AI-generated transcript of City Council 03-30-21

[Caraviello]: Good evening. 13th regular meeting of the Medford City Council. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Bears.

[Marks]: Present. Councilor Falco. Present. Vice President Knight. Present. Councilor Marks. Present. Councilor Morell. Present. Councilor Scarpelli. Present. President Caraviello.

[Caraviello]: Present.

[Marks]: All rise, salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[Caraviello]: Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 order, suspending certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law, Chapter 30, Section 18, and the Governor's March 15, 2020 order, imposing strict limitations on the number of people that may gather or place, this meeting of the Medford City Council will be conducted by a remote participation to the greatest extent possible. Specific information and general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and their parties with a right or requirement to attend this meeting can be found on the City of Medford website at www.medford.org. For this meeting, members of the public who wish to listen or watch the meeting may do so by accessing the meeting link contained herein. No in-person attendance of members will be publicly permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public access to proceedings in real time via technological means. In the event we were able to do so, despite their severance, we will post on the city of Medford or community media website an audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. Okay, break it in. Mary Ann, is Mary Ann on the call here? see, do I see Mary Ann? I don't see Mary Ann. Oh, there she is. Good evening, Mary Ann.

[SPEAKER_07]: Hi, everyone. Good evening.

[Caraviello]: Mary Ann, if you can give us a brief update of what's happening with the vaccinations.

[SPEAKER_07]: Sure. A couple of things I want to go over first. I want to talk a little bit about the case counts and what we're seeing happening here in Medford. I think you've heard on the news lately that everyone is seeing an uptick in cases and that's certainly happening here in Medford. And I just want everyone to be aware that while we seem to be opening things back up and vaccines are on the horizon and things look good, we are definitely seeing an uptick. We're certainly not seeing an uptick like we did with the winter surge, but we were at our lowest in February with 81 cases a week. And as of last week we had 121 cases just last week and our positivity rate is climbing, you know, from a low in February of point seven five and now we're at 1.28 so I just really want people to be aware that we still need to be paying close attention to the guidelines. We know what we need to do and we just have to do it until all the vaccines are out there and we're good. And the age distribution is pretty interesting in that in March to date, we've had 356 cases this month alone. And that's not a good trend, right? We don't wanna see that. But 319 of the 356 are people under 60 years of age. Half of those 356 are people under the age of 30. So again, these are folks who aren't qualified yet for vaccinations, but yet we feel like the spring is here. We're all kind of sick and tired of social distancing and wearing masks. and we know hope is on the horizon, but it's not time to let down our dad. And I just wanna really make that message loud and clear. Vaccination updates, we're going okay. Right now, the state is still very flat in their distribution and what they're getting from the feds. It seems like the federal government is really boosting up their, federal pharmacy programs. So you'll see more CVS is coming online, go to cvs.com. The feds goal is to really have people say 90 90 goal to have folks 90% of the people within five miles of local pharmacies is what they're thinking. So they are going to be upticking these the CVS distribution, which is really the main distribution here in Massachusetts. Although I think a lot more Walgreens will be coming online as well. We did finish up our homebound second doses this week. We finished up 90 homebound individuals. We have another 66 second doses of homebound to do. And the state has opened now their homebound program and people can access that homebound program through calling the state number, which is 833-983-0485. We as the local board of health here at Medford have chosen to do our own homebound. We're not having people have to go through the state program, but if they call that number, they will be referred to us and put on a list. We are expecting to receive vaccines from the state for our homebound. They are supposed to be Johnson & Johnson, the J&J, the Janssen, the one-shot deal that you're one and done. So we are expecting to receive those within the next week or so. So if people want to be put on that list, they can either call us directly or call that state number. We will be doing our second round of doses for the Medford Housing Authority next week. We have three clinics scheduled for Tampone, Walden, Walden, and Wockling next week. We did do 462 residents of our housing authority. So within the next week or two, they will all be receiving their second dose. So that's good news. We are part of that housing authority program with the state as well. One more update. We have our new public health nurse on board, Sarah Harris, who I'd love to introduce you to soon. She's great. And I don't know, many of you do know that Janet, our longtime 13-year public health nurse, retired last September, but hung on with us, gratefully, thankfully, until this month, working as a retired nurse. to do all the contact tracing and all the help with this pandemic. So thank you, Janet. But Sarah is on board now and Janet can finally officially retire and Sarah will be taking over. So I'd love to introduce you to Sarah soon.

[Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. Marianne, it sure sounds like there's a lot going on in your office. You're pretty busy, isn't that correct? A little bit. So how many I guess you're putting in on average, you and your staff.

[SPEAKER_07]: I don't know a lot. It's well, seven days a week, basically.

[Knight]: So 12 hours a day, seven days a week.

[SPEAKER_07]: Close to sometimes Yeah.

[Knight]: And then how many how many members do you have in your staff up there?

[SPEAKER_07]: Oh gosh, we're all working extremely hard. So I have three inspectors, my prevention and outreach staff who have been amazing and totally turned around their worlds and helped with this. So that's Brooke and Penny and Sarar and Alicia. And yeah, so everybody's really been putting 100% towards COVID as well as trying to cover and do their grant work They're real jobs.

[Knight]: Plus this new permitting thing, huh? With LaConti and home.

[SPEAKER_07]: That's not new. I mean, that's a safety guideline we've been trying to do since the emergency orders were put in place. We've been doing safety checks, safety plans on all events. So it's nothing really new.

[Knight]: So you think your office has the capacity based upon the number of hours that everybody's putting in right now to do these? pre-screenings of applications for people that are looking to rent the Hormel Stadium on the Coffey Rink? We've been doing that. We've been doing that since the beginning. No, it was never a pre-screening before you could apply or get placement. It should have been. It should have been.

[SPEAKER_07]: That was the intent. It was supposed to be a pre-screening before approval. That was the intent, and that was what was put in place for all events, not just Hormel or anywhere else, but all events.

[Knight]: So so how's this going to work now can you just explain to me based upon you know the fact that your office is going to be handling the majority of these requests how this permitting is going to work for home Ellen my look on it.

[SPEAKER_07]: We've been doing this since the beginning of Council night I'm sorry I don't understand. Everyone who submits it needs to have it wants to have an event has to submit a safety plan. And that has always been in place.

[Knight]: The fact that we got an email this morning saying that they've made. a number of changes to the way that two of our revenue-generating properties that we have here in the community are gonna be conducted. Now, previously the way it worked would be that the applicant would seek placement at La Conte O'Hamel, they'd be provided placement, they'd be put in the schedule, they'd then have to go through a screening process. And now it looks like that process is backwards or different, it seems like, from what I understood from this email that I got from Mayor Ungo, that she's taking control of some of the authority that the O'Hamel Commission has. relative to how they're supposed to be, you know, scheduling and booking events. And where these are two revenue generating facilities that we have here in the community. And quite frankly, they're very successful. If it ain't broken, don't try to fix it.

[SPEAKER_07]: Yeah, so I can answer that quite frankly, that it wasn't happening the way it was supposed to happen. No events were supposed to be approved or scheduled prior to having approval from the Board of Health on their safety plans. What was happening is that events were scheduled and approved and then given to the Board of Health and then realizing you're gonna have a thousand spectators at an event? No, that's not approved. And these events were already being scheduled. So that's why the change has been made because what was happening, what was put in place with the emergency orders was not actually happening. And I was not getting the ability to approve these events prior to the event hosts thinking they were approved. So that's why things changed.

[Knight]: Is that what happened with Ellington Catholic? Yes. Yes.

[SPEAKER_07]: Yes.

[Knight]: It makes sense, though. I mean, if they have a plan that's in place, I mean, the CDC guidelines are going to be controlling it. You know, we're really... They weren't following the guidelines. That was the problem.

[SPEAKER_07]: They were approved prior to being approved.

