[Falco]: Okay, the 14th regular meeting of the Medford City Council will now come to order. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Present. Vice President Caraviello. Present. Councilor Knight. I just saw him. Present. Councilor Marks. Present. Present. Councilor Morell. Present. Councilor Scarpelli. Present. President Falco. Present.
[Falco]: Seven present. At this time I'd ask everyone to please rise to salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God,
[Unidentified]: indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.
[Falco]: Pursuant to Governor Baker's microphone. Yeah, I have to read this communication. So if you give me a few minutes, I'll get through this and then we'll move forward with the meeting. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law, General Law Chapter 38, Section 18 and the Governor's March 15, 2020 order imposing strict limitation on the number of people that may gather in one place. This meeting of the Medford City Council will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. Specific information and the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and or parties with the right and or requirement to attend this meeting can be found on the City of Medford website at www.medfordma.org. For this meeting, members of the public who wish to learn or watch the meeting may do so by accessing the meeting link contained herein. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. In the event that we are unable to do so despite best efforts, we will post on the city of Medford or Medford community media website in audio or video recording, transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. Thank you for that. And now I have to read one more notification from the governor of Massachusetts. Order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, general law, chapter 30.
[Unidentified]: Whoa.
[Falco]: Chapter 38, section 20. Whereas on March 10th, 2020, I, Charles D. Baker, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, acting pursuant to the powers provided by Chapter 639 of the Acts of 1950 in Section 2A of Chapter 17 of the General Laws, declared that there now exists in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a state of emergency due to the outbreak of the 2019 novel coronavirus COVID-19. And whereas many important functions of state and local government are executed by public bodies, as that term is defined in general law chapter 38, section 18, the meetings that are open to the public consistent with the requirements of law and sound public policy in order to ensure active public engagement with contribution to and oversight of the functions government. functions of government, and whereas both the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, DPH, have advised residents to take extra measures to put distance between themselves and other people to further reduce the risk of being exposed to COVID-19. Additionally, the CDC and DPH have advised high-risk individuals, including people over the age of 60, anyone with underlying health conditions or a weakened immune system in pregnant women to avoid large gatherings. Whereas Section 7, 8, and 8A of Chapter 639 of the Acts of 1950 authorize the governor during the effective period of declared emergency to exercise authority over public assemblages as necessary to protect the health and safety of persons. And whereas low-cost telephone, social media, and other internet-based technologies are currently available that will permit the convening of a public body through virtual means and allow real-time public access to activities of the public body and whereas Section 20 of Chapter 30A and implementing regulations issued by the Attorney General. currently authorizes remote participation by members of the public body subject to certain limitations. Now, therefore, I hereby order the following. Number one, a public body as defined in section 18 of chapter 38 of the general laws is hereby relieved from the requirement of section 20 of chapter 30A, that it conduct its meetings in a public place that is open and physically accessible to the public, provided that the public body makes provision to ensure public access to the deliberations of the public body for interested members of the public through adequate alternative means. Adequate alternative means of public access shall mean measures that provide transparency and permit timely and effective public access to the deliberations of public body. Such means may include, without limitation, providing public access through telephone, internet, or satellite, enabled audio or video conferencing, or any other technology that enables the public to clearly follow the proceedings of the public body while those activities are occurring. While allowance for active real participation by members of the public is a specific requirement of the general or special law or regulation or a local ordinance or bylaw, pursuant to which the proceedings is conducted in alternative means, a public access must provide for such participation. a municipal public body that for reasons of economic hardship and despite best efforts is unable to provide alternative means of public access that will enable the public to follow the proceedings of the municipal public body as those activities are occurring in real time may instead post on its municipal website a full and complete transcript reporting or other comprehensive record of the proceedings as soon as practicable upon the conclusion of the proceedings. This paragraph shall not apply to the proceedings that are concluded pursuant to a general or special law or regulation or a local ordinance or bylaw that requires allowance for active participation by members of the public. A public body must offer its selected alternative means of access to its proceedings without subscription toll or similar charge to be public. Number two, public bodies are hereby authorized to allow remote participation by all members in any meeting of the public body. The requirement is a quorum of the body in the chair be physically present at a specified meeting location as provided in general law chapter 30A, section 20D and in 940CMR 29.104B is hereby suspended. Three, a public body that elects to conduct its proceedings under the relief provided in sections one or two above shall ensure that any party entitled or required to appear before it shall be able to do so through remote means as if the party were a member of the public body and participating remotely as provided in section two. Number four, all other provisions of sections 18 to 25 of chapter 30A in the attorney general's implementing regulations shall otherwise remain unchanged if fully applicable to the activities of public bodies. This order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until rescinded or until the state of emergency is terminated, whichever happens first. Okay, thank you for listening to that. So as we move forward, and I open up the meeting tonight, I'd like to, before we move forward with the meeting, this week, the city lost one of our, someone actually very special to our city, and that is Joe McGonigal. For those of you that don't know Joe McGonigal, He was a city clerk from 1967 to 1996. That spans four decades, almost 30 years of service to our community in that one capacity. And for those that knew Joe, he was a pretty uh, you know, pretty amazing guy. I mean, I didn't get to know him till after he retired his clerk, but, uh, very nice man, uh, active in the community. And, um, I think we should, uh, start this meeting, uh, you know, by having a moment of silence for him. But I just think that he should be recognized for someone who served as long as he did. That's, you know, from 1967 to 1996 is a very long time and he was very committed to our community. And so I think we should start off by having a moment of silence for him. But I would first also like to recognize Vice President Caballero.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I knew Joe for many years, both as a friend and a long time visitor to the Malden Catholic community. Joe was a fixture at all the Malden Catholic games, a good friend to have in the community. And again, that 30 years of service is a long time to dedicate your life to the city of Medford. So Joe will be missed in our community and our prayers go out to his family.
