[Richard Caraviello]: Good evening, everyone. Regular meeting of January 12th, 2021. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Bears.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I see Councilor Bears. I didn't, I didn't hear Councilor Bears. Councilor Bears is present. He's, he's muted, but he's present. He's indicating he's present. Councilor Falco. Vice President Knight. Councilor Marks? Councilor Morell? Councilor Morell is present. We appear to be having some audio issues, but Councilor Morell is present. Councilor Scarpelli? Present. President Caraviello? Present.
[Richard Caraviello]: Please rise and salute the flag.
[Adam Hurtubise]: 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. Okay.
[Richard Caraviello]: So what the governor Baker's March, March 12th, 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. Chapter 38, section 18 of the governor's March 15th, 2020 order, imposing strict limitation on the number of people that may gather in one place. This meeting of the Medford City Council will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. Specific information and general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and or parties with the right and or requirement to attend this meeting can be found on the City of Medford website at www.medford.org. For this meeting, members of the public who wish to listen or watch live may do so by accessing the meeting contained in the link herein. No person in attendance or members of the public will be permitted, but every, every effort will be made to ensure that the public can actually access the proceedings in real time by a technical, technological means. In the event that we are unable to do so, despite best efforts, we will post on the city of Medford or the media community media's website, an audio or video recording transcript, a rather comprehensive record of the proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. Okay. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 21013 offered by Councilor Morell, be it resolved that the method that the City Council request an update from the administration on any engagement with the City of Somerville regarding traffic mitigation and potential parking issues relative to proposed marijuana dispensary in Ball Square. Councilor Morell. Councilor Morell.
[Nicole Morell]: Yes. Can you hear me now? Great. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you all for bearing with me. So this is a pretty straightforward resolution as has come to the attention of many of us. There is a marijuana dispensary seeking to locate in the ball square neighborhood in Somerville, which, you know, that is for the city of Somerville to work out. But of course, ball square is densely populated and part of it lies in the city of Medford. And there's also increasing interest in the area in general. due to the expected Green Line Extension Station that's going to be there. So I want to thank Jim Silva from SMARTO and many other things for doing a great job leading some fact finding information on the plans for the dispensary and any plans they have for parking and traffic mitigation plans. And I know Todd Blake the city traffic engineer has also been looped in. But I do know that some of these parking plans reference parking lots that are in the city of Medford. And again, regardless of the size of the parking lot, the size of the dispensary, it is going to, if approved, increase traffic in this area in Medford. So I'm just seeking that the administration provide an update to the council as far as any work that has been done to be in touch with the city of Somerville administration and see if there's any kind of updates on the mitigation plans and anything that we can advocate for on our side. So I move approval. And I don't know if the chief of staff has anything he can, I don't know if he has anything he can add at this time, but I move approval.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Morell. Mr. President.
[George Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you. I did, after reading this resolution, I did contact representatives from Somerville, talked to the director of OCD, and it was very enlightening. There is, right now, the only parking that is relegated to these dispensaries are only off on street parking. So there really isn't any designated parking. They don't feel the need that there will be for the fact that they look like they'll be having nine host agreements. Nine. So they're looking at their philosophies. The dispensaries are going to be looked at as a neighborhood package store in the same sense that residents will have the opportunity to visit. It's a small mom and pop type establishments they're looking at that's economically empowered for local residents. Mom and pop storefront, and spread out throughout their community. They really like they like the big piece is that they're looking that you're looking out probably about six months minimal before they start seeing these shops open. So I think we have some time but from what I gather there isn't much There isn't much input on parking lots or anything like that. They expect that it will not be, they do not envision what happened in Brookline with the overcrowding in the neighboring areas being over, over impacted, but it's something that they were very open for future discussions with the council, making sure that they take, the residents of South Medford and keeping them informed if they do see some changes. And I really appreciate them answering a lot of questions for me. I think that, uh, cause it is, it is a worry if you're looking at what happened in Brookline when that first opened and, um, you know, what it, what it brings to that neighborhood. And then again, the biggest, uh, the biggest, um, solution to this is let's open our, um, our recreational shops here in Medford, and our residents will be hopefully going to do their business in our districts and the districts that we relegated for business. So again, I thank them and hope that helps any residents of Medford that has some questions with their concerns. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion? On the motion by Councilor Morell, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Falco. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco. Vice President Knight. Councilor Marks.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Quiravilla.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes, 7 in the affirmative, motion passes. 21014, offered by Vice President Knight, Councilor Markson, Councilor Scarpelli, be it resolved that the Medford City Council request an update from Hallmark Health, Circle Health, relative to the Lawrence Memorial Hospital site.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. During the process of transition from the Lawrence Memorial Hospital to the ambulatory surgical care center that we're presently working with, this council initiated a series of meetings where Hallmark Health would have the opportunity, or Circle Health would have the opportunity to come down and present to us where they are in the stages of the plan, what the neighborhood mitigation plans have been, and so forth. And I think it's time that we bring these meetings back to the forefront, Mr. President. We've seen construction at the hospital go fairly well. Some signage has been erected. We've seen some shovels in the ground, some construction equipment, and some mitigation issues arise that we've been able to take care of concerning fences and pathways and the like. But I think it's important, Mr. President, that as we near the finish line, that we begin the dialogue and the engagement once again. So I ask that my council colleagues support this measure and move for approval.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. Um, and I want to thank my colleagues, vice president, um, night and Councilor Scarpelli, uh, for putting this on the agenda.
