council hold an on-site committee of the whole meeting on either Saturday, November 21st or Saturday, November 28th, and invite area neighbors, police, Chief Buckley, City Engineer Tim McGibbon, Traffic Engineer Tom Blake, Mayor's Office, and DPW Commissioner Brian Kearns, Catholics.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I know some of my colleagues that live in the area are very familiar with this. We all recall when we had the meetings at St. Francis back a couple years ago, and there were a number of area residents that came down regarding speeding, cut through traffic, lack of signage in the Heights area. And I thought really, Mr. President, at the time we had all the players at the table, and I really, really thought some movement was going to happen. And now it's been two years, Mr. President, and other than some signs that are restricted use only during rush hour and resident only signs, there's been very little done, to be quite honest with you, in regards to trying to alleviate some of the concerns of area residents in that neighborhood regarding cut through, regarding speeding, and so forth. We did request, Mr. President, that a complete comprehensive traffic study be done. Does anyone behind this reel know of or read or aware of this comprehensive traffic study?
[Knight]: Are they referring to when Officer Brooks did traffic counsel there for the Thanksgiving weekend a couple of years ago, maybe?
[Marks]: That may have been part of the study, and Officer Brooks does a great job. But Mr. President, I'm not aware of any comprehensive traffic study that resulted from this council's request over and over again. residents request over and over again, Mr. President. And it's quite troubling when you have area residents that call you up and say, whatever resulted with the meetings that we had at St. Francis? Whatever resulted with the traffic commission that was going to look into speeding cars and cut through traffic? Whatever resulted from the additional signage that we spoke about on Fulton Spring Road, Fels Ave, Murray Hill Road, Fels Ave Terrace, that particular corridor, Mr. President? which is still a bone of contention for many, many area residents. I don't have to tell you that, Mr. President. You're well aware of the concerns and have fought just as hard to get something done in that particular area, Mr. President. I had a resident call me the other day. It said, we as residents were concerned about a four-way stop at Rockland Road, Fels Ave, and Fels Ave Terrace. And they asked for a four-way stop. They were told by someone within the police department or the traffic division, well, what you need to do first is get together a petition. Then you're going to get more than 50% of the area residents to sign the petition. And we'll entertain it with the traffic commission to put up a four-way stop. And I'm thinking to myself, Mr-.
[Knight]: Is that the same process that they use, Councilor Marks, to put up all those pylons all around the city and what they did down in Tufts Square?
[Marks]: That's an excellent point. I'm not sure what that process was, but I can tell you, Mr. President, it's one thing to say that you're looking to get resident permit parking on a street and to see if there's a buy-in from the area residents. I can see that, Mr. President. I may not agree with having someone go out and do the legwork, but I can see why that's done. But to get basic signage regarding four-way stops, Mr. President, there should not be a need of area residents to get together, sign petitions, do the legwork. It makes absolutely no sense, Mr. President. That should be an issue that's presented before the Traffic Commission and let them do their homework. No reflection on the traffic commission, but I've stated this for years as a member of the council. We used to have a traffic commission and then an off-street parking commission in the city. And people would say, how do I get this done? Well, I'm not sure, you may have to go to the off-street parking commission or the traffic commission, maybe they don't handle that particular item. We finally merged both back some years ago. We finally merged them together, so it's one stop shopping. However, Mr. President, I hate to say it, but the chief of police in his capacity with a department of over 100 people in a major city is also the chair of the traffic commission. And in my opinion, no reflection, I know many of the members and they do great work. It's a reactionary body. They don't go out looking to make improvements, Mr. President. They just wait for stuff to come to them. And I think it's long overdue that we look how we operate the rules and regulations and how our traffic commission operates, Mr. President. Because it's too much of a process to get quick turnaround and things to happen quick in the city. Because you may get something through the traffic commission, but it may take you eight months to get the sign. Erect it. It's just an issue, Mr. President, that needs to be attended to. And like I said, I hope I don't offend anyone, but when you see something that needs to be attended to, after so many years, the traffic commission's created by, I believe, the state legislature. It was a home rule petition that creates the traffic commission and so forth. It needs to be looked at. It possibly needs to be revisited. A couple of the concerns I had with area residents. that I tried to bring to the chief's attention. I'm still waiting for phone calls back from the chief from weeks and months ago. Multiple phone calls. I realize he's a busy man, but guess what? In that capacity, you have to delegate. If you're that busy that you can't return a call to a resident or an elected official or whoever it might be, then maybe you should practice the art of delegating and having someone follow up, Mr. President. I went to him because he was the chief. And I have to say, I am very disappointed in not getting a return phone call, though. Common courtesy. It wasn't on my behalf, Mr. President. It was on behalf of the residents that are so angry, Mr. President, that they see no results on meetings, city meetings, and so forth. But yet again, I'm going to call for another meeting. And that's what this resident said, and we're going to have more of the same. And it's hard for me as an elected official to say, you know what, the other meetings we had at St. Francis, we tried to do something but nothing resulted. This onsite meeting, hopefully we'll get the chief, hopefully he'll participate. I know he's busy, hopefully we can get him. Hopefully we'll get the mayor. The mayor has stated when she ran for public office, she stated unequivocally, I'm gonna be before that Medford City Council. I believe even one time she said, they'll see me so many times, they'll get sick of me. I know it's COVID, Mr. President, but the line of communication is not there. It's not there, it's lacking. That's why I'm asking for an on-site visit, Mr. President, with the traffic engineer, with the head of DPW, with the mayor, and our office, and the chief of police. And I would hope, Mr. President, as I put two Saturdays down, the weather's still fine, COVID's out there, but we can meet outdoors in a safe manner. and inviting area residents to let us know what they go through on a daily basis, dealing with the traffic and the cut through. And this is during COVID. You guys see it, it's starting to pick up again. It had a lull for a little while and it's starting to pick up again. And residents are very concerned, Mr. President. So I would ask with all due deference that you set up those meetings, Mr. President, on one of the other dates.