[Unidentified]: Thank you very much, Vice President Caraviello. Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Um, Joe, if many people were not aware, Joe was an avid singer, uh, as well as an historian. So he had a lot of man of many hats, a real Renaissance type man. And, uh, he will be sorely missed. Thank you.
[Falco]: Uh, we, uh, we have, uh, let's see, uh, councilor Peters.
[Bears]: Yeah, I, um, I didn't get to know Joe very well. Um, I was three years old when he stopped serving as a city clerk, but we were really lucky to get in one of our first meetings, some materials delivered, I think, through Chris Donovan from Joe McGonigal, History of the Lawrence Light Guard, which I know that he was an avid, very knowledgeable about as well. So while I didn't get to know him very personally at all, but it's been really good to have some connection and I know just send condolences to his family.
[Falco]: Thank you very much, Councilor Bears. Any other councilors? Let's see. Oh, Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. I would have to echo my colleague's sentiments relative to Mr. McGonigal. He was a great gentleman. I had the opportunity over the past decade or so to get to know him rather well. And he was a really good guy. He had a great sense of humor, a great sense of wit, and a great understanding of how government is supposed to work. And he wasn't afraid to tell you if he felt as though you were doing a good job. and more so if you were doing a bad job. So with that being said, Joe was a great guy. He was certainly a gentleman who had a great way and a great approach to life. And his memory will live on down in the city clerk's office with his portrait. commemorating the years of service that he had dedicated to the city of Medford. So with that being said, I'd like to join my colleagues in extending my deepest and sincerest condolences to his family and for the gratitude for lending him to us for the better part of five decades.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. As I get up there in age and 50 years old, you start seeing the backbone of our community, those people that just gave to our community day in and day out, that made Medford how great it is today. And losing somebody like Joe Hurts, he was a great guy. I saw him at one of the debates. him and his son, a great family man, and will surely be missed. So our prayers go out to his family and we'll miss him. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I believe the clerk would like to say a few words. Clerk Hurtubise.
[Hurtubise]: I would love to say something on a personal note if you will indulge me. And I can tell you that he was one of the first people who called me when I started the job. He called me fairly frequently. He checked in fairly frequently. He was very often visiting in the Registrar's of Voters Office. I saw him as recently as the beginning of March at the presidential primary, and I've always welcomed his in-person visits to the office. It was really nice to meet him in person. It was nice to talk to him on the phone. He became a nice, a trusted mentor to me. was very, very good to me in terms of telling me what I needed to know. A lot of his records are actually still down in the vault in the basement. It's pretty incredible. As many of you know, he was a butcher while he was putting himself through Boston College. And his records are very tightly and carefully wrapped up in butcher paper down in the basement. So it's pretty amazing. And I also know that Joe was very, very proud to be the first of three successive Boston College graduates to serve as city clerk. In fact, the last conversation I had with him in March was about how proud he was to be the first of three in a row from BC. So I wanted to extend my own condolences to his family as well and thank them for sharing him with the city for so long.
[Falco]: Thank you very much, City Clerk Hurtubise. Okay, at this point, if you could please rise for a brief moment of silence.
[Knight]: Mr. President, motion to suspend the rules to take paper 20314 out of order.
[Falco]: Motion to suspend the rules to take a paper out of order, seconded by Vice President Caraviello. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Fevelko?
[Falco]: Yes. Signing the affirmative, zeroing the negative, the motion passes. 20-314 offered by Vice President Caraviello and Councilor Marks. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council get a response from the city engineer regarding the council mandated curb-to-curb paving of all streets opened by any utility or private company.
[Caraviello]: Vice President Caraviello. Mr. President, I'll refer to my senior councilor, Councilor Marks on this. Councilor Marks. He was the co-author.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll refer to the Vice President of the Method City Council, Councilor Caraviello. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Mr. President, about a year and a half ago, Councilor Marks offered this motion to all utilities and private contractors that opened the street up to make sure that they were paved curve to curve. Because over the years, shoddy work was done by many subcontractors and left our streets in the condition you see them with now, with shoddy patch jobs. sinking hole. So Council Marks introduced this resolution to make sure that all street openings now come with a curb-to-curb paving. And the reason I brought this up this week is because driving around the city right now, there's many, many companies out there doing gas work and all kinds of street work. And I wanted to see if the resolution that was passed, These companies are doing the curb-to-curb paving that has been required by all street openings.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. I believe we actually have the city engineer with us. Mr. President, just if I could. Yes, Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Before the city engineer, I want to thank Councilor Caraviello for co-sponsoring this with me. Mr. President, I think we realize all too often Uh, when utility work is being done in the community, first of all, uh, the utility companies will do their very best not to do curb to curb and explain the reasoning why. Uh, and secondly, uh, they'll come out depending on what time of year it is and say that, uh, this is only the initial patch job and, uh, the curb to curb restoration will take place at a later date. And I think it's important that we as a council get follow-up on our request to make sure that curb-to-curb is done. And even if it takes six to eight months to have it done, that this work truly gets done by the utility companies. So I just want to thank Councilor Caraviello for co-authoring this. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Falco]: Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. This is something that I've looked into quite a bit since my election to the Medford City Council, and I do understand that there are certain state laws and state parameters that guide public utility companies and what is required of them and what is not. I, earlier in the day, had forwarded an email to the city clerk proposing a B paper amendment to this proposal that's before us, Mr. President. And that B paper amendment would be that, be it resolved, the Medford City Council request the city administration establish a policy requiring that all street opening permits, my phone just shut off, so I lost it. Technology's great. All street opening permits to be accompanied by a neighborhood mitigation agreement that will adequately adequately and reasonably offset the negative impact on the quality of life caused during street opening construction and city neighborhoods. So, Mr. President, what we see here, if you look around the city of Metro right now, Garfield Ave, Sheridan Ave, Golden Ave, Main Street, Central Street, Woburn Street, National Grid or other public utility providers have ripped up our streets. They're storing their equipment on our roadways. They're storing their supplies on our roadways. They're causing detours in neighborhoods. They're putting parking restrictions in for three and four weeks at a time, Mr. President. And that's causing an impact to the quality of life of residents in the neighborhood. But we'll take Golden Ave, for example. Now, I've probably put forward 25 to 30 resolutions asking for Golden Ave to be repaved, resurfaced, potholes fixed over the course of the last four years. Now, just recently, Devereux Corporation, on behalf of National Grid, closed down Golden Ave for a month. I mean, a week, rather. And they did the work that they had to do in the trenches. and did a great job Mr. President they run quite an operation actually they're very efficient, but the potholes on the street is still there there is still broken sidewalk panels on the, on the sidewalks there is still tree stumps that need to be removed. And I think that it might be reasonable for us to request a mitigation agreement to address some of these concerns in the neighborhood to offset some of the quality of life issues that come with these street construction permits. For example, Mr. President, if they're asphalting the whole entire stretch of Golden Ave, is it too much to ask for them to take out a couple of broken sidewalk panels and replace those panels with asphalt until we can get to them with concrete? I don't really think it is, Mr. President. And the mitigation agreement can be reflective to the scope of work that's being done. So if there's a small project that's being done, we can only ask for a little bit. If there's a big project that's being done, we can ask for a lot. But I think that this is something we really need to look at long and hard, Mr. President. We've all been talking now for the better part of a decade about what we can do to hold public utility providers accountable. And I think this is one way we can do it. I commend Councilor Caraviello and Councilor Marks for bringing this resolution forward. And I also thank the city engineer for being here this evening. That's why I motioned for this paper to be taken out of order because I saw that he was here and I really am looking forward to some of the comments that he has to make relative to this proposal. So with that being said, Mr. President, I would make a motion to join that as a B paper. I've already forwarded the language to the city clerk and all the members. So with that being said, I rest.
[Falco]: Thank you Councilor Knight. On the B paper, is the B paper a second? Thank you, Mr. President, the B paper seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Scarpelli, you can speak next.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President, I think Council marks and Councilor Caraviello bring this forward. I know that what we saw to assist the these new city engineer was one of the biggest concerns we had when I started four years ago was the the issues of our streets deteriorating, we realized it was mostly the patchwork that was done by utilities. And I believe it was at the high school, at one of our meetings, where the meetings were held at the high school, and we held, I believe it was Comcast to the fire, and said that we wanted curb to curb. And the question we asked, we said, has that ever been approached by the city engineer at the time? And they said, no. Um, I believe they went to a side table, came back and decided to do it. And I think since that day, we've actually tried everything we could to move that initiative forward. So, um, you know, I, I think that, uh, as we move forward, we have so many streets that would need to be repaired, but going forward, unless we get ahead of this, I think this is the beginning of what deteriorates our roads and streets and our community. It starts with this, this patchwork, and then the neglect of them afterwards. So I thank you again, and I fully support both papers. Thank you.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Bears?
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I strongly support both papers. Thank you to all of the previous councilors who just spoke. Really support the mitigation agreement and B paper presented by Councilor Knight. I just want to draw attention to a larger question. We call them public utilities, but the fact is that they have been privatized and deregulated over the past several decades. We call them public utilities. They're trying not to spend the money to keep our roads safe. They make significant profits. National Grid made $4 billion in profit last year. Comcast made $41 billion in profit last year. I think they can afford to fix our roads.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. Councilor Morell. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I want to echo my colleagues and thanking my other colleagues for bringing this forward. Councilor Scarpelli made a really good point that, you know, we do have potholes and we have deterioration on our streets, but so much of this is this patchwork, and it really becomes a public safety issue. A lot of times, say, bike riders, walkers, runners are dodging this patchwork, and now they're in traffic, and now there's a car swerving around them, or we're going up farther, or it's just It's a great way, it's a trip hazard. So I think this is really a public safety issue that needs to be addressed and be addressed by the people. I look forward to supporting this and I thank my Councilors for raising the issue in such a way. Thank you, Councilor Morell.
[Caraviello]: Let's see, Vice President Caraviello. Mr. President, if I can make a seat paper that we move to make this ordinance a city law now.
[Falco]: Okay, so basically, so the ordinance will be the law. So just to formulate an ordinance to, do you want to formulate the ordinance, Councilor? Vice President Caraviello? I'm sorry? You want to basically make an official ordinance with regard to this, to curb-to-curb paving? Yes, to make it law. Okay.
[Unidentified]: That's the seat name.
[Knight]: Councilor Knight? I do believe state law dictates the requirements that are necessary and mandated for these public utility companies. So I think it would be important for us before we take a vote on this to hear further from our city engineer relative to those scope and specifications. But from what I understand, I think I want to say the project is like SWOP or something like that would be the acronym that was used to, I'm going to mush this, get out of here. The acronym that would be used. I'll look it up in the meantime, but I think we should allow the city engineer an opportunity to speak on this before moving further. Okay.
[Falco]: Well, why don't we do that? Let's see. So we have the city engineer with us, Tim McGibbon.
[McGivern]: I think I'm unmuted.
[Falco]: You're unmuted. We can't hear you. Okay.