[Knight]: Let me tell you what, every single event that took place down there. So I'm pretty sure, you know, they may or may not have. I think that that's a blood accusation. In any organization that hasn't followed the CDC guidelines, I'm sure that your office has taken the appropriate steps to find them and document such, right?

[SPEAKER_07]: If they weren't, they shouldn't have been approved to begin with if they hadn't had proof of them. Not everybody knows what the CDC guidelines are, or they think they do, but then they change the next day. So that's why our office was charged with reviewing all of these safety plans prior to approval. Unfortunately, they were getting approved prior to us even seeing these events. But wouldn't it make sense- That's what happened. I'm sorry, but that's what happened.

[Knight]: Wouldn't it make it more sense from a number one, a consistency of government standpoint, number two, an operational standpoint that- No, not in a pandemic, I'm sorry.

[SPEAKER_07]: No, they need to come to the Board of Health first for approval.

[Knight]: I'm done talking, Rick. I'm done. I'm not going to be able to finish, Mr. President, so I'll just stop right now. Thank you.

[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Mary Ann, for your update. It seems like, again, the clarion call is needed to say that we are not out of the woods and that we are months away, if not several months away, from being able to have gatherings or, you know, anything like that. Um, so I just appreciate you noting that the cases are back on the rise, uh, and that we aren't, you know, we haven't even, we aren't even at the levels we were at last summer. Right. So we are still above the levels we were at last summer. Um, when, you know, we, that was the lowest we've been since this started. Um, so I just wanted to ask, um, has there been any discussion of slowing down Medford's progression through the reopening phases. I know a lot of local communities have said that they feel the governor's approach has been too aggressive. So I was just wondering if you had discussed that or if there was anything on the horizon on that front.

[SPEAKER_07]: We are looking at the data. We're monitoring it closely. If need be, we may have to. But at this point right now with the data, we're okay. But if it continues, It certainly is something we may need to look at rolling back on some of the openings.

[Bears]: Thanks, Marianne. And yeah, I just think we need to stay strong. We don't want our summer to be ruined by trying to do too much this spring. So stay safe and get a vaccine. Thanks, Marianne.

[Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. Marianne, thank you for your update. I just wanted to mention that I did have an opportunity to visit the website this weekend. I think I saw the new pie charts with all of the data with regard to COVID and the different populations that hits and basically you split out, I think by ages as well. So I thought that was actually a good addition to the website. It just tells a better story or a very accurate story as to who it's hitting and who it's not hitting. that type of thing. So I want to thank you for that. I also wanted to welcome Sarah Harris and also congratulations to and thank you to Janet who retired. I just wanted to say thank you for, I think you said it's 15 years of service. So yeah, thank her for her service to the community. Thank you.

[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the Board of Health Director for being on tonight. Mary Ann, could you give us a brief update on where we stand with our application to be a mass vaccination site? And where do we stand with the Tufts University proposal?

[SPEAKER_07]: Yes, good. Thank you for bringing that up. So we have been approved by the state to be a regional vaccination site. We were given that approval last week, maybe, maybe the week before. can't remember, all the weeks went together, but we are still waiting to hear from them, from the state that is, like I said, the state's vaccine allocation has been kind of flattened from the feds as they focus on their federal pharmacy program and the federal community health center programs that they're dealing with now. So we were told by the state that we could have vaccine as early as three five, which is next week. Right. But we have not heard an update from them since. So that was their hope to have us actually receiving vaccine and be able to be up and running slowly. not to the maximum capacity, but to start us off at least next week. We have not heard that that's gonna be the case at this point. There have been several regional sites approved. I think 12 additional regional sites approved. We are one of them, but none of us have heard as to when we will actually begin receiving vaccine. But when we do, that'll be at the Gancho Center at Tufts at least several days a week at this point.

[Marks]: Okay, and I'm sure you're aware of this, but the number one call I'm receiving is the fact that residents have to go outside the city to get their shots, many of which that may be homebound or unable to travel too far. So the quicker we can get this on board, and I realize there's a lot of moving parts, so I'm not pointing the finger at the city, but the quicker we can get a local vaccination site on board would be beneficial to our residents. In particular, we're gonna be opening up, I guess, for everyone over the age of 16, is it? Sometime at the end of April or May. And I think the numbers that are gonna need the shot are gonna quadruple in the city. And I'm a little concerned that we're not gonna have anything set up by that point. So I just wanted to put that out there.

[SPEAKER_07]: Yeah, and we are reliant. We are reliant on whatever we get from the state. We don't have doses. We don't have the doses, we can't give them, but we are reliant on what the state gives us. But if anyone is really considered homebound, they should certainly call our office and we can see what we can do for them as we are now part of the state homebound program.

[Marks]: So are we working with agencies that deal with people that are homebound? to reach out and do some proactive outreach in our community?

[SPEAKER_07]: Absolutely, yes. We're working really closely with the Mystic Valley Elder Services, obviously with that Council on Aging.

[Marks]: So Marianne, what percent do you think we identified of having their first or second shot in the community that are homebound?

[SPEAKER_07]: Well, we have already completed 90. homebound folks with their second vaccination. And we've already done an additional 66 with their first dose and that's even without being part of the state program we did that ourselves before the state even began their program. We did that, we got our 75 plus doses and we realized these were our most vulnerable and at risk folks. And we reached out to MidState Valley Elder Services and to our partners, Council on Aging and other groups to identify these folks. So like I said, we've already completed 90 have had their second dose, which is great. And another 66 have received their first dose. We have now, since the state announced their program and people are actually calling that number, and being referred to us, we probably have another 25 on our list, but are certainly ready to accept additional ones.

[Marks]: Right. So that's excellent work, but I'm not quite sure that I would list it as great because I don't know the total overall number of homebound residents in the community. And if we're talking, you know, vaccinating 10% of them, to me, that's not great. So it's really hard for me to put a handle on this until I have, and I realize you're not going to get exact numbers, but do we know what percent that is?

[SPEAKER_07]: No, I would have no way of knowing that between the several agencies or physician's offices, people reaching out to us. That's the only way we know if they reach out to us, we know. I have no way of knowing how many people in the city of Medford are actually, but specifically by the state's criteria, the state's criteria is extremely strict as to what homebound is. So by that criteria, I really wouldn't have any way of knowing.

[Marks]: So we're really not able to measure a success rate of outreach and making sure our most vulnerable population is getting vaccinated.

[SPEAKER_07]: Well, I don't know we've we've outreached to pretty much every 75 plus person that we've had on our list at thousands and thousands and thousands of phone calls Council, Mark so I don't know. know, we've outreach to pretty much everyone in the community over this last year. So I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I'm really not getting at anything.

[Marks]: I'm just trying to figure out what our numbers are in the community. When I turn on the news, and they tell me throughout the state X number of seniors are already vaccinated. I think I saw a number tonight 16% of Massachusetts, the entire population now has a second second vaccination, which sounds like there's progress happening. But I'm just trying to get a handle on our own numbers.

[SPEAKER_07]: If you go on our website, you'll see by age, the percent vaccinated and 76% of our 75 plus year old seniors have been vaccinated.

[Marks]: Okay. but that doesn't include homebound or may include a portion of homebound.

[SPEAKER_07]: It's all folks, 75 plus. Right, but you could be 50. So that would include homebound. Exactly, exactly.

[Marks]: Okay, so you're saying 76% of what we have recorded have received the second dose.

[SPEAKER_07]: State has recorded.

[Marks]: Say that again, sorry, I didn't get it.

[SPEAKER_07]: That's from the state data that comes out every week, comes out on Thursday evenings. They show you by age, by race, how many people in your community have been vaccinated. And by that, as of last week, 76% of our 75 plus were vaccinated.

[Marks]: Okay, well, I didn't know that number. That's good to hear. Thank you.

[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mary. Any further questions for Mary Ann? No, okay, Marian, I wanna thank you again for being here this week. And if I can give a little shout out to one of our own community, Noah Kreatz, who has been deployed by FEMA out to Oregon to help vaccinate people out there. So just a little shout out to Noah, one of the good young men in our community, a member of the CCSR program. And again, glad to see that he's doing, the young man is doing some good things. So shout out to him. Marianne, thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you again.