[Falco]: I can do that?
[Marks]: This is an extremely important issue. This is happening throughout the entire community. We have to get a handle on what's happening on our streets. We've got to take back our roads. We have to make it safe for pedestrians, bicyclists, cars, anyone that wants to traverse, Mr. President, our roads. We have to make it safe. And clearly, what's happening up the heights right now is not safe. And a few signs that are put saying area residents only or restrictive use doesn't take the place of enforcement, doesn't take the place of additional signage, Mr. President. And my second point, the Connor of Doonan and, Doonan and, that's the next one. I'll leave that for the next one, Mr. President.
[Unidentified]: I am on a roll.
[Marks]: But it's the same issue, Mr. President, and that I'll leave for the next one. But I would hope my fellow colleagues, Mr. President, I know they all support this. And I'm sure many of them are tired of hearing of it. But guess what, Mr. President? It still remains a concern. And maybe our public safety, I think Councilor Bears, are you the chairman of public safety subcommittee? The public safety sub, it may not be you, but we really need to have a public safety summit, Mr. President. I've been calling for it for years. And I've still yet to get a buy-in from the city administration or the chief of police to call for a public safety summit. And it's long overdue in this community, and maybe we as a council have to call for the meeting. Because clearly this administration and the chief of police have other things that they're embroiled in right now, and it's clearly not safety in this community. Thank you, Mr. President. Anybody else like to speak?
[Falco]: And if I may, I want to thank Council Marks for bringing this forward as I very well know how painful the traffic is in this area. I live on Fulton Spring Road and I think I've told you before. I'm not getting out of the morning. That's how bad the traffic is. Even during the pandemic did a lot of for a while. But even during the pandemic, you know, it's it's an issue in the morning. And I even between the stop signs of and I can speak this person because I live there. The stop signs between Fulton Spring and Fulton Street in Fulton literally the traffic, it's like people race to get from one stop sign to the next. And it, it is, it is a safety hazard. And I've, I've talked to the, um, to, uh, Sergeant Hartman about this before in the past. Uh, so he's, I think everyone's well aware of it, but you're right. These things need to be addressed. And the last time I, because I would get a lot of calls with regard to, um, traffic in the morning because pre-pandemic the traffic literally used to go up Fells Ave and down the other side. It was like a parade of cars. And I think that what happened was at one point they were trying to go before the Malden traffic commission to see if they could shut down kind of the traffic coming in on the Malden side. But I think Malden said no to it, I think. But that's something we could discuss at the meeting. And I think that's why they couldn't alleviate some of the traffic. But we need to look at something. You are 100% correct. It needs to be addressed. So if you don't mind me asking now, is everyone available on the 21st of November? Is that I can get on it right away? No. Okay, we have a no.
[Knight]: 28th doesn't work for me, Mr. President, but I'd just like to ask that a robocall be made to all the residents of the streets for whatever date you do decide. The 28th is right after Thanksgiving. I'll be traveling.
[Falco]: Also, what time are we thinking? The 28th would be an issue. What time are we thinking? That also has an impact. I mean, I would say probably preferably in the morning.
[Knight]: We're going to have neighborhood residents. We don't want to wake them up at six in the morning.
[Marks]: Why don't we set it for the 21st and what time works? Is a better time?
[Morell]: 10 or 11.
[Marks]: Why don't we set it for the 21st at 11 o'clock? Carr Park. And say Carr Park.