[McGivern]: Sure. Hello, everybody. So a lot was said. I jotted some notes down, but I'm happy to, if I, if I miss something, then I'm happy to address it. So just to zoom out big picture, I've been the city engineer for a couple months past a year now. And I know being a resident of Medford and watching city council, I know this has been an issue. One of the things that we're doing actually right now that Mayor Lungo-Koehn is very active on and is pushing hard is establishing a payment management plan, which is an asset management program, which we are going to be coupling with our utility asset management program, which I briefed the council on prior. So we're kind of at the near the end of our utility asset management program, and we're going to be starting up hopefully soon. We're going to get a consultant on board for payment management program. One of the challenges is that, and I know Councilor Marks has talked about this quite a bit, is the mileage of road we have and the budget that we use to repave and resurface, and then the timelines associated with that don't line up. So basically pavement's one of the city's largest assets and we are spending money to repave and resurface and we're asking utility companies to do curb-to-curb and full overlays when they're within the five-year moratorium. We also have special projects when things like Eversource and National Grid are coming in, we have them do curb to curb. Sometimes that's lagging, and I'll talk about that in a second, which is why some of the roads may seem like that they are just in terrible shape. And I'll talk about Golden Avenue as well. So that pavement management plan is gonna help us budget and allocate resources that we have, and then do capital planning for future years, so we are actually addressing our pavement in a logical, scientific way. And we're repairing and crack sealing on the years we're supposed to, and we're repaving roads on the years we're supposed to be repaving. So from my perspective, that's very exciting, from an engineering perspective. So that's just sort of the big picture zooming out, that's coming. So right now, just the way that utility installation works is we don't, it would be bad practice to have, say, for example, National Grid to install a gas line and then do curb to curb if we need to come back a year or two later and redo the water line. Or if Eversource is coming through, which they did on Mystic Avenue, And National Grid also needs to come through there. And then also the Water Department needs to come through there. And then at the same time, we also have sewer repairs that we're trying to make, casting repairs that we're trying to make, curbing and ramp repairs we're trying to make. So it's not as simple as, I wish it was, as saying as National Grid's gonna replace that gas line in the street, so when they're done, they should do curb to curb. Well, we don't want them to do curb to curb because we want them to do a, depending on the timing, either a temporary patch or a permanent patch. A permanent patch is usually about half the road to somewhere between a quarter and a half of the road, usually, depending on where the line is. because we need to come through and replace the water line, like the things I was talking about. So there is a logical progression to the work. A good example is actually Golden Avenue. So that wasn't on my radar actually until... The council brought it to my radar. We have a lot of streets at Golden Avenue. So we have Golden Avenue right now in the queue. So basically the work that you're seeing on Golden Avenue is because of the council. So we asked National Grid to do the gas line. We're gonna see if the water line needs to be replaced and replace the water line if needed. And then once all that work is done, we then come through and do a final repave of Golden Avenue Which is supposed to last five years. So the ordinance says Five-year moratorium on any new pavement. So then we don't let companies Do any work in the street for a five-year period now? sometimes we do have to let them do work whether it's an emergency whether it's a you know, providing a much-needed service, something like that. So anytime that happens, we do require curb-to-curb. Also, any new grant allocations, you know, I know the council requires curb-to-curb, but that's something I want to try to do more often as well if we don't have a new utility and we don't have other repairs to make over time. One of the things that I started implementing very shortly after I started this position was what's called a moratorium special exception. Every year we have a winter moratorium that lasts from November 15th to somewhere in the middle of April, sometimes the first of April. Now, before I started, there was just exceptions. And so the city engineer and the DPW commissioner may or may not allow work during that moratorium. My computer is gonna die, one second. I'm just gonna plug it in. But that wasn't working out well because there was no way to hold the contractors accountable. So over the last year, and it worked well over the first winter I was in this position, We have the contractors basically fill out a form and we create a log so we can track them and they come back in the springtime, which is supposed to be around now, to put permanent patches in. or do curb to curb or do whatever they need to do based off of our judgment when they come back in the spring. So that was fairly successful last year. We were able to track the contract, just hold them accountable. We wouldn't give them, we don't give them any new permits until they go back and fix the work or do the permanent patch that they created over the winter. They usually would do a temporary patch over the winter and we didn't do that. So that's going towards the goal here. So the mechanisms that we use for street opening permits are basically three simple mechanisms. One's a temporary patch. We have them put that in if we know that we're going to immediately follow with some other work or another utility company is going to immediately follow with some other work. Then permanent patches, which are more permanent, obviously. And then curb-to-curb, which we do on all moratoriums, or if pavement's in really good condition, we say, yeah, that pavement's going to last another 20 years, and you don't have any other work proposed, so do curb-to-curb. That does happen. Typically, you don't notice it because it's in good condition. Everybody notices the bad condition on the potholes, and I understand that. National Grid has a program that we've worked out with them over the years because they do so much work and because they're always working in the city. We try to keep a close eye on what they're doing. We try to react to any mistakes or settlement in the trenching. They are very good at fixing those things when we see them. So, you know, we're always telling folks if there's an issue, residents are calling, whatever, and it's because of national grid, they usually react to it within a day or two and fix it. Not all utility companies do that. National is pretty good. And then if we are planning on paving that street, for example, I'm trying to think of a, Golden Avenue might be an example, but there are other ones, a lot of them actually. When we know that we are going to pave that road or we are gonna install a water line in that road or repair something, we don't have them do a permanent patch. We have them do a temporary patch and then they reimburse us the money that they normally would have spent on a full permanent patch. So then we can take that money and use it for paving other roads. Sometimes the mayor will want to use it for paving private ways. So that sort of bank account, that balance accumulates over time. And we're actually going to talk to them about cashing in basically.