[Morell]: Mr. President.

[Caraviello]: I'm sorry. Councilor Morell.

[Morell]: Thank you. I just see that Marianne Broxton does have her hand up, actually, but I guess Marianne just left us, so maybe might not be able to answer.

[Caraviello]: Marianne Broxton, name and address of the record, please.

[Broxton]: Hi, I'm Marianne. I live in South Medford. I just had two questions. I'm sorry.

[Caraviello]: Do we have your address, Marianne?

[Broxton]: 25 exchange 25 exchange out.

[Caraviello]: Thank you.

[Broxton]: So, um, if, if, if Tufts does come online as a mass vaccination site, my questions were, um, would method residents receive priority since it is in our community. And if we do have that as a VAX, as a mass site, does method receive anything financially for having as a site.

[Caraviello]: Mary Ann, can you answer that question? We lost Mary Ann. According to what Mary Ann said last week, that is a mass vaccination site, and it is open to everybody in the state. They do reserve, I think she said 25% of the vaccines, where for the local communities, the surrounding communities, we get a 25% priority. But it is open to, everyone in the whole state. I do not think we get any financial remuneration from them as far as I know. Does that answer your question, Marianne? Marianne?

[Broxton]: She just has to be unmuted. I'm sorry, yeah, I couldn't unmute for a second. Yeah, no, I, yeah, very much so, thank you.

[Caraviello]: Okay, thank you. Any other further questions? All right. Hearing and seeing none, thank you very much. Okay, hearings. 21-191, City of Medford notice of public hearing. A public hearing via Zoom remote video teleconference on Tuesday evening, March 30th, 2021 at seven o'clock p.m. On a petition from Edward Mallet of Mallet Fantasia Auto and Auto Body Repair to operate an auto body, an automobile repair and auto body shop class four license at 38 Harvard Avenue, Medford, Massachusetts 155. in a commercial C1 zoning district. A Zoom link for this meeting will be posted no later than March 26th, 2021. Petition and plans may be seen in the office of the City Clerk of Medford City Hall, Method Mass. Call 781-393-2425 for any accommodations. Councilors, Chairman of Licensing. Do we have anyone in favor of this, here to speak in favor this public hearing. Mr. Mallet? Mr. Mallet? Hold on. Let's find Mr. Mallet here. I think I see him right here. You can't unmute. Okay. Mr. Mallet? Are you unmuted? No. You got it? Hold on one second. We're trying to unmute Mr. Mallet. Pat?

[Marks]: Why not?

[Bears]: Mr. President, uh, I have pressed the button asking them to unmute. Um, they may need, they need to accept it on their end. So, um, you need to press a button that'll come up on your screen.

[Caraviello]: I, I, I did. Okay, there we go.

[Falco]: They unmuted us, Fantasia's autobody.

[Caraviello]: Okay, who are we speaking with now?

[Morell]: It was Fantasia's autobody before, I believe, who was speaking, so I don't think we're having any luck with Mr. Mallett just yet.

[Caraviello]: Yeah, hold on with Brenda. Anything Mr. Clark? Okay, hold on.

[SPEAKER_10]: Mr. Caraviello? Yes. Yes, I'm here. I'm sorry. Mr. Caraviello? Yeah. Okay, I'm here. Is this Eddie?

[Mallet]: Yes, it is.

[Caraviello]: Good, good. Mr. Mallard, are you in favor of this petition?

[Mallet]: Yes, I am.

[Caraviello]: Thank you very much. We'll get back to you. Hearing, seeing none. Is anyone here opposed to this hearing? Hearing and seeing none. We'll close that portion of the meeting. Again, Mr. Mallard. Yes, sir. Thank you for coming out tonight. I'll turn this over to Councilor Scarpelli. Okay.

[Marks]: Hi, Mr. Mallon, how are you? So I've looked at all of your documents, everything seems in order, but I mean, to keep it simple and streamlined, could you give us just a brief synopsis of what's happening with the site that's there now and what you plan to be doing there? I believe it's just a turnover, but if you can explain it, that'd be great.

[Mallet]: It's as simple as that, sir. We have been operating as a gas station in West Medford across the street. And the operation over there at Fantasia, he was kind of retiring. And we just wanted to continue his business over there. So we released his business. We want to continue operating the body shop and we want to operate a inspection station as well over there. Are those changes or those that's already been occurring? There's no changes at all. We're actually trying to reorganize his old company with the inspection and the body shop and the repair.

[Marks]: Okay, perfect. That's all I just want to be clear just because I, um, the way you answered it might've sounded as if you were adding something new, but this is just an existing, um, uh, a body shop, a repair garage that is just changing over, hours operations staying the same, parking for your vehicles are staying the same, everything seems to be in order, correct? Yes, sir. Okay, so everything else I see, Mr. President, all of this paperwork is in order, every department has signed off on it favorably, so I would move approval, pending any questions from my fellow councilors.

[Caraviello]: The motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Seconded by Councilor Marks. Vice President Knight.

[Knight]: Mr. President, I'm just taking a look at the zoning use chart. And I certainly don't have any issue with Millett Automotive taking over this Fantasia Automotive location. I live in West Medford. I know Mr. Millett, I see the type of business he's done down there for a number of years. He's done a great job over there. He keeps his lot clean. He is a good neighbor. So I have no issue or concern whatsoever about his ability or whether or not he'll be a good neighbor at the Fantasia site. But in looking at the zoning use chart, it says that under use 27, the accessory storage conducted entirely with an enclosed structure, the sale of rental motor vehicles, exclusive abuse car sales in a C1 district would be required for a special permit of the council, but it would also be required to be referred to the community development board first for review, Mr. President. I certainly don't have any issue approving this license this evening, However, if there is a requirement that it has to go before the CD board for hearing of some sort, I do want to make sure that the council is in compliance. So I guess the question would lie as to whether or not Mr. Moki designates this application as a use 27 on the principal use chart. So we'll refer it to, if there's an issue, we'll refer it over to Mike and step out and call him even Mr. President, because I don't want to hold Mr. Mullet up. This is more of a technicality and formality than anything.

[Caraviello]: So this will be a subject to, Mr. Mulkey has approved. Okay, so on the motion by Councilor Morell. I'll say Councilor Morell.

[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, as someone who used to live across the street from these buildings for a number of years, I would be remiss if I didn't ask if it was the same hours of operation.

[Mallet]: They're actually less hours. We only operate Monday through Friday over there.

[Morell]: Great, thank you.

[Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Marks. Subject to Mr. Moki's approval. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Franco. Yes. Vice President Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks.

[Caraviello]: Yes.

[Marks]: Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes.

[Caraviello]: Yes, seven affirmative motion passes. Thank you. And good luck with your expansion.

[Mallet]: Thank you very much Council. Thank you.

[Caraviello]: Motion to order the resolutions. 2020-570 offered by Councilor Falco and Vice President Knight. Update on the Lawrence Memorial Hospital. Vice President Knight.

[Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. Yes, the Lawrence Memorial Hospital was kind enough to forward all the correspondence this morning. The correspondence would provide us with an update as to the status of the ongoing construction of the ambulatory care center. This email goes on to read that beginning on Monday, March 22nd, we will begin planting trees and plants in the parking lot, islands, and surrounding buildings. This work should be completed by Friday, March 26th. So that looks like that was last week, Mr. President. Landscaping work will be taking place on the corner of Governor's Avenue and Lawrence Road. and crews will be placing loom to prep for seating. Following the completion of the landscaping work, the repaving of the parking lot is scheduled to take place during the week of April 5th. All work is weather dependent. Mr. President, also in their correspondence, if you bear with me for one moment where I can find the other section of it, I will tell you that at 5.30 PM, the caffeine inside lobby lights will be reduced to 30%. At 7 PM daily, the exterior bulbs and canopy lights will shut off. And at 8 p.m. the ambulatory surgical care centers lights will shut off as well as the PACU, which faces the lot. Also the landscaping work was what the major activity was on the corner of Governor's Avenue, Winthrop Street, that was such a concern. I'm not Winthrop by Governor's Avenue and Lawrence Road, which was such a concern, Mr. President. So that's the latest update from the Lawrence Memorial Hospital based upon the correspondence that they were so kind to forward to us.