[Richard Caraviello]: Uh, do we have a representative, uh, from, uh, we do not, um, Councilor Marks, uh, Ryan Ford did send me a letter, asked me, asked me to read it into the record. Uh, and he will be welcoming. If you want him to come next week, he'll come next week. But, uh, I do have a wreck, uh, letters to read into the record. If you allow me to read it now, or you want me to wait till the ends.
[George Scarpelli]: If you can wait to the, if you can wait after the 2016 resolution, if you can, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Right. Cause I think their letter refers to item 21-016. Okay. Not this paper, but I was curious, Mr. President, because as council vice president, um, Knight adequately stated that there has been a lot of change at Lawrence Memorial. The parking lot, the structure itself, signage. However, Mr. President, when they do come up before the council, I would hope they can answer a few questions. I received two calls from community advisory group members, which is the CAG group. And that was established to get direct abutters and area residents to give input to the hospital during this entire process. And it's my understanding from talking to a few of the CAG members that it started out pretty good and the input was there from area residents. in this CAG committee and then slowly but surely it started to dissipate and some of the members feel that they're not involved or at least advised on what's happening in the latest and greatest updates and they have some concern Mr. President. Also this council voted unanimously on a couple of conditions uh, just recently. And one of them was the icebox that's, um, on the top of the building. And, um, it was stated at the time that, uh, due to, I guess, uh, the fire department's request that that icebox couldn't be contained with an outer wall and so forth. And I'm not disputing that. Um, that is a fire safety concern. And, uh, that was raised. However, The CAG was under the impression that the box itself would be uh, a different, uh, aesthetically pleasing exterior would be put on the surrounding of this box. And I do agree when you go out, I, it does stick out. I know they try to do some painting and so forth, but the box definitely sticks out and it's not aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. So, uh, I would ask once again, Mr. President, when they come up that, uh, that issue of the icebox be revisited. on behalf of not just this council, but the members of the CAG who have asked repeatedly that something be done with that, Mr. President. There was also some concern about construction materials that are left in the parking lot, including heavy equipment that's been in the parking lot. And if that equipment is no longer being utilized, and if the materials are no longer being utilized, residents would ask that construction equipment and materials be moved in the interest of public safety. So I would just ask Mr. President when they do come before us that they open the lines of communication with the CAG group who is the eyes and ears of the community and this council. And if they feel slighted, Mr. President, that doesn't speak well for what's taking place and the oversight that the neighborhood and director butters should have regarding this entire process. So I just want to put that out there, Mr. President. Uh, the facility does, in my opinion, uh, I'm very pleased with how it generally looks. Um, The configuration of the lot I think will be workable. Some of the signage that has been put out there I think will assist with safety concerns. The other issue that was not addressed, Mr. President, is the issue that was brought up by many members of this council was the ADA access. And I know we requested that our ADA monitor in the city review ADA access within that facility and that a study be done. And I would ask that part of this paper, if my colleagues would indulge me, that we send this back to the city administration because that was a condition that was laid on the approval of the ambulatory care center. So I would ask that that, um, ADA access, an update on that report, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Update on ADA access?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: And all those amendments? Well, I'd like to get an update. Yes, I'd like to get an update on that. And would you like to request that Ryan Fuller come to next week's meeting also?
[Michael Marks]: I think that's what Councilor Knight has requested, so I would agree with that. But I want to make sure, Mr. President, that they have a week to discuss the issues of the lack of communication, the icebox, and the equipment that's on the lot, as well as the ADA issues that were brought up during the conditions approval.