[Falco]: Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Tim, that process where the public utility contractor, or as Councilor Bears, the quasi-public utility contractor, when they do a temporary patch and then contribute the funds to the city. That's a program that's outlined by state law, correct?
[McGivern]: Well, they have to, yeah, they're supposed to spend a certain amount of money and pay a certain amount. I believe there is some state statute involved, but I don't know if it gets that specific. But basically it's money that they were going to spend and they didn't. I don't know exactly what statute applies. I do know that it's a program that we have been working with National Grid and using it for many years before me.
[Knight]: Right.
[McGivern]: Yeah, I just don't know what statue it is, but I don't know.
[Knight]: So in terms of curb to curb, that's one aspect of the proposal. The B paper, when a utility contractor is working on a street like Olden Avenue, You know, there's been a lot of people that have been killed 15 times over the... Sorry, Councilor Knight, you're breaking up.
[McGivern]: I don't know if there's anything... I can't hear Councilor Knight.
[Falco]: Yeah, I can't hear him either. Councilor Knight?
[Unidentified]: I can't see him.
[Falco]: Well, he's trying to figure out his connection. Vice President Caraviello, comment, Councilor Marks.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. One of the biggest complaints we get from the neighbors is the utilities rip up the streets, and they leave them in poor condition. But Tim, you didn't answer the question that was posed to you this evening, is that we passed this about a year ago. And have any of the utility companies done the curb-to-curb paving that was in the resolution that was passed some time ago?
[McGivern]: Well, it depends on the road, and it depends on if we have work that needs to get done, additional work. We don't want, well, it's my opinion, I suppose, but it's also, I think, standard practice. We don't want a utility company necessarily to pave curve to curve if we have additional work to do in that street, say, the next year. So if we're planning on installing a water line after National Grid does their gas line, and National Grid paves curb to curb, then not only are we ripping up brand new pavement to install a water line, which to me is bad practice, also a bit of a waste of asphalt materials, which is a petroleum product.
[Caraviello]: have we done any streets under the curb, the curb that was proposed a year ago?
[McGivern]: Yeah, so I mean- Can you give me one street that was done? Not off the top of my head. Yeah, not off the top of my head. I mean, I guess of not, we've been just going by standard practice. I mean, I don't know if that resolution is baked into our process. If the resolution is that simple, I don't think it should be baked into the process like that. I think it needs to be a little bit more detailed. I think the idea of an ordinance may be helpful here. But it needs to be more detailed because, like I said, Eversource is a good example, right? I know they're operating under a granite location. Eversource is paving curb-to-curb when they're done. It's three miles plus from one end of the city to the other. But that's not going to happen for a little bit of time here. Next year, they're going to be pulling cable and doing manhole work. And then the year after that is when they're going to be doing the curb-to-curb pavement. That's an example. But in the meantime, through Eversource's route through the city, where we've asked National Grid to replace all their gas mains in that route, and we've asked the water department what water mains need to be replaced. So we want to get all that work done before Eversource comes in a year and a half from now or whatever and paves curb to curb. So I guess my response is that I can't list a street that we've done that to. But at the same time, I think there needs to be some more thought into the logical steps on going from street that needs lots of utility work, subsurface work, and surface work, and final paving, so we can put a bow on it for five years. I just don't think it's as simple as- Five years? Yeah, five years, yeah. That's our moratorium. Yeah, once we pay, we don't dig it again for five years.
[Unidentified]: That's how it's supposed to work. I don't know what to say, Mr. President.
[Caraviello]: Again, I thought we had passed something, and again, it's just gone by the wayside.
[McGivern]: I don't know if it's gone by the wayside. I mean, the standard practice that we use, when we're done with our work on streets, we pave curb to curb, that we do the full pavement once all the work that needs to get done, that's gonna last another 20, 30, 40, 50 years, and then pave.
[Caraviello]: Well, somebody better tell the people on all these streets off of Main Street that this street's not getting paved, being paved crib to crib, because they all think the streets are getting paved after all this gas work is done. So somebody better let all these residents know that.
[McGivern]: If the road is in bad shape, and we're evaluating the street open and private application, we'll usually have them do a permanent patch. which is better than a temporary patch. It's a full depth rebuild of the pavement.
[Caraviello]: Tim, in all due respect, there's permanent patches that are sinking all over the city.
[Bears]: Getting some feedback.
[Falco]: Yeah, if I could ask everyone, if you're not speaking, if you could just put yourself on mute, and then we'll see if that helps out. Councilor Caraviello, I don't know if the city engineer heard your question.
[Caraviello]: Mr. President, I can show you dozens of permanent patches that are sinking throughout the whole city. Okay. I mean, it's not your fault, Tim. I mean, this is before you came on. Sure, sure. They're all over the place.
[McGivern]: Yeah, I mean, I want to know about them. And when we do identify them, we do try to hold the contractors accountable. One of the things that I've been pushing to get a tags installed which are just little tags so we know which utility company before I came no one was doing that I Agree with that.
[Caraviello]: That's a good program.