[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Vice President.

[Falco]: I thank you Councilor Knight for that update. It was just basically an update with regard to the progress that they've made on that campus. I know in our last meeting, I think most of the questions that people have were a regard to final steps. And I think it was the plantings and the landscaping and whatnot. And it sounds like that is underway and the paving of the driveways coming soon. So I have no further questions. Thank you.

[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Launch Memorial for their update. I believe it was several weeks back, residents across the street on Governor's Ave raised concern about the perimeter lighting around the hospital and how it was shining into windows up and down Governor's Ave. And I believe last I heard that many of the lights were redirected. And as we heard from Council Vice President Knight, that they are turning lights off at night and still maintaining safety in the lot, which is important as well. So I want to thank them for that, Mr. President. The last outstanding issue that I know residents brought up was the cooling tower that's on the top of the front of the facade. And that still remains an issue for area residents, Mr. President. So I would ask that we move that. We asked about the update for the cooling tower, and if they have any current plans on addressing some of the aesthetic concerns of neighbors.

[Caraviello]: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Okay, so on the motion. Okay, so we want to, we want to report back on the cooling tower. And correct Council Members?

[Marks]: To the coverage around the cooling tower. That's been made an issue for some time now.

[Caraviello]: Okay. So, uh, the motion by Vice President Knight, um, as amended, uh, by Councilor Marks, who would send a, uh, a letter to the, uh, Washington Borough. You, uh, give us the next, uh, what's going on with the coverage of the cooling tower, uh, seconded by Councilor Falco. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Bears]: Mr. President.

[Caraviello]: Hold on, hold on. Uh, Councilor Best, I apologize.

[Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I just wanted to add a further amendment that Lawrence Memorial come back 90 days after they complete the project, just so we can make sure that as operations continue, that the commitments are being met. I'm glad to hear about the lighting. I know that was a major concern, but I just want to make sure that the lights are really shutting off at those times once things are underway.

[Caraviello]: I did have the opportunity to drive by last night and I can see the change in the lights and they were up pretty dimly lit and they weren't coming out on the street as much as they were the last time. But I will put that in there for a 90 day review. Thank you.

[Knight]: Mr. President, that'd be 90 days after it opens, correct?

[Caraviello]: 90 days after it opens, yes. The motion by Vice President Knight, seconded by Councilor Falco, as amended by Councilor Markson and amended by Councilor Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Marks]: Council bears. Yes. Council Falco. Yes. Vice President night. Council marks. Yes. Council Morell. Yes. Councilors compelling President Gary off.

[Caraviello]: Yes, I'm in the permanent motion passes to 1302 offered by President Gary yellow Council felt will be resolved with Medford City Council, have the T reinstate the 710 bus route that services residents of Fulton Heights with service The Lawson Memorial Hospital, Stop and Shop, Wegmans and Wellington Station. Be it further resolved that the city clerk forward a copy of this resolution to MassDOT Secretary and CEO James Tesler, and MBTA General Manager Steve Puftak. Thank you. I received many calls from people on the heights about this bus being canceled. This is a bus route that's been around many, many years going back to the old Hudson bus days. And I mean, this is really the only transportation people up at the Heights have. And over the years, it's been expanded to go over to stop and shop Wegmans, it stops in the square and it goes all the way to Wellington station. So, I mean, the T has been given more money to update, to reinstate all the routes. And there's no reason why this route should be also put on there. I mean, the city of Medford is one of, I think we're the fourth to fifth highest payer to the T for an assessment. So I think we deserve the service that we paid for. Okay, and Councilor Falco.

[Falco]: Thank you, President Caraviello. And if I may add as well, as someone who lives up in Fulton Heights, this is really the only bus route that is really easily accessible to all residents in Fulton Heights. When you look at that bus at 710, it cuts right up, right through the middle of the heights. Easily accessible, seniors want to take it, they can walk to it. If they need to walk to the 100, that's a long way to walk down to 710. you know, the Felsway or up to Highland Ave. So this is a route that I feel is a necessity, the 710. You know, this wasn't even a service reduction, it was a service elimination, which is the worst. You know, I know with COVID, you know, people probably aren't commuting as much, but there still needs to be options. And I feel that pulling away the 710 or pulling it out of the neighborhood, it just really does a disservice to anyone that lives in that neighborhood. I believe the MBTA is getting, I think about, I thought I heard about a billion dollars in pandemic relief. That's a lot of money. And I know that there's plenty of routes that have been eliminated. I mean, I know 325 and 326 here in Medford have been eliminated, but From what I hear, from what I've seen in the past, anytime a route is eliminated, it's really hard to bring it back. And I feel that the 710 needs to be brought back, and it needs to be brought back sooner than later. You talk about the MBTA assessments, and we've talked about that numerous times. This city is assessed millions of dollars on a yearly basis by the MBTA. and we need to get millions and millions of dollars year after year. It's a service reduction in my eyes, it's absolutely unacceptable. The MBTA needs to bring this line back into service. Like you said before, it really covers, there's necessities that a lot of seniors need. I mean, it takes you to stop and chop, it takes you to Wegmans, Lawrence Memorial Hospital, Wellington Station. I mean, these are places where people need to go and now more than ever, this bus needs to be in service and ready for people to take so I just wanted to, at this point I guess move approval. Thank you. Thank you.

[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President, I want to thank you and Councilor Falco for bringing this forward because I think this is so important. I think that every route that someone relies on in the city is essential to them. And I think it's really important that the City Council continues to be loud and communicate this to the powers that be because the MBTA has suggested and walked back a number of cuts. And I think it's really important that we raise the issue that this needs to be brought back immediately and get them to make that change. And Councilor Falco brings up a really good point that when these routes go away, they tend not to come back. the councilors for bringing this forward because I think it's really important that the council and the city sends this message. Thank you.

[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you and Councilor Falco for putting this resolution on. I'm a resident of the Heights as well and grew up here and took the 710 regularly when I was younger. And I can tell you, you know, the people who use this, this is seniors getting groceries and prescriptions. You know, this is families who may not have a car who need to access essential services. even regardless of commuting and not commuting, what this is providing is people access to local businesses, grocery stores, pharmacies. So I think it's incredibly important that the service is reinstated. I would also just like to amend the resolution to see if there's an update from our resolution around the 325 and 326 service cuts as well.

[Caraviello]: Okay, so amended by Councilor Bears to update for the 325 and the 326.