[Knight]: Let's meet right in that area. I prefer to be right in that area. I think we might want to meet at John's house and he'll have b-boys for us.
[Marks]: I second that. Let's meet right in that stretch, Mr. President. You pick an area. Fulton Street and Fern Road. Yep, a corner and we'll meet right there. If you want to do Fulton Spring and Fern.
[Falco]: Okay, so let's do the 21st. Is it 11 a.m. or 10 a.m.? What works best? 11 would be great.
[Bears]: Is everybody on board with that? You can do that.
[Falco]: Yeah.
[Bears]: We're saying 28th at 11?
[Falco]: No, 21st.
[Bears]: 21st at 11. Yeah, that works.
[Marks]: And I second Councilor Knight's robo-call.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Scarpelli]: I'm afraid to go closer to Murray Hill Road. It's too dangerous.
[Falco]: On the motion of Council of Marks second of I vice-president Cobb yellow or Kirby's please call the roll As amended by Councilor Haynes.
[Marks]: Mr. President, just so we are all under the same impression, that the roll call go out. First we invite all the department heads and so forth, and the roll call go out requesting that the Method City Council is requesting this meeting.
[Falco]: Okay. You said as far as invite, as far as, make sure you get the list of people that we want to invite.
[Marks]: Chief of Police, City Engineer, Traffic Engineer, DPW Commissioner, Mayor, And mayor's office, anyone else? I mean, I think that covers.
[Knight]: I think we have to be cautious. I think we have to be cautious. Um, if we have so many people from the traffic commission, then they'll reach a quorum.
[Marks]: Just tell the chief, the chief, you know, it's fine.
[Knight]: He's the head of the traffic commission.
[Falco]: That's good. I'll put that together.
[Knight]: It's in the ordinance in the resolution.
[Marks]: Yeah. Yeah. Right, that cover, I may have missed the street or two, so. I mean, does that cover Fulton Spring Road, Fell's Ave?
[Knight]: Murray Hill.
[Marks]: Murray Hill Road.
[Knight]: Twice, and it doesn't have Rockwell.
[Marks]: You want to add Rockland Road? You want to add Fern?
[Falco]: Yeah, Fern Road. Yeah, Fern Road.
[Marks]: Let's hit that chunk of area.
[Scarpelli]: Where the Agapinos live right there.
[Falco]: Yeah. So you have Fern Road, Fulton Springs, Wells Ave. Westfield.
[Marks]: How are you? Westfield and some of the- West. Rova.
[Falco]: Yeah, because then you get like, if you have Rockland, then you want like Vista Ave, Lookout Road. There's a bunch of- Yeah, yeah.
[Marks]: I'll go whatever you want to send it out to. We'll figure it out. Okay. Yeah. Sounds good. It'll be sent to the whole ward. It's not a bad idea.
[Scarpelli]: at Fellsway West. The last one we got people from Parris Street if you don't mind.
[Falco]: On the motion of Councilor Mark, seconded by Councilor Knight as amended by Councilor Knight.
[Hurtubise]: Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. So the affirmative is here and the negative, the motion passes. 20-626 offered by Councilor Marks, be resolved that the four-way stop at the intersection of Doonan and Park Ave be discussed in the interest of public safety. Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And actually, this was an intersection that we ended up getting after many years of four-way stop at the corner of Doonan and Park. Some of the signs that were erected were put back in an angle that makes it very difficult for people coming into the intersection of Park and Doonan. And from what I'm being told by area residents, that people are blowing right through the four-way stop, not stopping at all, just going through. They believe partially it's the inability of people to see the signs when they're approaching because of the angle. Now, I had a discussion with Chief Buckley. We were going back and forth with a couple of the residents and the chief, and the follow-up wasn't there. I reached back out to Chief Buckley, and the follow-up still wasn't there, and the calls weren't returned. And that's why it's on the agenda, Mr. President, which is unfortunate. But I'm asking, Mr. President, in the interest of public safety, that the chief of police, along with his traffic division, go out and take a cursory look at this particular intersection and see what may be the underlining problems. Why cars are blowing through this intersection, if it's how the signs are faced, the stop signs are faced or not. And also, Mr. President, the residents asked for, no one wants to get ticketed, but they asked for increased enforcement. And it happened for a short period of time, and then it got brushed aside. And people are real concerned about safety and concern of area residents in that area, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you. On the motion to cut to 05, Vice President Cabiela.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I sympathize with Council Marks and the people doing it in the park. I live on a street that's got a four-way stop sign. There's not even a stop sign there. Before, people used to slow down when they went through it. They just don't even, I mean, I can see them going down the street. I mean, they're not even putting the foot in the brake. I don't know if it's the way people just driving nowadays. Everyone's in a hurry, more than they've ever been. And part of the problem is you've got so many more delivery drivers now. Not only in trucks, but like DoorDash, GrubHub, all these things. These guys are all trying to make a buck during these times, I know it's tough. You see them, they just fly through these stop signs, and there's no consideration for the neighborhood. And I live a block from the Brooks School, and even during school times, no one stops at these signs anymore. I hope that the traffic department can figure something out to slow these people down in the city of Medford.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. On the motion of Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Bears]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. Seven. The affirmative zero in the negative. The motion passes two zero dash six, two seven offered by consulate Morell. Be it resolved that the Medford city council request that the city administration installed pedestrian crossing signs at the Winthrop street crosswalks at the intersection of place, Ted road in the interest of safety. Consulate Morell.