[McGivern]: Yeah, so so trying to hold them accountable. I just want to be I want to be cautious here. We should be doing things, standard practice and good practice, good protocol. Now, the pavement management plan that I talked about, one of the big things that this, the reasons that our streets are sort of in poor shape has to do with the capital planning, the lack of pavement management program, the lack of, that is going to help. It's going to take some time. I just want to be careful when we are talking about this resolution to make sure that all of the Councils understand the logical process that we go through from street is in bad condition to street is done and in good condition. the utility companies contribute more towards that resurfacing. So there are ways to do it, like I was saying, through ordinance where there may be some requirement where they have to put money into an account. There was a SPOF that was done quite a number of years back that is an ordinance, something like that. I think we have it, but hasn't been staffed and it hasn't been administered. That's something that we could staff and administer that's existing right now in the ordinance. So there are things that we can do. And right now when we issue street opening permits, we have to balance having National Grid replace their leaky gas lines with My one permit officer and inspector in my office and making sure that we can oversee their work while at the same time Having national grid operate five crews at once in the city so they can replace the leaky gas lines so, you know More inspectors would be helpful for that in my office that to hold the contractors accountable make sure that we're putting our eyeballs on all the trench work that happens and and making sure that it's done right. So there is work to be done here, for sure. And I'm trying to pick away at it. I'm trying to implement programs to make it so we're following a little bit better standard practice out there and we're not just status quo that it has been for years and years. So I think You know, I think there's some work to be done here, for sure. I acknowledge that 100%.
[Caraviello]: I'll leave it up to my other council. I don't know what to say, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. We have a number of members that wanna speak. So we have Councilor Marks, and then we're gonna loop back to Councilor Knight, who had started and we lost his connection. So let's go Councilor Marks, Councilor Knight, and then Councilor Bears.
[Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Tim because, uh, over the past year, he has done a lot of work in trying to pull everything together in the engineer's office. Um, the medallion program that he's talking about, uh, I'd like to see that implemented citywide where temporary and permanent patches utility company puts a small medallion with their name, uh, what they're doing there and contact information. That way, anyone in the city, not just someone from the city engineer's office, can walk down their street and say, you know what, I see a sinking hole there. It has the name of this particular company on it. And then at least city hall knows what you're referring to and so forth and can get on top of it. So I appreciate that work that Tim's done on that. Tim mentioned about a capital plan. This council has been calling for a capital plan for 20 years. And I'm glad to hear that we will have a pavement capital plan because there's $0 allocated in the city's budget for total street repavement. The money that we get for street repavement comes from chapter 90 money, which is about $980,000 a year. And you're talking maybe if you can get through a street or two with that amount of money, you're lucky. And we have over 760 streets in the city. Uh, so you can see we're never going to get ahead of it by just following chapter 90 money. We have to do some type of capital plan or put money on a yearly appropriation and the budget. Um, you know, part of the frustration I think councilor Caraviello was talking about is every time a utility company appeared before the council. The city engineer, and in this case it was the previous city engineer, would put all the agreements within the paper. And you could bet your bottom dollar, it never said curb to curb restoration. It was always permanent patch or restored as they found it. And it was the council that took a stance back a year or two ago saying, you know what? We're not going to tolerate this anymore. We don't like the condition. The subcontractors and utility companies are leaving our streets and we're going to require pavement curb to curb. And many of them kicked back at us and we kicked back at them saying, well, maybe you won't get it approved if you're looking to get it approved. And sure enough, each one over time committed to doing curb to curb restoration. So part of the, uh, request, I think by councilor Caraviello myself, and I won't speak for him was to go back over the last year and a half, two years on all the council votes that requested curb to curb. As a condition, not as just, Hey, will you please do this as a condition of approval, whether or not that got done. And I realized it could be in the stages of getting done because Tim mentioned It could be a temporary patch because there's other utility work being done there. And that's fine. Um, in regards to, uh, creating an ordinance, this definitely needs to go to the public works subcommittee. Uh, it's not a black and white issue. There are a lot of other circumstances that play a factor. I would personally like to know that my city engineer is backing what we think should be done. And I think that would be the case. So even if we create an ordinance that gave direction to the city engineer saying, this is how we would like to operate as a city and as a city council, knowing that you have to use your expertise and so forth and your judgment. Uh, you know, I don't think you can create a cookie cutter. We want curb to curb on every project. Um, so I, I think we need to craft something. that's meaningful that allows the city engineer to do his work and not tie his hands. So I'd like to see that be sent to the public works subcommittee. And just my last point, as the city engineer just referred to, you'll have the same utility company, they outnumber us. So they might have five trucks in the city and all aspects of the community doing work. And we may have one clerk of the work that's out there overseeing all these projects. It's unrealistic. And that's just one utility company. There are several out there that may be doing work. There are subcontractors that are doing work. So I think in order to get on this, you know, get our hands around this problem, we do have to look and Tim, I'll say it. If you don't want, you don't want to say it. We have to look at the budget and I think his office needs additional staff. And, you know, we have to take a look at this. You know, if we're going to talk about it, we was just talking last week about putting our money where our mouth is on a different subject. I think we have to put our money where our mouth is when it comes to our streets and our roads. Because as Councilor Scarpelli says all the time, that's probably If it's not the number one, it's the number two call I get regarding potholes, regarding sidewalks, regarding manholes that are sinking, regarding catch basins that are sinking all around the community. We really have an old infrastructure. We have to take a look at this and, uh, you know, we have to be smart about it. So I appreciate everything Tim's done. Uh, he's been very attentive over the last year and several months. Um, and I think he has us on the right track to moving forward. But I think this is a larger issue rather than just voting on something tonight. Let's move something to subcommittee on public works and have them sit down and put something together meaningful that addresses all our concerns. I think we share all the same concerns. Let's make sure someone's safeguarding our city. Let's make sure that whatever the utility companies are doing, They're held accountable, and that's to make sure we have a plan that's endorsed by not just the city engineer, but by the mayor's office and by the city council. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Falco]: Councilor Marks, if I'm correct, you'd like to move the main paper to the public works subcommittee? If that's amendable to my other colleagues, yes. OK, on that motion of Councilor Marks, seconded by? Second. Councilor Bears. Councilor Knight, you have the floor. Where was I?