[Knight]: Okay, thank you. Vice President Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. I remember this bus line is how all the kids from the Heights got the public skating when we were kids growing up and Kenny Phillips would be driving the bus and bringing everybody up and down the hill and putting up with kids to watch around. But no, in all seriousness, it's not just kids. It's not just seniors. It's not just commuters that are using this bus. This is really one of the, only bus lines that we have here in the community that connects certain portions of Fulton Heights to the rest of the city. You know, the MBTA talks about how they wanna restore service to pre-pandemic levels, but they're not gonna. The MBTA talks about how they want to see increases in ridership as the Metropolitan Area Planning Council has all the communities surrounding us stop more and more people into high rise luxury condominiums. The MBTA continues to cut service, cut lines, You know, with the 326, the 325, the 710 commuter rail hours are being cut back. The service that's being provided to this community, Mr. President, in my opinion, does not add up to the amount of money that we're paying on our assessment. And quite frankly, I feel like Medford is somewhat always the heel because of where we are geographically located between that crux of rail service and bus service. We get beat up on both ends. You know, we look at the issues that we've had over time with the Salem Street car bond, and other facilities here in the community. And when we raise concern, they fall on deaf ears. But when the MBTA wants to come in and cut service, it's pat on the back and, you know, take your lumps kid. It's getting kind of old, Mr. President, quite frankly, and I'm tired of the attacks that we're seeing the MBTA take on our community. The MBTA raises that green flag, the Green Line extension, and they say, well, we're giving you the Green Line. Well, I'm going to tell you right now, I know a lot of people in the Fulton Heights that are never going to see that Green Line extension, they're never going to step foot on it. But I'll tell you what, the 710 bus does a lot. So I thank you and I thank Councilor Falco for putting this resolution forward. It does bring back some great memories of taking that bus as a child being from West Metro. And there was no other way to get up to the heights. I certainly wasn't walking that hill. That's for sure. And as a child, Cow Park was one of the most active parks in the city. There was no other park where you could find a better pickup basketball game besides Carr Park and Duggar Park. Two parks that always had kids playing, Harris Park. The three parks that always had kids playing, all geographically located in the community that are real far apart from each other, Mr. President. So this connectivity is important. We talk about wanting to take cars off the road. We're putting bike lanes in, bus lanes in, and everything else. How can we put bus lanes on Mystic Avenue and then take away a bus in the community? Don't we want to promote bus use? So with that being said, I thank you both for putting this resolution on. I just ask that it also be sent copies to our state delegation so that they're aware of this correspondence going out.

[Marks]: Okay. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank my two colleagues for putting this on tonight. I'm glad to hear what I've been preaching about for the last 20 years about the MBTA and the assessment that it's starting to actually finally get some traction. because I've offered several resolutions before the city council requesting that the millions of dollars in tax exempt property that the MBTA has offset what they're charging us for millions of dollars on the cherry sheet, Mr. President. So, you know, I think it's about time we take a look at the services we're receiving in this community. And let's face it, many people come to the city of Method because of our transportation services, and they're not paying the additional tax on their cherry sheet, Mr. President. Based on that, we are as a community. The T has three different revenue sources. One is the percent of the sales tax that they get. Another one is the fares when you go onto the train or the bus, which has been hit because of COVID, Mr. President. But I think what we have to do is take a long, hard look at what we're actually paying now, several million dollars a year, for service in this community. And guess what? That assessment the T is assessing us, it's only gonna get higher with the green line. And so I think we really need to take a close hard look at why our assessment is so high in this community and why the T, as my colleagues mentioned, continue to cut routes and much needed buses that impact the most vulnerable community, Mr. President. Many of us don't have to worry. We get in the car and we go to stop and shop, or we go to a convenience store. We do our shopping and we get around. There are many other ones of us, Mr. President, that rely on public transportation. And to have a population in particular with this route is in the heights, Mr. President. This is gonna really impact, even if it impacts dozens of people, that's a huge impact, Mr. President, when it comes to needs that we just heard about getting to and from Wegmans and stop and shop in the hospital. These are dedicated stops on that route for the 710 bus. And that's not just a luxury when you're going to a doctor, when you're going to get food, that's a necessity. And that's something that really shouldn't be cut, Mr. President. I just heard the news, the city of Boston is fighting now the MBTA cuts in the city of Boston. And I agree, we have to get more vocal as a community. You know, it's great to send out a letter to the T and the head of the T, and then they respond back saying, we'll look into it, we'll investigate and so forth. And then it ends there to be quite honest with you. There's never any follow-up. We have to take action, Mr. President. And I don't know what it's going to take. Maybe we have to sit at the table and refuse to give the $3 million or so that we give on the cherry sheet every year. Maybe we'll be the first city in the state to do that. I don't know. But it takes bold action sometimes to get bold results. And I'm willing to do that. And I've been talking about this issue for 20 years. And when, you know, and I brought up before fell on deaf ears, no one wanted to talk about it. Now the team's making some big service cuts and all of a sudden it's the topic of conversation, the cherry sheet and why we're paying so much. So I'm glad to hear that's it, Mr. President, but these are things that should have been looked at over the years. Thank you.

[Caraviello]: Thank you. And also, you know, this is not just the Heights, this bus stops in the square, stops at the senior center, either services all the residents, Riverside Avenue. So they go to Wellington. So again, it's a little bit more than that. So on the motion by Councilor Falco, as amended by Councilor Bears to update the 325 and the 326 and amended by Councilor Knight to make sure we send a letter to our state delegation. Seconded by Councilor Marks. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. President Caraviello.

[Caraviello]: Yes, seven in the affirmative motion passes. 21-303 offered by Councilor Morell, be it so resolved that the administration provide the city council with an update on expected direct local aid to the city from the American rescue plan and potential impact on the upcoming budget. Councilor Morell.

[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. This resolution is pretty self explanatory. But as we all know, not too long ago, we were talking about the deficit we're looking at for this year's budget. And now within the past few weeks, we've heard tell of, you know, perhaps $39 million in direct local aid coming to the city. And the most recent estimates published in the globe last week were $50 million for the city. I do understand that, you know, even just by those changing numbers, this is obviously something that's kind of hard to keep track of. Everyone's learning as we go along, but as we're looking to do, you know, really the most important role of the council in a few short months, I think it would be very helpful to have an idea, any information, any official information we can get from the administration about how this money, you know, what they've heard about how this money has to be used, the timeframe, how they're hoping to use it, what ideal scenarios would be. Um, so I mean, I did have the chief of staff reach out to me earlier, just saying that director and only Benjamin couldn't be here tonight. So I'm just hoping we can get an update on this soon, because this is, this is an incredible amount of money. And I do understand it can't likely cannot be used for everything. And there's going to be strings attached, but it's still a large amount of money that we haven't gotten any update on what it might look like for the city and what the administration is thinking. Uh, so I move approval.

[Caraviello]: Thank you. That's right. Any further discussion? On the motion by Councilor Morell, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Falco. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Marks]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Nights? Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? President Caraviello?

[Caraviello]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, motion passes. 2-1-3-0-4, offered by Councilor Marks, be it resolved. that the 35 subsidized affordable living units in Medford set to expire in 2023 and 2025 be discussed for options to preserve the affordability of the publicly assisted housing. Councilor Marks.