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to continue on the night's theme of pedestrian safety and safety, which I say in jest, but I mean, obviously there's countless intersections we could probably bring up due to people's love of Medford as a cutthroat to get many places, among other issues. But I know everyone here knows just how dangerous this area is. It's where Playset hits Winthrop. You have the cemetery entrance right there. You have the fells. There's a high, a level of pedestrian traffic. There's a high level of road traffic coming down 38 from Winchester. The cars just fly. And there are two crosswalks that are there. They're fairly faded on the north and the south side of where a place that hits Winthrop. And they may as well not be there. Anytime you see people out, people wait there forever. Cars will never stop for them. On the north side of the intersection, it is so incredibly wide that if you're lucky enough to have a car stop for you, Oftentimes, cars will fly around that car while people are in the intersection, and it's amazing that worse hasn't happened there, considering how dangerous this is. And again, during COVID times, there's even more people out walking, biking, getting to the fells. There's more people trying to get through these crosswalks, really to no avail. And I did see that on the traffic commission agenda for this week, there is a request for a slow for children sign at around at around those same crosswalks. So obviously people are concerned about this. There's a high number of school kids trying to get to and from in the area. And not for nothing, I realize there's a deer crossing sign in that area. So all I can ask is if we've got a sign for deer, can we at least get a few signs for people? I've talked to Todd and Tim about this. I know this entire intersection is something they want to work on, but I really think we need to do something in the interim to just get some signs up to let people know about the crosswalks that are there so people have a better chance of getting across safely. So I move approval.
[Bears]: Second.
[Falco]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Morell. On the motion of Councilor Morell, seconded by Councilor Bears, Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Mr. President, I thank the council for bringing this forward and there's another contributing factor to the dangerous intersection and that's our MBTA buses. at that location. And what happens is we'll have MBTA buses that come down. That's the terminus. That's the loop. So that's where now the route ends and starts right in front of the cemetery. And we'll see buses that come down and they stop on Winthrop Street right at the end of Place that Road, making it very difficult for cars. to come out of place that road, take a left or a left-hand turn to go down Route 38 into Winchester. So what you're seeing is a lot of cat and mouse. And we're also seeing a lot of these buses that sit there for 10, 15, 20 minutes idling. abutting the woods. So, you know, I think that's also a problem. And in the past, we've passed council resolutions asking them to not put the buses there, to move the buses to a different location, to line them up along, place that road if they're making the loop, but those have fallen on deaf ears, Mr. President. So that's not the contributing factor. So I'd like to ask that we ask the traffic commission to review the location where the bus stop is and make recommendations to see if that's something we should move. Okay.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Councilor Knight for bringing that up because absolutely there is one bus that idles and creates a complete blind spot if you're trying to cross in one way. Then also buses make U-turns there, which I understand they need to turn around somewhere, but it creates a really unpredictable traffic patterns for cars and pedestrians alike. Again, it's a really dangerous area. I thank Councilor Knight for highlighting that.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Morell. On the motion of Councilor Morell, seconded by Councilor Bears, and seconded by Councilor Knight, Clerk Ker-Gibbs, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Ker-Gibbs? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Strunk-Kelly? Yes. Councilor Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. 2-0-628 offered by Councilor Bears, be it resolved. by the Medford City Council that the residents of Medford are encouraged to attend the MBTA public meeting on Thursday, November 12th at 6 p.m. via Zoom regarding service cuts and changes for our area Minuteman Region 2. Registration link and additional information can be found at mbta.com forward slash events. Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Due to the ongoing neglect of the state government, it's looking like public service cuts are coming down the line across the board. You know, not willing to tax the billionaires who made $17 billion since March. So instead, we're going to start cutting bus routes in Medford and start not funding our public services, our public schools, our public colleges. which is a shame, but there is a public meeting this Thursday by Zoom regarding service cuts and service changes that are being proposed. There is also now, I believe, a map which can be downloaded into a list on the MBTA website of various service cuts. The MBTA is proposing completely cutting two bus routes in Medford, the 326 Express and the 710 bus in the Fulton Heights. The small bus is completely cut and also reducing service on every single bus route in the city and the commuter rails on both the Wellington side and on the West Medford station, reducing service on the Orange Line. And who knows, probably reducing service before it's even started on the Green Line extension, which is just an absolute shame. So there is a public meeting. I encourage residents to attend this Thursday via Zoom to at least try to protest this issue. But it's just an absolute shame and just absolute neglect by our state government that would impose these massive public service budget cuts at a time when most of us are hurting so badly, people need public transit to get to work, and at a time when the, you know, 20 richest people in the state are doing twice as good as they've ever done. So I encourage residents to try to do something about this, to speak up about it, to attend this meeting on Thursday. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Bears.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Bears. Bring light to this. I know that after hearing the news this week, my plan was to hold a subcommittee meeting, talk to the president, and I know we're meeting next week with the DOT to talk about the Main Street and South Street intersection, and I will follow up with the meeting. We have so many questions lately with the T right now, and now with the services being affected, I think we need to really get ahead of this right now. So I'll be asking the Council President to find some time for us, at least early December, for a subcommittee on transportation. So thank you again, Council Bias. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Knight]: Councilor Layton. Mr. President, much like the airplane noise, they're not going to listen to us. They need to listen to the residents. So with that being said, I got two words for you. Robocall. I think it might make sense for us to ask the administration to do a robocall alerting residents of this meeting. I know a lot of us have transitioned from working in the city and relying on public transit to working at home. But there's going to be a day where we all have to go back, and when we do have to go back, I think that we should have a quality service, the service that our assessments reflect. So with that being said, I'd ask that a robo-call be made as part of this paper.
[Falco]: Councilor Knight, Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: And if I may, Councilor Knight just brings up an essential point. These are not things that can be easily replaced once they're gone. Once they're gone, they're not coming back quickly. It'll take months, if not years, if ever, to get them back. We know what happens when service gets cut on the MBTA. It never comes back, so thank you, Councilor Knight, and thank you to all my colleagues.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight, thank you, Councilor Bears, Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. President, we have one of the highest assessments in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the T. I would hope that if there's going to be cuts, I would hope that our contribution to the T also gets reduced. I mean, every time we turn around, they're hitting us for more money, and more money, and more money, and not providing the service that they were promised. If cuts are made, I would hope that our contribution also gets cut, what we pay. Because I think we're the fourth or fifth highest payer to the T. Vice President Caraviello, good point, and you are 100% correct.
[Falco]: And this is a very important issue. Councilor Bears, I thank you for bringing it forward, especially if you look at somewhere like North Bedford, Fulton Heights, the 710 bus. Once that goes away, that means North Bedford is pretty much not serviced by any type of public transportation, which is unfortunate. because people do actually use that bus. So thank you for bringing this forward. Councilor Knight, great idea with regard to the robo call because people need to get involved and they need to rally around this.
[Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Councilor Bierce for bringing this up. You know, it's no secret the MBTA, even before COVID, has been trying to cut service for years, Mr. President. You know, for an agency that's responsible for public transportation, I've never met a group of people that are looking to cut services constantly. And I can appreciate they're dealing with the budget and so forth, never ending. You know, I just read an article that We're creating dedicated bus lanes. We're creating rapid busing. And then in the same breath, we're cutting bus service. Does it make any sense? It makes zero sense. And COVID, we've been dealing with COVID since March. It's now November. So they wait, what, seven months to figure out that bus service ridership is down? It took them seven months to figure that out, and now they want to make these draconian cuts across the board. I was watching the news tonight, they're cutting ferry service for the salt shore. They're cutting across the board some deep, impacting cuts. And as Councilor Beals mentioned, once it's gone, it's going to be very hard to get it back. The 326 and the 325, as you know, Mr. President, those are vital lines that take residents into town, vital to this community. And always constantly on the chopping block. I know a lot of the other routes have been subject to cuts. But those particular lines, for some reason, and you pay through the nose to get on them, those are always the first they want to chop. We had a problem with overabundance of people on those routes, because they were cutting the routes and the limit of the capacity on the bus would be 50 or 60 people. There were 80 or 90 people on the bus. It was like a cartoon you were hanging out the window to take a bus ride. And then we finally figured it out that they had to add some more roots on there. And they did, Mr. President. But the ridership was there. Then COVID kicked in, the ridership's not there. But it's gonna come back. I hope this is temporary. And that's what, everything I've read they're saying, I don't know if it's just PR, that this is gonna be temporary. But I have a tough time believing that, Mr. President. And I hope a lot of residents get on there. But I don't get a warm, fuzzy feeling when I deal with the MBTA. I really don't. It's their way or the highway. No pun intended. It's pretty funny, though.