[George Scarpelli]: Yes, please. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, thank you, Vice President Knight and Council Marks. I think this is something that the three of us have been getting phone calls. Um, I won't, I won't, uh, I won't repeat what my fellow colleagues have mentioned because these are the same concerns that residents have shared with me, but here we are. We started a little slow and then we rallied around the community and with the leadership team and it really picked up. The transparency was there, the big word, and everybody was involved and here we are on the one foot line and ready to close up and here we go with another, some more concerns and I think this is, Your first impressions are important, but you also want to make sure that that last taste is something that's just as important, because that's the final product that's left in the neighbor's lap. So I think it's important that we follow through with these initiatives and resolutions and these amendments that were put through. And I hope that, and I think they will, they've been very responsible with that. The organization comes back with their team with some good results for next week's meeting. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to also thank my colleagues for bringing this resolution forward. Um, this is a project, uh, like councilor Scarpelli said, it started off a little bit rough. Uh, but I think once we got going and we had a ton of community involvement, And that was the key. Uh, we all work together and we have, we have meetings every month with the hospital and, uh, it is long overdue that we do have a meeting with them as well to bring us up to date on everything that's going on the timelines on, uh, various pieces of this project because you know, there is some, most of it's done, but there's still more work that needs to be done in the parish, the parent, the, um, the neighbors should be notified with regard to those timelines and the hospital should be available to answer any questions that the members of the community and the neighbors have. So if my colleagues, Council colleagues wouldn't mind if I could amend this also to, if we could have a robo call and go out to the residents in that neighborhood. I believe that's what we did in the past. We should be consistent. We always invited the residents to this meeting and there was tons of resident participation, especially when we had residents here in the chambers, but they should be, people should be, you know, notified of this meeting, um, like, uh, we were saying, uh, we haven't heard from the hospital in a while and a resident should be, uh, there to ask questions, uh, with regard to the progress of this particular project. And if I may, uh, if I may offer a B paper as well, if we could, uh, uh, get some sort of an update from, uh, from this group with regard to the Malden hospital as well.
[Richard Caraviello]: I'm sorry, I didn't get that.
[John Falco]: Malden hospital. If you could get an update with regard to the Malden hospital.
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay.
[John Falco]: Yep. And I'd offer that as a B paper.
[Zac Bears]: On a B paper. Second, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: Okay.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Mayes, did you want to speak?
[Zac Bears]: Just, I'm seconding Councilor Falco's B paper.
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay, so, on the motion by Vice President Knight, as amended by Councilor Marks, and as also amended by Councilor Felkel, And we have a B paper by Councilor Falco. So we're going to vote on the B paper first. So on the B paper as proposed by Councilor Falco, seconded by Councilor Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: On the B paper. Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. 7-0. Motion passes. On the original paper offered by Vice President Knight as amended by Councilor Marks and Councilor Falco, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Falco. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: On the main paper as amended. Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Councilor Marks? Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. So the affirmative motion passes. I will, uh, uh, uh, reach out to Ryan for tomorrow and requested, uh, he'd be at the meeting, uh, with, with, with, with all the information requested. Thank you. 21015, offered by Councilor Marks, be it resolved that the City Council receive an update on the most recent site visit and Councilor recommendations at Fulton Spring Road and Murray Hill Road neighborhood regarding speeding and cut through traffic as well as pedestrian safety. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Paper 20-625 was offered by myself several weeks back. It was regarding having an on-site committee of the whole meeting at Fulton Spring Road, which we did on Saturday, November 21st at 11 AM. Every member of the council was present along with the mayor, DPW commissioner, and traffic engineer, and the city engineer, as well as a number of residents, Mr. President. And there were a number of issues discussed. The council offered a number of recommendations. be sent to the Traffic Commission and the City Administration, of which some were done pretty quickly. There was striping done at some of the intersections. Just recently at the top of Vista Rav, where there was concern about a rotary at the top of Vista Rav, that was highlighted by some markings and signage. So there was some positive moves made from this meeting that we had. However, Mr. President, there was also a recommendation made by myself that we reconvene two weeks after the November 21st meeting. And we have yet to meet. I understand it was Christmas and New Year's and it was a very difficult time to get together. However, I wanted to make sure that we did not drop the ball on this, and that's why I'm offering tonight that we find out where we stand on a number of the recommendations that were made, Mr. President. One in particular, which residents keep calling me on, is the fact that one of the recommendations that was made was put forth by myself and offered by myself and a resident, Mr. Bailey. We asked, and it was approved by this council, that we erect limit access signs at Fell's Ave, Marley Hill Road, Fulton Spring Road, Terrace Road, and Grover Road in the