[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And this is a very important issue that we will be confronted with in the very near future. And that is losing affordable housing within our community after so much talk about how we increase our affordable housing stock here in the city of Method. According to the city's draft housing production plan, which I think we're all gonna receive a copy of very shortly, there are 35 HUD subsidized affordable rental units in Method that are set to expire in 2023. It's only a mere year and a half, two years away, Mr. President. And those units, those 35 units are located at 42 Water Street. And there's another three that are subsidized by DHCD, Department of Housing and Community Development, which are run by Tri-City Housing Task Force for the homeless. And they're at 196, 198 Felsway, and they're set to expire in 2025. So that's a total of 38 units that are subsidized, Mr. President, for low income residents that could potentially be lost in this community. And in my opinion, that is extremely sizable and something, Mr. President, I am going to fight hard to make sure we maintain. And there is a way of maintaining it. And I'm hoping that we can get some answers from this resolution tonight. But the affordability of privately owned affordable housing units that were produced using state or federal housing resources can expire as owners pay off their subsidized mortgages. or opt out of their existing Section 8 rental subsidy contract. When such affordability restrictions expire, property owners can convert the affordable units to market-rate housing. On November 23, 2009, the governor signed a general law, Chapter 40T, which is an act preserving publicly-assisted affordable housing. And what this legislation did, Mr. President, was aimed at helping preserve existing privately owned affordable housing in Massachusetts. It also established notification provisions for tenants along with modest tenant protections, very modest, I should add, and terminate the right of first refusal for DHCD or its designee to purchase publicly assisted housing. I was never aware of this law, Mr. President, and maybe because we haven't seen the likes of so many housing units coming up, affordable housing units, coming up at once in this community. But if you read Chapter 40T, Section 3, which deals specifically regarding the right of first refusal for DHCD, and the ability to sign a designee if someone is interested, i.e., in particular, a municipality, if they are interested in becoming the designee to publicly purchase the affordable housing before it gets on the market. And I found that very interesting, Mr. President. If I could, it's pretty brief, and it's part of my motion, so I'd just like to read what, for the edification of the viewing audience and my colleagues, section three. It says an owner shall offer the department an opportunity, when they say department they refer to DHCD, an opportunity to purchase publicly assisted housing prior to entering into an agreement to sell such property pursuant to the time periods contained in this section. But no owner shall be under any obligation to enter into an agreement to sell such property to the department. Then it goes on subsection B. The department may select a designee, that's DHCD, to act on its behalf as purchaser of the publicly assisted housing and shall give the owner written notice of its selection. So my first motion, Mr. President, is has DHCD selected a designee as purchaser? So that's my first motion. The section goes on to say the department shall probably consult with the affected municipality before selecting a designee and shall immediately designate the affected municipality as a designee upon written request of the affected municipality. Motion number two, has DHCD reached out to the city of Method and has the city of Method expressed interest in becoming the designee for these two particular properties, which is 42 Water Street and 196-198 Felsway. And then it goes on to say, unless the department determines that such request is not feasible for the reasons set forth in the department's regulations, the department shall enter into a written agreement with its selection designee, providing that the designee and any of its successors assigns agreed to preserve the affordability of the publicly assisted housing. Once such an agreement is executed, the designee shall assume all rights and responsibilities attributable to the department as a prospective purchaser under this section, section four. My next motion, Mr. President, is that we create a committee of the whole meeting I believe we have one scheduled for next Tuesday. So if that's the case, Mr. President, that would suffice for my resolution. But my motion is that the city council meet and committee the whole to discuss options for preserving the existing privately owned publicly assisted affordable housing and method and review housing production per housing production plan. And as part of the motion, it's to invite the consultant that was hired by the city, Jen Golson, from the firm of J.M. Golson, and to invite our consultant attorney, Bob Bobrovsky, to be a part of that meeting, Mr. President, to discuss what our next steps are so we don't use or lose this opportunity for maintaining our affordable housing. One other portion I'd like to bring up, Mr. President of NLN, is that Many people realize Chapter 40B establishes a goal that every Massachusetts community must work to provide affordable housing at a minimum of 10% of their overall housing stock. And if you read the housing production plan, you will notice, Mr. President, on page 82 of the draft plan, it states that Medford has four 40B projects currently right now in the pipeline. If all four of these projects come to fruition, Method will have an additional 1,087 units eligible to be counted on the subsidized housing inventory, bringing the city's portion of the subsidized housing inventory units to 11.7%, which would be above the 10% better right now. Many people are eager to move on from 40B, The true hard facts is the only way we really been making significant change in this community for affordability has been through the state law, chapter 40B, Mr. President. That's where we've added the most affordable housing in this community. There are other ways which the housing production plan addresses and that's something we're reviewing as a council, but I would strongly ask the administration because they are looking at these 40B projects in court right now, I would strongly ask that they take a closer look, Mr. President, at what these units can bring to our community in regards to affordability and move forward on these 40B projects in the interest of adding more affordability in our community. And that's all I have, Mr. President.

[Caraviello]: And tax revenue, of course.

[Marks]: And tax revenue, absolutely. Thank you.

[Caraviello]: Okay. Any further discussion?

[Bears]: Councilor Best. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks, for bringing this forward. I was just wondering if I could amend, I may not have gotten the language quite right, but amend the first motion to have a list of any subsidized units that may be expiring in the next 10 years, because I do recall a meeting where there were a number of units in addition to the 38 that Councilor Marks mentioned that had time limits on the affordability requirements.

[Marks]: I'm not opposed to that, Mr. President, but according to J.M. Golson report, this 120 page report, they listed those two particular properties. I'm not sure maybe because they're the most recent, but I would hope this is a thorough report but I am not opposed to looking at, you know, this all 10 years, I am not opposed to that. We have to plan and I think that's a worthy suggestion.

[Caraviello]: Okay. So on the motion by Council Marks, seconded by Councilor Falco as amended by Council Marks and Councilor Bears. Mr. Clerk, you have those four amendments? four from Councilor Marks and one from Councilor Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Marks]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello?

[Caraviello]: Yes, I'm in the prayer, motion passed. Councilor Marks, if I'm not mistaken, the housing production plan, I think is scheduled for Councilor Lee the whole next week.

[Marks]: Next Tuesday, right?

[Caraviello]: Next Tuesday, I think, I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure that's the date I gave you.

[Marks]: So as one of my motions, we can meet that night. We don't have to meet a separate night to discuss that motion. Thank you.

[Caraviello]: Okay, 21305, offered by Council Member Marks, be it resolved that a complete annual listing of all park method financial reports submitted to the city since inception 2015, along with the city's own sustainable accounting, including, if any, unpaid revenue balances carried forward since 2015 be provided to the council. Councilor Bax.

[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. If we all recall, our former esteemed councilor, Councilor Bob Penta, appeared under community participation a few weeks back. At that time, the council requested that the city council take a vote on several requests for information. However, because it was offered under public participation, we could not take a formal vote and I recommended that we put it on the agenda so we can take a formal vote. So at this point, Mr. President, I would welcome up former councilor Penta for his presentation.

[Caraviello]: Good evening. My name is Robert Penta. Mr. Penta, could you just step back a little bit? Just stand back in the tape. Thank you very much.