[Scarpelli]: Before you lost me.
[Marks]: That's the longest point of information on record. You attacked the information or was it muted?
[Falco]: We lost you at 745. In that case, call me tomorrow.
[Knight]: No, on the paper Mr. President, and speaking with the city engineer. Do you feel as though this is something that's feasible and something that's attainable that you can work out a neighborhood mitigation agreement with these contractors that are seeking a street opening permit.
[McGivern]: I think the ones that do regular business in the city, yes, I do think so. The one-offs and the mom-and-pops, that's gonna be tougher. They're usually doing service work anyway, but the national grids and the Comcasts and the, I would say this is kind of one and done type of project, but yeah, yes, the utility companies that do lots of work in the city. And National Grid probably does the most out of anybody. So I do think that's a very feasible idea. Right.
[Knight]: And I mean, you know, ultimately we have to look at it both ways. The work that they're doing in our community is work to improve our underground infrastructure. Right. I mean, we have gas leaks going on all over the community. We need to have national grid come in and take the steps that they need to prevent these gas leaks from continuing. You know, we've all gone on record saying we don't want any level two and level three gas leaks in the city of Medford. And we want a plan. I'm going to say it out again.
[Bears]: Yeah, we're losing you.
[Unidentified]: We're losing you.
[Knight]: Well, I'm not going to beat the dead horse, Mr. President.
[Unidentified]: I want the bee paper to go forward to the administration. I ask my council. Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Bears]: We need to get that Councilor net a Wi-Fi booster or something. So, and I say that because I agree with him on this one. So, you know, I think, Tim, I want to first say thank you. I think you are moving us in the right direction. And to me, there's kind of two issues here. There's capital asset management, and it seems like we're getting our house in order around that. But then there's this question of quality of life. And it seems, you know, you said you're amenable to some sort of mitigation because I think you know, we want to get everything done. We want to get everything in order, but I think the points about machines being stored on the street and roads being, you know, or parking being restricted for weeks at a time, it is a balancing act, as the other Councilors have said. So, um, you know, it sounds like at this point in the conversation, we, um, should work on a mitigation type approach and put that into ordinance. Um, but you know, what, either what clarity, I guess two questions, what, what have you been doing on the quality of life side of this problem? And then, and what clarity would be helpful from us on that? The quality of life as in storage of equipment and yeah, just general use of the road use of parking, you know, I mean, If there's, yeah.
[McGivern]: We try to review what the plan is, and we try to comment on the plan and we try to make sure that what they're doing makes sense. They, you know, you know, I think it's obviously do need to store something somewhere. Sometimes, if the project is large enough, we'll have them do an offsite yard and not store on the street. So it's a case-by-case approach, usually. And the DPW commissioner, myself, and my staff will review it, comment, make a judgment call. And the commissioner usually has a final say. So if they need to store equipment, for example, longer than a day or so, then they need to have a street occupancy permit, which is another type of permit that we give up. So that will have conditions associated with it. Sometimes, and this goes to the accountability sort of oversight piece, sometimes they are not permitted and they're not paying attention to requirements. And I'll get a call and the call will be, you know, they're storing a machine or equipment on the side of the road and no one issued a permit for that. That happens quite a lot. and then we take action and we have them either move it or issue a warning, something like that. So my office also does the enforcement on street occupancy and street opening and trench permits. So again, it goes back to how many eyes and ears we have in the field and how that compares to the work that's happening in the city and striking that balance. The, the occupancy permits usually have, you know, if someone wants to keep a machine in a series of parking spaces for example, then there's usually a traffic management plan associated with that. If they need to occupy the sidewalk, there's a pedestrian management plan that they need to submit along with that. So a lot of contractors do it the right way and get their permits. And then there are obviously contractors who don't do it the right way and don't get the proper permits. And then if the police may not know, the police have a lot of eyes and ears in the field, they may not know whether or not A contractor is doing the right thing or the wrong thing. Sometimes the only people that would know are people in my office or people in the DPW office or the field crews. And they can't be everywhere all at once. So I don't know if that addresses your question, but that's how we deal with equipment storage and stockpile storage in the streets.
[Bears]: Got it. So it kind of just gives me two more questions. I don't want to belabor the point that much. It seems like there's not, there's not a general guideline of like we would like to limit, you know, the disruption to a certain period of time like a week or two weeks. Are you following some sort of guideline or is it really just all based on the project, case by case, it's usually case by case we don't want to.
[McGivern]: If parking is highly utilized parking we don't want them to take it for more than a couple days if they need to. Right. There was a situation recently on Winthrop Street where Eversource needed to use parking for weeks. So that's talked about and discussed, and we had multiple meetings on it. And what's the plan? And how are you accommodating pedestrians? How are you accommodating crossings? Things like that. So it's usually discussed ad nauseum, and then We kind of set the bar and then they almost always every contractor is sort of someone under the bar a little bit. So we try to set expectations as high as possible and then stay on them as best we can. That's basically how we operate.
[Bears]: Got it. And then one other question. Are you able to give any information to officers, police officers who might be on a detail do you share information on this project, kind of trying to provide some of that information so they know what's right and what's wrong?