morning and afternoon peak hours in both directions. And that was a key point, Mr. President. It was great that we were able to put some signage up and we were able to paint some markings. some crosswalks. However, the issue that I'm hearing still from residents is the speeding cut through traffic. If you were to rate it on a scale of one to 10, to me, that issue is the 10. That is the most important issue that I'm hearing from residents in the area, that the speeding cut through traffic is of utmost concern. So I ask once again, Mr. President, and this was voted unanimously by the Medford City Council at that Committee of the Whole on the 21st, that once again, we direct this back to the city and to, um, the traffic commission requesting that resident only limit access signs be placed at Falzav, Murray Hill Road, Fulton Spring Road, Terrace Road, and Grover Road in the interest of public safety during peak morning and afternoon hours in both directions. And this is not a first, this has been done in many sections of the community. Enforcement is very important as well. You can put up all the signage, but it's important that we also ask that increased enforcement coupled with these signs take place in that area to help ease concerns. I just want to read off a few, Mr. President. I went through the committee report, and it's been a month and a half now. But I think it's important to remember what's being done currently with some of the striping and signage, and what the request was of residents. Because all too often, we bring things up. And they get forgotten about. And I want to make sure that this council, and I know we will stay on top of this. So speeding and consistent police presence with cut through traffic. was a concern that was raised over and over again according to the committee report. That we suppress certain streets from the Waze app. And I believe it was mentioned by the traffic engineer, Todd Blake, that they only do it regarding construction purposes. And I'd like to get more involved and see what we can do, because this is clearly not a construction purpose. This is a public safety purpose. And I think that would trump construction work with ways. So I'm not quite sure why. public safety would take a backseat. So I think we need that looked at again. Difficulty getting out of the driveways. I think if we are able to stop this cut through traffic, I think that'll solve some of the concerns with residents getting out of their driveway. I don't have to tell Councilor Falco about that. He deals with it on a daily basis. The radar feedback signs installed in the neighborhood. Residents were looking for additional radar feedback signs. As I mentioned, more police presence. Concerns on parking on the sidewalks. And that still takes place up in many sections of the city, in particular in the heights, because of some of the narrow streets and so forth. There's a lot of sidewalk parking, which poses a concern for residents that may have to go into the street. And that's a public safety concern, Mr. President. Stop signs at Rockland Road and Fels Ave. I know there were a number of residents there that were pushing that, Mr. President. And the confusion about the rotary at the top of Vista Ave. from what I hear has now been somewhat resolved with additional markings and a sign that was put at that rotary to better define the area. And I want to thank the DPW and Todd Blake for moving forward in that. So I would hope Mr. President that this council stays on top of this issue and that we receive through my motion tonight requesting that the traffic commission and the city administration look at the limited access signs on the roads that I mentioned already that we stay on top of this very important issue.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. Marks, is that an amendment for those signs? It is Mr. President. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, do you have that? Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, President Caraviello. Thank you, Councilor Marks, for bringing this resolution forward. This is before. When President Caraviello and I were going back and forth with regard to issues or meetings that need to be scheduled in January, sent him a list of meetings that kind of were related to last year. And I said, you know, this, in one of these, actually, this was part of the email that I sent to President Caraviello saying we need to make sure we stay on top of this and schedule meetings. So I would hope that that's going to be coming up soon. I, as someone who lives in that neighborhood, have noticed they have made some improvements. There has been some striping that has been done, signs that have been added, but of course there's more work to be done. You know, so it'll be interesting to get an update from the administration with regard to short-term and long-term solutions, what's been done, what needs to be done. And if I could amend this as well to, that we have a reverse 9-1-1 going to the residents, the same residents basically that we sent the reverse 9-1-1 to when we had the original committee, the whole meeting back in November. That meeting was well attended. It was, It was nice to actually have that many residents there and talking about the traffic and the issues that are happening in that neighborhood. And I know we promised them that we would follow up. So if we could have a reverse 9-1-1 going out to those same residents, so they know that we're on top of this. And if they have any questions, they can ask those same questions. And Councilor Marks, if I may, are we going to invite the same people, same department heads as we did last time?
[Michael Marks]: Are you asking for an onsite meeting or just?
[John Falco]: No, no, no. On the, when we have the updated, when we have the committee of the whole to update. That'd be great. Excellent idea. Okay. So if I could, if I could amend it as well to invite the department heads that we invited last time. And if we could all, if we could have the chief of police was invited last time, but if he, if he cannot make it, If we can have Sergeant Hartnett, someone from the Traffic Enforcement Division. Someone really needs to be there to represent the police department. So if I could amend that to have those people invited, that'd be great. Councilor Marks, thank you for bringing this forward and I would second that motion.