[Penta]: Okay. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, I'm picking up on your resolution. that took place in 2016, because at that time it was the second year. And I believe along with you and Councilor Knight and then Councilor Brianna Longo, there was some concerns with Park Method and their distribution of how the revenue was going to be coming in. Therefore, as a result of that, what we needed to go to, as I indicated back then, was to go to the contract. And in the contract on page five, there is two specific sections. It basically includes that states 20 days after the end of each month, a monthly report would be submitted to the city of Method as it relates to a whole host of issues relative to the inventory of monies taken in and what's going out and what the fees and everything were. Also, there's an inclusion in there that the operator, meaning Park Method, would agree to submit on an annual basis the gross revenue and the operating expenses So on an annual basis, so rather than having you go and get all the monthly things, I'm requesting that the council puts a resolution forward, making that request as it relates to their annual revenue, relative to the fact that this is what took place. For example, you would have net city parking revenue, that's annual appeals, the annual appeal, dismissal, forgiveness, annual resident visitor parking permits, business permits, commuter permits, annual parking citations. And then we get to the issue on an annual basis of the $50,000 annually that would go to the commercial districts here in the city of Medford. Now that was something that came up by Mayor McGlynn in, I believe, October of 2014. And as a result of that, that became a bone of consternation between the Medford Chamber of Commerce and the business people, and as well as the issue on the city council relative toward the business districts not getting X amount of dollars. Therefore, as a result of that, what took place was that in October of that year, the city at that time through Mayor McGlynn, and then Park Medford came to a final resolution before January of 2015, and 15. And in 2015, that $50,000 for each square was then included as part of the agreement between Park Method and the City of Method. And in their brochure, they note specifically that $250,000 annually will be subject to the appropriation for district improvements. Now, I don't know where that money is, if it's ever gone there. Some people say it's gone out once. Some people say maybe it has, maybe it hasn't. I don't know, I can't answer that. That's the reason why I'm asking for this breakdown and how the money was being expended. Next, we have the issue relative toward $2 million a year is what Park Method said that they would bring in annually to the city of Method. So if we look at that $2 million per year, And in the contract, there was an inclusion that anything over $1,250,000 annually, the city would increase from its annual 35% net revenues to 83%. The question then becomes where, and if in fact, has Park Method submitted that type of information to the city of Metro? I don't know. None of us know. And again, once again, that's the reason why I'm here asking you folks to do this. So then let's go to the issue that basically talks about, I think it was in October during a city council strike that award six committee candidates on October of 2019. Then council Longo addressed the community at that point in time as it related to the method parking program. Quote, this is what she said, as to parking enforcement, it is broken. If elected, I will end the contract that expires during the next mayoral term. I will go back to the committee recommendations of 2009 to implement in-house enforcement and replace the kiosks with meters. I will provide free parking for our seniors. The city will benefit by keeping 100% of the gross revenue for our city services and schools. We currently see only 35% of the revenues. Now, that's a tough point right there. 35% of the revenues, because we really don't know because you've never received the public documentation back. You, Mr. President, have asked three times. Resolutions go back and suggest that and prove that. So where do we go from there? That's the question of why I think you really need to know how much money has come in. How has park method delivered as they're supposed to occur, so into the contract and the city of Medford, how they made an accounting for it. It's public information, it needs to be made public. So the question then becomes, if in fact the contract has been adhered to, and if in fact revenues have exceeded that for which the 35% formula has taken place. But the question then becomes, if it hasn't taken place, then where are those revenues? There's also a report that's out that you can go on Google and it's by the Method Parking Commission. And they have a report that goes out there that basically says, through their Google webpage, that on an annual basis, the city of Method is, if you add up their numbers, that the city of Method has only collected approximately $436,000 per year. That's number one. Number two, the statistics that the city has in the city of Medford allegedly will substantiate that we're only getting 35% rather than the 83%, which would indicate we haven't exceeded that for which you would get the $1.3 million annual money that they collected. But according to Park Medford, when they first came in, they said that their annual revenue would be in excess of $2 million. So $2 million over a period of 20 years, or even over a period of eight years, would give you $16 million. We're nowhere, we're nowhere near that type of money. So I would strongly suggest that if this be the case, what really needs to be addressed is as follows. We have the 2009 report to which Council Marks served on there with the then former Chief of Police Sacco and a whole list of other folks who made up an extensive and an exhaustive report. as to how much they went to other communities, they checked it out, they saw how the revenues could come in and where it should go in here for the city of Medford. The question then becomes Mr. President, if elected means she has been elected. So since the mayor has now been elected, the question then becomes the 35%. We really need to get these numbers to find out, are we in the 35% or are we above the 35%? And lastly, just let me say this, and this is really the perplexing question. If in fact we follow what the mayor Then city council said in October of 2019, to follow that formula of this report, why then do we have another new committee report of people? Is the mayor going to change plans, change direction, not follow the 2009 report? I think you people really need to know that. And if people are sitting on that committee and it's gonna be a waste of time because you're just gonna follow the exhausted committee report of 2009, that needs to be relegated out there. You know, this is a lot of money. And if we're only looking at $436,000 a year as compared to a lot more than that, because we haven't gotten to the $2 million mark per year, you need to know that. And you really need to have a discussion. And it was you then Councilor, Mr. President and Councilor Knight and Councilor Marks and Councilor Brianna Longo-Cunningham had serious questions with Park Method over this. You indicated, Mr. President, that this is year eight. This is years eight, nine, and 10 are the years for negotiation. And they're taking them one year at a time. Well, if they're taking them one year at a time, and the mayor said, and when she ran for mayor, that she was going back and she was going to get rid of Park Method, then the plan ought to be that Park Method's going to go. There should be no negotiation to extend anything here.

[Marks]: I think, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I just want to be clear. fellow cops can help, but the committee that you're referring to, is this the traffic committee that the mayor just put together? Is that the committee you're referencing?

[Penta]: I believe this is the committee. I may have the wrong terminology. This is the committee to discuss parking in the city of Medford.

[Marks]: Okay, so I believe they said that they had no privy to discuss anything dealing with Republic Park. I believe that's what they, that's what was quoted to us that when we asked questions about Republic Park to them, that they were directed not to, that wasn't what they were looking to do.

[Caraviello]: So I believe that's what it was correct me if I'm wrong, but maybe we can ask Councilor Morocco you're on that committee.

[Morell]: Yes, Mr. President. Yeah, that's correct. That's my understanding was more about looking at, you know, zones. And I mean, there was a number of things I addressed, but yes, it wasn't, it didn't really, it didn't touch on our public parking. So that was kept separate from the commission.

[Penta]: So then the question that I asked the council and to you, Mr. President, if the mayor indicated she was going to look at the 2009, she was going to adhere to that report, then the traffic, this new committee that's been put together, are they discussing this report to add or subtract? Is the mayor not going to support this? Are she going to entertain another type of situation? Because this is very conflicting.

[Caraviello]: I can tell you that they're on the series of one year renewals now.

[Penta]: Well, if you're going to be on one year renewals in years eight, nine, and 10, give you the option to bow out. And you've had plenty of time to realize coming into your option year that something should be taking place. So are we going to, as a community, take three years in a row as option years and work at it one at a time? I mean, you know.

[Caraviello]: Vice President Knight.

[Knight]: I do think it's important to point out, Mr. President, that when this matter came before the council, The vote that the council was asked to take was to whether or not they were going to allow the administration to enter into a contract that exceeds 36 months. Pursuant to state law, a municipality can only enter into a contract with a maximum term of 36 months. So the issue that was before the council wasn't whether or not we wanted to have pocket meters or no pocket meters, have pocket enforcement officers, but not have pocket enforcement officers. The issue before the council at the time was whether or not we wanted to authorize the administration the opportunity to negotiate a contract that exceeded three years. So that was the matter that was before us. I certainly have the same concerns that I had Um, for previously when it comes to Republic packing and the accounting methodology that's being used with the president. Um, but that's neither here nor there. The administration is the entity that's responsible for the chief negotiation of the contract. And these three air extensions are going to be incumbent upon her purview, not us.

[Penta]: Mr. President, I'd like to answer that question. A constant night brings up a good point that three years when it first came up. was nixed by then city solicitor Mark Romney. He said it would not serve in the best financial interest of the city of Medford. That bumped up the contract to 10 years, but given years eight, nine, and 10, the flexibility, whether you'd want to renegotiate, get out or whatever it might be. I'm only concerned over the fact that you, Mr. President, dating back at least three times going back to 2016, coming forward with council resolution have asked for these numbers. Senior citizens have been waiting to park for nothing for free, because that's what was alleged. Same comment was made in Inauguration Day, same comment was made in 2009. So if we're not going to follow this report of 2009, which is very extensive, and it wasn't just for the city of Medford, you can correct me Councilor Marks, you went to other cities and towns, you saw how they derived their revenue through meters and their timing, and whether they had resident parking, commuter parking, this and that. If that is not going to really be entertained, I just think that this parking commission, Councilor Scott Bell, it's just a waste of time. We either follow something or not. Are you going to change it? And I think the mayor has an obligation to tell you and the taxpayers of this community, whether in fact we're going forward. Why would you want to go into two more years of one year contracts trying to figure out what you're going to do? You should know by now. Resolutions dating back to 2016 and 17 with her name and many councilors names on there. Question, just as councilor Knight has indicated, the veracity of this contract. I mean, how is it going to work with the city of Method? Approximately $2 million in uncollected money is still outstanding again. This is on the Google page of the Medford Parking Commission.

[Caraviello]: As Councilor Knight mentioned, this is the preview. The mayor is the chief negotiating authority for the city, not the city council. And unfortunately, we don't get a say in who gets the contract or doesn't.

[Penta]: Councilor President, I'm going to disagree with you, because when this council issue came up before the council, it started in May of 2014. And it ran on for a few months. While the mayor and some of the councilors had a difference of opinion, It did go on, there was some public interaction. And if this mayor is going to entertain a new contract without having the council interaction and public awareness and public input, that's bad. This is really bad because that's not what you call transparency.