[Bears]: I think it's just the highway, right?
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you. Councilor Marksley, I agree with you 100%. And we've talked about this many times, especially with regard to the 325 and 326. Those bus routes were more popular than ever. And they were still trying to cut them. And here they are, they cut them. Councilor Bearsley, you're 100% right. You have to fight tooth and nail to get them back. And so, you know, hopefully people will get on the call. Hopefully that will help, but from watching the news tonight, as you said, Councilor Marksley, and I watched it before it came down to City Hall tonight, it's drastic. They're cutting everything, it seems like. So we'll have to keep an eye on that, but hopefully residents will tune in. And Councilor Bears, thank you for bringing this forward. So on the motion of Councilor Bears, seconded by? Councilor Scarpelli. As amended by Councilor Knight.
[Bears]: Just one more thing, and I just want to make this point. The T is making these cuts over $142 million loss. The 18 billionaires in the state have made $17 billion since March. So I just want to make that stark point clear. We're worth less than those billionaires. And that's what the MBTA and the government, the state government is saying. So I just want to make that clear.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. On the motion of Councilor Bears, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilor Knight, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. 70 affirmative. Zero. The negative. The motion passes two zero dash six, two nine offered by council appears to be resolved by the method city council that Tufts university remove construction materials from the sidewalks on college Avenue and keep all Jersey barriers in a consistent and stationary position to avoid encroachment on travel lanes and sidewalks. Be it further resolved that Tufts University adjust the placement of the construction sign in front of the Tisch Gantt Center so it is not blocking the sidewalk, consulting with City of Medford staff or Greenline Extension project staff if necessary. Be it further resolved that Tufts University create and share a policy for contractors and construction partners to ensure unencumbered access to sidewalks and to store construction materials on Tufts property, not on public property, Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. So it's sidewalk night down here, and we're trying to make sure that sidewalks are safe and clear for residents. I think everyone knows all the construction that's going on down by Tufts University. There are a lot of different projects, a lot of different agencies, and a lot of materials out there, sidewalks, Jersey barriers, et cetera. It's been a constant issue for area residents who are dealing with changes week to week, day to day, and seemingly without end. I spoke with Tim McGivern, who is going to work out any issues. He, apparently it is his job to work out these issues between the various contractors, which I appreciate. So he's going to do that on this specific case. And Tufts, I spoke with Rocco DiRico at Tufts, and he assures me that all of their materials are stored on Tufts property. Residents have sent me images of various materials that are clearly changing the sidewalk. And one of the big issues here, is that contractors keep moving barriers and other kind of, essentially, the Jersey barriers are moved six inches one day, six inches the next day. And suddenly, more of the street is blocked off, more of the sidewalk is blocked off. So it would be very helpful if we could get rid of some of this constant back and forth, where residents are seeing they'll complain and things will go back. And then a week later, things have moved back out again. So I'm hopeful that some of these immediate issues will be addressed, but it would be very helpful if folks in that area could work together and make sure there's a policy where sidewalks aren't being blocked for these various construction projects. because we do have issues with pedestrian access in the area. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Knight]: Thank you, Councilor Ferris. Councilor Knight. Mr. President, I certainly support the paper. However, if we think back to, oh, was it about a year ago where this council stood up and fought to ensure that Tufts University and the related construction crews were not staging materials on the field behind Nolwood Road in College Ave. That was a big point of contention when they wanted to create a whole staging area for the whole entire construction project over there. And as a compromise, Tufts University agreed to set up the staging areas where they have down closer to the end of College Avenue at the intersection of Boston Avenue, if I'm not mistaken, Mr. President. So I just want to be clear that a yes vote for this paper in no way, shape, or form changes my position that that field should not be used for a staging area. And I don't think that that's the will of this council either. I just want that to be very clear that the council isn't saying, hey, listen, I know you have all this land back there, so use it. Because we've specifically asked them in the past not to.
[Bears]: And if I may, definitely not the intent. And again, Tufts keeps assuring me that they already are storing everything on Tufts property. So maybe it is just GLX and some other projects, but Some of it doesn't seem like it to me, at least from the photos that I'm getting. So not the intent to use open fields for this, but just have them commit to their commitment to make sure that these sidewalks are accessible.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. Thank you, Councilor Knight. I have a motion of Councilor Bears, seconded by Councilor Knight. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Fleming?