[George Scarpelli]: Councilor Scott Belli. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, thank you, Councilor Marks, bringing this forward. I think this is very important. As we see, when the community gets involved and the council work together, I think a lot of great things happen. And we have seen some changes, but I think that we need to keep rolling and making sure that There are some serious safety issues that follow through and completed in the very near future. If we can, if Council Marks has a mind, if we can amend that, I know I brought it up many a times and I'm seeing it in neighboring communities and we talked about it there at the site visit that looking at the raised bumps, and striping that area to see if what that cost analysis would be. If we can have the city administration get back to us, the traffic engineer, to see what that would look like and how that would look like going up. through that Fulton area. So I think it's important that could really help the traffic calming measures. I know that we discussed raised crosswalks there, but cost is an issue and different construction and ADA issues that are questionable. But we can add from what we were told that day that putting those the not speed bumps or raised raised roads per se that would help mitigate some of that, the speeding issue. So if we can amend that to the paper, I appreciate that. And again, thank you for bringing this forward.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any, any further discussion? Mr. President. Councilor Biz. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilor Marks, for bringing this forward and keeping us on track. And Councilor Falco, Councilor Scarpelli, I will say I live nearby and was able to drive up there. And it was the first time I actually felt confident driving at the intersection of Fells Vista and Fulton Springs. So I think the improvements are good, but we need to keep going. Um, I couldn't quite tell if this was included in another amendment. Um, but I would also like to know if, uh, the, to amend the paper to ask, uh, the police department if they have done increased enforcement in the area and, uh, if there's any data or, um, you know, anecdotal data about, uh, what kind of traffic stops they're making in the area. Thank you, Councilor Buenaventura. Any further discussion?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, while we have this, uh, meeting that I appreciate council Falco calling for, um, also, and I brought this up in the past to 40 Salem street, uh, the building apartment building that was put up there. uh, there were several promises made, uh, to area residents that live on, uh, Everett and, uh, Connors, Everett and Salem, uh, regarding curbing, uh, on the street, sidewalk, uh, and so forth. And I think it's important, Mr. President, that these promises when they met with the neighborhood, when the development met back some year and a half ago and promised X, Y, and Z that we follow through, Mr. President. So I would ask that 240, Salem Street be added to the conversations when we discuss these other issues as well.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Any further discussion? On the motion by Councilor Marks, as amended by Councilor Marks, as amended by Councilor Falco, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli, and again amended by Councilor Bears, and again amended by Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Falco. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Knight. Councilor Marks. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative. Motion passes. 21016 offered by Councilor Maks and Councilor Scarpelli be it resolved that the most recent site is posted on Governor's Ave, Lawrence Road and Forest Street be discussed. Councilor Maks.
[Michael Marks]: I want to thank my council colleague, Councilor Scarpelli, for co-offering this resolution. We both received, and I'm sure members of the council also received, a number of phone calls over the last week and a half with a number of new signs that have been popping up on Lawrence Road, Governor's Ave, and Forest Street. Many residents saw some spray painting on the sidewalks. to indicate maybe some utility work or possible signage going up. But they were never notified or didn't know what was going to happen in front of their homes. Just recently, Mr. President, the city, in conjunction with Lawrence Memorial Hospital, entered into an agreement based on a traffic study that was done by Lawrence Memorial Hospital and also a traffic study that was done by the city of Medford. regarding traffic calming initiatives with the new ambulatory care center that's going at the Lawrence Memorial Hospital. So some additional signage was recommended, which I support 1,000%. I just want to let that be known. Some of the signs that went up, in particular, these radar traffic signs that went up didn't make any sense, the placement of the signs. The one on Lawrence Road, which was coming around the bend from Forest Street, was about maybe 200 feet into Lawrence Road, right before a speed hump. It just made zero sense, Mr. President. And after a few phone calls, I know Councilor Scarpelli and I'm sure other members of the council made some phone calls. to the traffic engineer, Todd Blake, and had a discussion with the mayor. They looked into the four signs that were put up at the recommendation of this traffic study, but the launch board hired a vendor that put these signs up. Come to find out all four signs were put in the wrong space, in the wrong area, some not even remotely close to where they should have been placed. Needless to say, right away, I have to say, the city got on top of it, and they reached out to Lawrence, and Lawrence reached out to their vendor, and these signs were moved within a matter of a day or two. And I want to thank them for that, Mr. President. In addition to the additional signage, residents were concerned about the number of signs, the excessive number of signs on the roads in their particular neighborhood, turning some areas, some stretches, into what would look like Route 1. That many signs. So I went down to Lawrence Road, the stretch from Forest Street to Governor's Ave, and I counted a total on both sides, a total of, and that small stretch, it's probably five to 600 feet from Forest to