[Marks]: Isn't this the transparency administration though? It's supposed to be. Mr. President. Councilor Locks. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanna thank my colleague, Councilor Penta for his insight on this issue. You know, when the mayor first established this working committee, I was under the impression they were going to look at the parking program in the city of Medford. And I did hear bits and pieces of what their mission statement is, but I wasn't aware that they're not going to look at the current entity that oversees parking, which is Park Medford in this community and their contract. I wasn't aware that They weren't going to look at taking this service in-house, which has been an issue since, as Councilor Penta mentioned, since 2009, when the committee I sat on for two years, Mr. President, we visited, we did our due diligence, we did our homework. We went to the city of Boston and met with their chief parking clerk. We went to Malden. We went to Everett. We went to Somerville. We spent countless hours and came up with recommendations, Mr. President, all of which were to do meters and take the service in-house. Those are the major recommendations of which the mayor at the time, and that's his authority, decided to do neither. And he hired an outside company and he put kiosks all over the streets. So what we spent two years for, he did the total opposite. Now I'm hoping, Mr. President, because as Councilor Penta mentioned, there was a commitment made by this current mayor back in 2019, that seniors were going to get free parking. It's 15 months later. Seniors have not received free parking, Mr. President. Elimination of the kiosk, 15 months later, and taking it in-house, parking enforcement. Now come to find out it's not even a subject of discussion among the committee that she handpicked and appointed, Mr. President, to discuss the parking program in the community. She may decide to do this outside of that, I don't know. But what better time when they have in public hearings, public meetings, sending out surveys, spending countless hours working on this to discuss the program in its entirety. It makes zero sense to me, Mr. President. So I wait with bated breath in June when this report's supposed to come out. Not to belabor the subject, Mr. President, but I think it was two or three years ago, the city hired a consultant and spent close to $100,000 to look at resident permit parking in the city. And the consultant came out with a report, it's probably worth all the other reports, collecting dust. But this consultant came out with a report and stated that we'd like to do a pilot program because the city is so diverse in their parking needs, and we'd like to start off with Salt Method and the hillside. And they made recommendations on creating a Salt Method hillside permit parking program. And what did the city do with the $100,000 report? Circular file. And here we are back at the table again, Mr. President. Are we here just because it's election year, and we have to keep up with campaign promises, and we're going through the motions? Or do we really want to see change to this program that's needed? It hasn't been tweaked in more than seven years, this program. And it needs tweaking, Mr. President, a lot of tweaking. And I supported at the time, and I still stand by it. in-house, taking this in-house and having our own people control this program, Mr. President, and the revenue stays here. And I supported at the time, and I still do, having double head meters rather than kiosks. Kiosks are great for parking lots. They don't work on the streets, Mr. President, as we found out from the number of complaints throughout this community. So I want to thank my colleague for putting this on and for bringing up this issue. And I hope in June, This is something that we discussed, Mr. President. We have the fire report that was just issued that the mayor commissioned. We haven't gone through that yet. That comes out with a list of recommendations and so forth. So there's a lot of reporting going on, Mr. President, but very little action. A lot of reports, you can hire consultants, put together reports, but they're meaningless if there's nothing tied to them, if there's no action. Thank you, Mr. President. On the motion by Councilor Marks. Seconded by Councilor Scott Ville.

[Penta]: Mr. President, one quick thing.

[Caraviello]: Mr. Pinto, you're all over your time.

[Penta]: Councilor Marks, you talked about Everett, talked about Revere, talked about Somerville, you talked about Boston, Brookline, Malden, and Everett. A thorough report from the hiring of a clerk to the amount of people that walked the streets and the monies that were collected. You're not gonna get more of a thorough report than that. And this new commission, for whatever the reason is, it's out there and why the mayor is doing it, And nobody knows, but that question ought to be asked. If you made the commitment in 2019 to do with this one, why are you going in a different direction? Thank you. Mr. President, if I could. Council member.

[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. President. I do just want to note that there are, I can find the best way to get it to the council, but there are a number of public folders and documents about the work that the commission has been doing and what the charge from the mayor is specifically, I think is actually on the city website. just to add some clarity to that, that that information is readily accessible for those questions around it. Thank you.

[Marks]: Mr. President. If I could, I mean, in the past when a representative of the council is selected by the mayor to be on a committee, ad hoc committee, whatever you want to call it, they usually report back to the council. And we have yet to receive any report back from our representative on the board, and maybe there's nothing to report back now. I don't know, they've been meeting for several months, but I think it would be interesting, rather than pointing us to a website on the city website, is to give us an update, Mr. President, on what's happening, and things that we should be made aware of. Thank you.

[Caraviello]: All right, on the motion by Councilor Mark, seconded by Councilor Scott Kerr, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President night. Yes.

[Caraviello]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Seven affirmative motion passes. Reports of committees to one to one by 23 community of the whole. This community of the whole was to introduce our new employee Victor Schrader, and he gave him. He gave a little description of the job and what he's looking to do. And we welcome to our community so motion to approval. Motion by Cousin Scarpelli second by Vice President night Mr. Greg please call the roll.

[Marks]: Council bears. Yes. Council Falco. Vice President. Yes.

[Caraviello]: Yes. Yes. Yes, I've been affirmative motion passes to one when I know my 24th committee of the whole. This committee as a whole was in regards to changing the size of the board of appeals from three to five. And the motion was made to report this to the OCD board. The motion by Vice President Knight, seconded by Councilor Falco, to report the paper all favorably. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. And to refer it to the OCD board. Councilor Falco second. I'm sorry. We're not in here for the glory.

[Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Yes. Vice President night. Council marks. Council Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes.

[Caraviello]: President carry off. Yes. Let me defer with the motion passes.

[Marks]: Well, moving forward, I just want, if we can, just remind the residents that are watching that tomorrow's meeting for the Verizon 5G towers, it will be at six o'clock, I believe. Is that six o'clock via Zoom? Yes. I know that we've been getting phone calls and people begging us to please vote against it. Just a clarification. There is no vote that this council can take to stop anything that we have issues on, because I think all of us do have some concerns. But unfortunately, this does not fall on our privy. I'll be on the call tomorrow as a resident, making sure that I get the answers that I need for my family and my neighbors as well, dealing with safety and public health. So thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. President. Councilor Markswell. Just to follow up with Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, I received on my desk tonight a letter from Mary Ann Aducci. She lives on North Street in Medford. Many of us know her very well, but she did send in a two page letter that she wants read into the record. I will submit it to the clerk and if my colleagues want it as well. It's regarding the March 31st Verizon hearing. And she wants to express her concern with 5G. And also, Mr. President, that she has no access to a computer and finds it very difficult, Mr. President, and hard for most people that would like to attend the meeting. But there is no way of attending it unless you have access to a computer or a call-in, Mr. President. And the call-in is extremely difficult. So she also asked within this letter that boards and commissions and any other committee in the city return to in-person hearings and meetings so everyone can participate equally. And I would support that as well, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks.

[Caraviello]: Okay. Records. We'll pass to Councilor Marks. Councilor Marks, how did you find those records?

[Marks]: I didn't have a chance to review them. I asked them to be tabled for one week, Mr. President.

[Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Marks to table the records for one week, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Marks]: Councilor Paris. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes.

[Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. Yes. And before we adjourn, I just want to wish everybody a happy Easter and a happy Passover. On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli to adjourn, seconded by Vice President Knight. Mr. President. Councilor Marks.

[Marks]: I prefer to adjourn. We did receive a letter from Commissioner Moki regarding the donation bins on the Fells Plaza that they were removed. Yes. And as a resident in that area and a neighbor, I would like to personally thank you for your due diligence on that. I called immediately right to New Jersey. I know that, and the number of phone calls you made, and I'd like to personally thank you.

[Caraviello]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Marks. The motion by Councilor Scott Perry, seconded by Vice President Knight to adjourn. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Marks]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Keohokalole? Yes. Vice President Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello? Yes. The motion passes, meeting adjourned.

Caraviello total time: 14.96 minutes total words: 2041	Marks total time: 29.05 minutes total words: 4442	Knight total time: 8.77 minutes total words: 1878	Bears total time: 3.05 minutes total words: 546
Falco total time: 3.69 minutes total words: 645	Morell total time: 3.06 minutes total words: 647	Penta total time: 12.21 minutes total words: 2145