[Falco]: Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Yes. Yes. 70 affirmer of zero in the negative. The motion passes. Reports of committees, two zero dash zero two four, October 27th, 2020 committee. The whole report that was a report regarding the affordable housing trusts. On the motion of council. We'll seconded by council affairs. Clerk Hurtubise please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. 20-602, October 27th, 2020, City Council Caucus Report. That was, we caucused for leadership for 2021.
[Hurtubise]: Move approval.
[Falco]: On the motion of Councilor Knight for approval, seconded by Councilor Bears. Clerk Carter, will you please call the roll?
[Bears]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. I mean, the affirmative zero in the negative, the motion passes.
[Knight]: Motion to take papers in the hands of the clerk.
[Falco]: Yes. On the motion of council night to take papers in the hands of the clerk. On that motion clerk Hernandez please call the roll. I'm seconded by Councilor Scarpella.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Nielsen? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. Seven in favor, reserve the negative. Motion passes. Do you have the papers? You need one minute. The clerk.
[Knight]: I know mine if you want me to read it off.
[Falco]: Do you want to?
[Knight]: It's offered by Councilor Marks and I, Mr. President. Okay. It's offered by Councilor Marks and I. It's a congratulatory resolution and it reads, be it herefore resolved the Medford City Council extend its deep and sincere congratulations on the momentous occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary to Ronald and Joanne Crotty of Playstead Road, Mr. President. And I'll defer to Councilor Marks for commentary as he's the senior member in both age and service.
[Falco]: There you go, Senior Member Mox. You have the floor.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Knight for co-sponsoring this resolution. If you know the Crotties, you know what type of people they are, Mr. President. They're true family people. They are people that love their city, love their neighborhood, are always willing to step up and be the first to commit themselves to whatever they do in our community. 50 years of wedding bliss, Mr. President, goes without saying. When you see Joanne, you see Ron. When you see Ron, you see Joanne. They're like frickin' frack. They go together, Mr. President. They're a perfect match. And I wish them well on 50 years of wedding bliss. And I just want to also say hi to Mary Ann, who is another integral part of Ron and Joanne. And I want to thank my colleague, Councilor Knight, for putting this on.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Hoyt. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Happy anniversary to the Crotty's.
[Knight]: Councilor Marks, that's a great presentation. Growing up in West Medford, you know, the Crotty's house was one of those houses as a kid you knew you could always go to. If you needed a drink of water, you were hungry, you had to go to the bathroom, you were late to go home, and you needed to use the phone to call your parents, the Crotty's had an open door policy. I remember fondly the days of playing stickball down at the Gleason School, and Mr. Crotty coming down, making sure we're all set, bringing us extra tennis balls and waters. Just a great family and I had the great privilege and pleasure of growing up with Jason and Janelle. I spent a lot of time in that house as a child. And to think back now, when I was ten years old, running around in that house some 30 years ago, they were married for 20 years. It's just amazing to me, Mr. President. think about now that I'm here married ten years. And they were already married 20 before I could even think about it. It's amazing. So I just want to wish Mr. and Mrs. Crotty the best of luck. Congratulate them on 50 years and wish them 50 more. And like Councilman Locke said, Marianne Howell is Mrs. Crotty's twin sister. They all go together. We lost her husband Tom a few years back and this council paid tribute. But with that being said, Mr. President, congratulations to Ron and Joanne on 50 years.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Vice President, carry on.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank my two Councilors for bringing this forward. I have known the Crowley's for many years, the little league fields with their kids. Good family, always running, see them everywhere. 50 years, I hope I'm only five behind them. I just want to congratulate them on their 50th anniversary.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. Congratulations to the cronies on the 50th anniversary. On the motion of Councilor Marks and Councilor Knights. Seconded by Vice President Caraviello. Please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. Senator the affirmative. Zero in the negative. The motion passes. Our next resolution that is on the suspension is offered by vice-president Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford city council ask the Medford police to look into overnight parking of tractor trailer vehicles on commercial street.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I think in the last year, we are now the tractor trailer parking capital of the state. Commercial Street, which used to have one or two trucks parked there, is now lined. We had tractor trailers, every day, every, it's to the point where they're now a disturbance to the businesses that are over there. The tractor trailers are parking on Route 16, all along the city yet. Now they're parking on the grass and back of the city yet. I mean, these guys with these stripes, I don't know if they live in Medford, if they're based in Medford, but it's about time that they're going to have to find a place to park and pay like other people do. We're out there tagging the Johnny Diploma. who parks his plumbing truck on the street and he's getting hit with overnight tickets. So it's good for one and it's good for another. These trucks are just, they're overwhelming our city now. It's about time they find a place to park and not on our streets, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello.