Governor's Ave on Lawrence Road. I counted 14 signs. Some signs are needed, they're necessary, but there were some signs that were excessive. I think to have two signs notifying residents on each side, or drivers on each side of the street, that there's a speed hump, I think is excessive. And there's not there's not one on Winthrop Street for the speed hump to signs notifying It just seems excessive. Mr. President. There's some outdated signage that still exists regarding a school that we used to have at the top of the Fulton school and not the Fulton school on the top of governor's Forest Park at the top of Governor's Ave. There's still signage on Lawrence Road for crossing students and you could tell these signs are from the 60s and 70s and there's no crosswalk there anymore there's just signs and We received the correspondence from the city that DPW just recently removed some of this excessive signage that's around, Mr. President. And I ask that they keep on removing some of the excessive signage around the community that's not needed. Sometimes when you have a plethora of signs, you might as well not put up any at all. Because one after another, after another, is gonna do nothing to reduce speed, to make people aware of what's gonna happen, to make crossing safer. It's gonna do absolutely nothing, Mr. President. It's just gonna be a blur of signage. And I think that's what we're seeing in certain stretches. So again, I wanna thank Councilor Scarpelli, I know he has a lot to say on this too, for putting this on. And I wanna thank the city administration and Lawrence Memorial Hospital for their quick action on this.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Marksley. If I can be moved by Councilor Scarpelli, I'd like to read into a record a letter from the Lawrence Memorial Hospital. Dear President Caraviello, we are writing in response to an agenda item that was brought to our attention on January 12th at the Medford City Council meeting. Item 21016 calls to the attention a four-speed feedback signs placed on Governor's Ave, Lawrence Road, and Lawrence Memorial Hospital campus, as part of the speed reduction efforts developed in coordination with the Medford Traffic Commission. These four signs were inadvertently installed in the wrong location due to a miscommunication with the subcontractor. Upon hearing the signs were installed in the wrong locations, we worked to rectify the situation. The four signs were reinstalled in the locations previously approved by the city of Medford on January 11th. We are sending a notice to our email distribution, notifying them of the error and the correction. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. The installation of speed feedback signs is part of the traffic mitigation requested within the special permit. We are pleased that this work has been completed in collaboration with the Bepatrack Traffic Commission in response to the community's request. As shared in our end of the year notice, the construction of the new inventory care center is now completed. The hospital's main lobby renovation is still underway and scheduled to be finished next month. And a seasonal landscape and another final parking lot finish will be completed in the spring. Currently, our efforts and resources are focused on the present COVID-19 surge, but we look forward to providing regular updates at future council meetings and continue to engage our community advisory group. Respectfully, Ryan Fuller, Vice President of Strategy and Business Planning, Melrose-Wayfield Healthcare. I just want to read that into the record. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thanks for reading that in the record. Again, thank you, Councilor Marks. I won't be redundant, but again, these are the phone calls we were getting. I believe there was some feedback to the constituents that this is something that the council voted for. The council requested these signs to be put in. That was the furthest from the truth. And I think that once we talked to the city administration, once our traffic engineers and everybody got involved, I think you saw some drastic changes. The biggest concern is you're taking the look of a very quaint, historical neighborhood and really changing it to the point where it looked more urban with all these signs. And I think that was one of the concerns and Councilor Marks hits a nail on the head when it look like Route 1 in a sense. The raised speed bumps or the raised streets, I think that whether people like them or not, I think they're important because especially when you're talking about people that aren't residents, but people that are cutting through Medford are increasing their speed in that area. That's going to bring the speed down. But at the same time, what we're seeing in neighboring communities, especially more in the suburban communities that have these, you see the painting on the roadways, not signage on the sidewalks. So, and that does the job. And I think that Council Member Mox is right. When there's too many signs, it's redundant and becomes more of a distraction to people. So, I think that You know, as soon as this came forward, we did have a conversation with the mayor. She did direct her staff to make sure that these were corrected. And the Meadows Wakefield site and the Lawrence Memorial representatives worked quickly to make sure those are rectified. But again, as we move forward, we, you know, we continue to monitor the number of signs of putting on around the community. We know what they're important. We know that we need a safety mitigation is very important, but at the same time there's got to be a collaboration with the neighborhood to make sure we don't lose its charm at the same time. So again, I think Councilor Marks are bringing this forward and thank all the parties for moving this in the right direction. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[George Scarpelli]: Constable. Any further discussion?
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Marks, as amended by Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Uh, just if I could, before you call the roll, uh, cause Councilor Scarpelli just jogged my, my memory on that. The, uh, the raised speed bump, he's thousand percent correct. It blends in with the street. It's actually hot top.
[Unidentified]: Right.