[Knight]: Have a good night. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. I think it's also important to point out, Mr. President, that a lot of these people that drive these trucks are actually still in the trucks when they're parked. They're sleeping. They're sleeping. So they're long haul truckers that are delivering foodstuff and products across America. And when they find a nice place to park, they're going to park, and they're going to sleep, and they're going to catch their rest. And we want them all to be well rested, but at the same time, not at a detriment to the quality of life in our community. What Councilor Caraviello is saying is absolutely correct. We've seen an increase, an inordinate increase in the number of trucks that are parked on our public roadways, and it's something that needs to be addressed. Councilor Marks has always had a great idea, and that idea was the trucking unit with the police department. The command of the weight and the size of the trucks that are riding on our public streets, as well as do some enforcement issues like that. So I think that's something that we should revisit, but I thank the council for bringing this forward.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. On the motion of Councilor, Vice President Caraviello. Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Caraviello for bringing this up. The issue on Commercial Street has been brought up for the last couple of years. And I believe there was a sign put up back about two years ago. It says no idling. So the trucks used to park there and idle for hours and hours and hours, so they stopped the idling. But if you're going to stop and shop and come out the commercial street entrance, it is such a dangerous area now because they park the 18 wheelers and you have to literally inch, inch, inch, otherwise you're going to get in a horrific accident. It's really bad. And I think at the very least that this should be sent to our traffic division to have them take a look, Mr. President. I don't know how other communities do it, but maybe we can get creative. And if these truckers want to park for hours in a particular area and take up spots that are not one car spot, two cars, but ten car spots. in a particular area, maybe we should charge them so and maybe have areas on these streets that offer trucks. because as Councilor Knight mentioned, these truckers keep logs and they have to be off the road a certain amount of hours and so forth. So we don't want to encourage truckers to not get their rest, they need their rest. But maybe we should come up with creative ways that we allow a certain number of them in areas that are conducive to this and charge them at the same time, Mr. President. If I have to go put meters in the kiosk when I'm in the square, why can a trucker stay there for 12 hours on Commercial Street? because they're delivering something? Who cares? Charge them.
[Falco]: Good point. Why not? Charge them.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. On the motion of Vice President Caraviello, seconded by? Second. Councilor Bears, Clerk Hertovich, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Ntuk? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morales?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[Falco]: Yes. Yes, seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. Before we adjourn, I'm going to recognize Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Council President. I know that Council Member Mox helped me point out, we had communications to the Mayor from City Solicitor Kim Scanlon. The question that Councilor Scanlon had is at its regular scheduled meeting on October 6th. The Medford City Council requested the city solicitor give the city council an opinion on dealing with open meeting law violations for overcrowding due to fire department protocol on maximum capacity dealing with city council chambers. And she said that the question wasn't clear. So if I could just clear up the question to the city clerk to get back to the city solicitor. The question dealing with opening the council chambers for regular meetings during COVID in relation to the maximum number of people. The question is, what is the opinion of the city solicitor if we reached maximum capacity with rules to the fire department for overcapacity? How does that affect the open meeting law? And in the same scenario, if we put a number to the availability of the chambers using the six feet and so on and so forth, and post that, and we reach capacity, how does that affect the open meeting law. So I know that the city, the public health director has requested that I put together a plan. I'm still waiting for some information from her. to put that plan together. And hopefully City Solicitor Scanlon can get us this information. The good news is they waited long enough that the vaccine looks very promising. So not to make light of it, I'm really excited about it. I think that we're in a good place. Things are moving forward, hopefully with the you know, with these protocols put in place, I still, um, you know, we still have to find a way to open these chambers and obviously with the, the spike, um, making sure that we're doing it, um, thoroughly and, um, making sure that public health is number one priority. So if we could just reach back out to the city solicitor, I hope I made sense this time. I guess that was too difficult last time. So thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you. God bless. Scarpelli. So records, the records of the meeting of October 27th, 2020 were passed to Council. And I, Councilor Knight, how do you find those records? Okay, on the motion of Councilor Knight to table those records, seconded by?
[Scarpelli]: Second.
[Falco]: Councilor Scarpelli, Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. Second the affirmative. Adjourn the negative. Those records are tabled. On the motion to adjourn the meeting. Second. On the motion of Councilor Bears. Motion adjourned. Seconded by. Second. Councilor Scott-Pelly. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Falco]: Yes. Yes, 70 affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Good night. Be safe. Be healthy.
|
total time: 33.0 minutes total words: 5513  |
total time: 9.56 minutes total words: 1699  |
total time: 19.42 minutes total words: 4036  |
total time: 42.12 minutes total words: 6823  |
|
total time: 9.56 minutes total words: 1503  |
total time: 10.39 minutes total words: 1625  |
total time: 5.77 minutes total words: 1190  |
|