[Michael Marks]: And it's such a slight raise, and I'm sure it's done according to whatever the engineering specs are, but it's very difficult. I know there's signage indicating there's a speed hump, but it's very difficult to know that it's there. And the intent is not to sneak up on people and say, ha ha, we got you on a speed hump. It's to let people know that it's there so they can slow down. And after standing out there for a good 15 to 20 minutes, when I was walking with one of the residents, we didn't see many tail lights, you know, brake lights. Everyone was just going right over it, like it didn't exist, to be honest with you. And I think it would be helpful, as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, to maybe have a directional white arrow or something that delineates the edges like we do up on Winthrop Street, that shows that there's a raised hump, a speed hump, whatever you want to call it, that exists there. And I think that will go a long way for residents to slow down when they see something, an impediment in the road, rather than just, it looks like there's nothing there. And really, I've done it myself actually, going over it, and you don't realize it until you're on the top of it and say, geez, I just hit this thing again. And that's not the intent. The intent is to slow down ahead of time. Mr. President. So I would ask if we can make a part of the committee report that, um, that we send this, uh, to the, uh, Todd Blake and ask them that they paint or put some design on it or something to make it more noticeable.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Mark. So thank you. On the motion by Councilor Marks as amended by Councilor Marks and seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President Knight.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello. Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: 7 in the affirmative. Motion passes. 21017 offered by Councilor Marks being resolved. that the city council receive a breakdown of the total amount collected from the water and sewer base fee charge since inception in 2017. Be it further resolved that the breakdown include commercial versus resident residential fees collected and whether these fees and whether said fees are held separately or combined with the water and sewer surplus monies. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And this is really, Follow up, back in 2017, as my resolution alluded to, this method city council at the recommendation of the city administration at the time and the water sewer commissioners asked for the council to vote on a proposed baseline charge for water and sewer services. And the explanation that we received at the time was to assist with stabilizing the water and sewer budget. One could debate that until the cows come home because we, for many years, have looked at a $5 to $6 million surplus in the water and sewer enterprise accounts, which would indicate to me that we are overcharging water and sewer rate payers in order to have a slush fund available. So that the issue of stabilizing the budget could be debated. However, Mr. President, the base rate at the time, which was implemented was based on your meter size. And most residential homeowners have the same meter size. It's the size water pipe that's coming into your home that indicates the $8.61 base rate that you pay. Commercial would have a larger water pipe coming in, and they would pay a higher rate. So the vast majority of residents, We're paying the $8.61. The charge was a bimonthly charge. So if you do the math, the 861 times 6 would bring you to an annual $51.66 that this base rate was charging residents. I still have not yet to receive any answer other than stabilizing a budget. What residents get for this? additional tax, I would call it a tax. And I think it's important, Mr. President, that we receive an update. This has been three years now. Indeed, has this been successful in stabilizing the budget? If so, I'd like that explained to me by the city administration, by the finance director, the water and sewer commissioners, and also the questions that were asked, Mr. President. about a breakdown of where the funds go. I believe it's very vital if the funds are co-mingled with the Water and Sewer Enterprise account money, we should know that. If not, if they're held in a separate account, is that account used to offset projects that are happening in the community, leak detection, INI, and a breakdown by commercial versus residential fees that are collected. I think that about covers it, Mr. President. Tonight we have a very distinguished Method resident that would like to speak on this. A former colleague of ours who served on this council with distinction for three decades, over three decades, is here tonight to speak on this, Mr. President. So I had asked that my former colleague, Councilor Penta, be able to speak on this, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[John Falco]: Oh, no, no, I'm good, thank you. No, no, I'm good, thanks.
[Richard Caraviello]: Good evening, fellow Councilor Bempton. Name and address for the record, please.
[Robert Penta]: Do you have to leave the mask on or can I take it off?
[Richard Caraviello]: If you could leave it on, it would be appreciated. Say it again? If you could leave it on, it would be appreciated.
[Robert Penta]: Okay. Thank you, Councilor Marksley. I appreciate it. I don't know if you can hear me, if it makes it any clearer. What Councilor Marksley has alluded to has brought me into this issue of public accounting as to what took place as it related to this connectivity fee, that's what it was called. So it was implemented in August of 2017, and for the last three years, it has brought in in excess of $3 million to the city of Medford. And having that at $3 million and not knowing how and what it's been used for, and if it was going to be an adjunct to the water and sewer system here in the city of Medford, then so be it. We always get in advance from the MWRA their projected assessment as to what the city is going to be charged for water and sewer charges. And that is built in your annual budget each and every year. And each and every year since then, the projection that this could be possibly used for a deficit has never happened because we're still dealing with the surplus. So I think what Councilman Marks is alluding to is the fact that, you know, if you've collected $3 million, what have you used it for, number one? What do you have projected for its use? What is the cost for it? And more importantly, if it is separate from water and sewer, so be it. As we know that you can't take the money from water and sewer because that's considered to be retained earnings. And the only way you can get through retained earnings is to the Department of Revenue to get a waiver and 90% of the time that they will give it to you. But this is something that has led me after the resolution went on, if you can just bear with me, to other things that unfortunately the council and the public have not been apprised of and brought forward. This base fee charge at a minimum of $51.66 annually, that's on the house side. I don't know what the commercial side would be. But if in fact it's bringing in approximately a million dollars a year, so be it. If you look at your most recent tax bill here in the city of Medford, which is for the third quarter, they implemented a new system with a new vendor. And the new vendor has really got this bill basically messed up. It's going to be changed because they made a big mistake on it, especially when it gets to the tax itself and it talks about your CPA tax. If you think about what's going on, and if you think about the taxes here that are going on here in the city of Medford, what can we do to some degree to help the Medford taxpayer as to what's going on and everything that's going on? So what I would like to just introduce to you is something for you to think about. When you look at your water and sewer tax.
[Richard Caraviello]: If you could hold on a second, we've got a little glitch here. We all set? Thank you. I'm sorry.
[Robert Penta]: OK. If you can look at your water and sewer bill, and if you can look at your tax bill, I'd like to introduce something for the council entertainers. It's called a deadline discount program. And a deadline and discount program, which is implemented in a lot of states and a lot of counties, that the month that you get the bill, your tax bill, for example, you get your tax bill in November, and I believe it's due February 1st. The next one is February 1st. But if you pay it on the month that you receive it, there's a 4% discount on your bill. The next month, which would be January, there would be a 3% discount. And the city in itself would be getting its money quicker. And at the same time, the taxpayer would be getting a break as it relates to that. Same thing as it relates to your water and sewer bill. If you get your water and sewer bill, it's usually six or seven weeks out before you pay it. And the month that you get it, or the month before, you get a 4% discount if you pay for it ahead of time. It's a thought, but it does work because it gets the city money quicker before you get it quicker. Pinellas County in Florida, one of many counties, have implemented that and they've shown a marketable increase, a marketable increase. Another thing, Mr. President, when we talk about the city's unfunded liability, for which this council, I can go back to 2014, Resolution 214725 was offered by myself. And that particular resolution asked that on an annual basis, the city of Metra take out of its free cash a minimum of $500,000 toward then in fund liability of $29 million. I have no idea what the unfunded liability is. And I don't think this council has any idea of what the balance is and how much each and every year has been taken out of the budget for the purposes of getting to that unfunded liability, which has to be paid by 2029. Another thing for which the taxpayers and the council should be aware of waste management. And I don't know if you guys are aware of it, but in March of 2014, then Mayor McGlynn signed an extension, a three-year extension to the waste management contract in the City of Medford. And that three-year extension went as follows. For the first year, the City of Medford would get $300,000 in cash. The second year, they would get $100,000 more. That's $400,000 from 2014 going forward. But the catch to the whole thing was as follows. The amendment was, if you remember correctly, for those who did serve back then, recycling was an issue here in the city of Medford. And at that point in time, when the contract was signed, we were at 11%. At some point in time, the city worked itself up to a 29% inventory of recycling. But as a result of the city signing off on a three-year extension, what took place there was that the city of Medford allowed waste management, allowed waste management to increase our cost of recycling on an annual basis projected at $85 per ton, and then it would set itself on an annual basis increase, according to the city of Boston, beginning on July 1st, 2015. That's almost six months, that's almost a good year after the contract was signed. And as a result of that, each and every year, the city of Medford has been being charged more for recycling than they had been according to the original agreement. So for $300,000, $400,000 that the city got paid up front, the cost of recycling has gone forward. And once this contract ends in the year 2023, yeah 2023, all the recycling bins, all the recycling bins that the people have in this city will come under the control of the city of Medford. They'll own it and not waste management. Another thing that I believe, Mr. President, needs to really be discussed is the CPA. Once again, taxpayers on an annual basis are at a cost of approximately $103, according to your household, in the value of your home. Now, the CPA, as we all know, five years are up. Any time after five years, according to the law, as it's written, that question can go back on the ballot. And I would strongly suggest that this council put that question back on the ballot. Because when it was first elected in 2015, 1,200 people did not vote on the question because it was on the backside of the ballot, and they didn't know that the question was there to be asked. $103, think about that, annually for CPA. Then you think about the $51 and the connectivity fee, and you put that together with maybe the discounts on paying for your taxes, it would be a great help to the city of Medford and to the taxpayers. Also, Mr. President, Cable costs. Our cable bills from the residents of this community keep going up each and every year. They just went up again. But they also have a 5% franchise fee in that cable bill. You folks have not got an update on what that increase has brought to the city of Medford and where that money has gone, at least for the last four or five years. And I know that's something that Councilor Marks had brought up before. Then we get to the parking issues, Mr. President.