[McGivern]: We do. So one of the things that we've been doing more recently is trying to, I don't know if coagulate is the right word, but But getting the traffic sergeants in the same room with the engineers, Todd Blake, who most of you know, I think, all of you probably know, they're basically meeting more often, especially in the last year. I've been encouraging it. I think it's a really good thing to have police details and traffic sergeants meeting with the folks in my office who are reviewing traffic management plans and pedestrian detours, vehicle detours, and things like that, for that very reason, Councilor Bears, because sometimes there's a disconnect. And to try to put those wires back together and keep that connection, I think is really important. When we had the detours going on in South Medford, still going on in South Medford, sometimes the detail officers wouldn't even know what plan that they were operating under. Part of the reason is because it was constantly changing and the detail officer wouldn't necessarily be completely up to speed. One of the things that, you know, as a result of that is we wanted to make sure that the folks in my office who are reviewing and approving traffic management plans are also touching base with and communicating with on a regular basis with our traffic sergeants. who oversee the details out there. It is a constant battle. It's always different officers and, you know, just like any other human being, some are better than others. It's sort of staying in tune with what's going on. So it's, again, it's one of those constant things that we're picking at and trying to make sure that those connections stay made. And I think that with Chief Buckley, we're making a lot of progress in that area. And I know he wants to, he's on board just like I am. He has the same sort of opinion in this matter as me, which is good. But again, we still have work to do there as well.
[Bears]: All right. Thanks, Tim. And yeah, and I would just add that I definitely support Councilor Mark's both on the conversation about the budget and make sure we have the resources for enforcement and also talking about neighborhood mitigation, quality of life, other ordinance work in the public works subcommittee.
[McGivern]: Absolutely, absolutely.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. So there's a note for the Vice President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: I'm sorry to be laying the point, Mr. President, but I'd like to make another paper of this that the administration review the street opening fees before the budget season comes up. And if necessary, we raise the fees so that Tim can go out and hire one or two more guys to work with him. And also, President Falco and myself offered the city a pilot program with a company that would pave the street for a third to a half of the cost of what normally we're paying now. And we haven't seen anything come about of that. Maybe you can get together with two or three of the utility companies, and maybe they could pay for this pilot program to see if it works or not.
[Falco]: Okay, thank you Councilor, Vice President Caraviello. So we have a number of papers in front of us. So we have the C paper offered by Vice President Caraviello that the city administration review the street opening fees.
[Hurtubise]: Clerk, how do we? There was actually a C paper that the city, that the council draft a city ordinance on this, but I need a little help with the wording on that. So that's the C paper. So I think this may actually be a D paper.
[Falco]: So I think on the original C paper about the city ordinance, is that something that, it sounds like that maybe would be something that's discussed further in subcommittee, am I correct?
[Scarpelli]: Yes. I believe that's what was mentioned, that that goes to subcommittee like council Marks mentioned.
[Hurtubise]: Okay, so then that there- Is that a deep, so is vice president Caraviello's latest amendment, is that an amendment to the main paper or is that a deep paper?
[Falco]: If I'm correct, one second, if I'm correct, the original C paper offered by Vice President Caraviello, is that being withdrawn because that's gonna be discussed in- Yes, I will withdraw that. Okay, so that's withdrawn. So the new C paper would be that the city administration review the street opening fees that are currently in place?
[Caraviello]: Yes, in an effort to possibly hire another inspector to help Tim and his office out.
[Falco]: So in an effort to hire an additional inspector. So on that seat, or two, on that seat paper offered by vice president Caraviello, seconded by?
[Bears]: Second, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Councilor Bears. Clerk Hurtubise, would you please call the roll?
[Hurtubise]: On the seat paper. Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice president Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knight. Councilor Knight.
[Falco]: become a lady in a while. I think he dropped off.
[Caraviello]: I invited him to my house to do this.
[Hurtubise]: So I've been trying to text him. All right, Councilor Marks? Yes. Okay, Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco? Yes. And I still don't see I still don't see Councilor Knight. We can come back to him and have him vote on that, or I can mark him as absent because of technology errors. Why don't you do that?
[Falco]: Absent due to technology. He was here for most of the conversation. Is there six in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent? That motion passes. So the B paper, which was originally offered by Council on 9th, unexpectedly dropped from the call. And we're seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Knight is no longer present, so I think, would someone else have to make that motion, Clerk Hurtubise? I'll make that motion, Mr. President. Okay, so on the motion of Vice President Caraviello in place of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Could you read back the language on the beat paper, Clerk Hurtubise?
[Hurtubise]: I have to open it up in my email. Give me a quick second.
[Falco]: Or actually not, I think I might have an idea.
[Bears]: I have it, Mr. President.
[Falco]: You have it? Okay, review it in my council affairs.
[Bears]: Sure. Be it resolved, the Medford City Council requests the city administration establish a policy requiring all street opening permits to be accompanied by a neighborhood mitigation agreement that will adequately and reasonably offset the negative impacts on the quality of life caused during street opening construction in city neighborhoods.
[Falco]: Okay. On that motion. Second. Mr. President, Council Member.
[Marks]: Uh, so now, now that, uh, consular beers, rent it back all street openings, uh, this, this would also include as the city engineer mentioned, the one-offs, uh, a resident that's trying to get, uh, you know, some utility to their home. Um, you know, that would be a huge hardship, uh, financially to some of that may be trying to do some work on their home, uh, to, to do some type of mitigation. Um, and I'm not quite sure if I can support that at this present time. Um, you know, if we're talking about national grid or the larger utility companies that are here doing work all the time and not the mom and pop one-offs, then I could support it.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Falco]: Um, the original. The original sponsor of the bee papers has dropped off the call, so I'm not sure where he is.
[Marks]: Mr. President, if I could.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Marks]: We remember when Craddock Bridge was done. That was a four-year project. I offered the resolution before the council that they pay mitigation to the business owners, to area residents, and so forth. And the state came back to us unequivocally and stated they do not pay any mitigation on their projects. That was a four-year hardship for the businesses in the square. So I think we have to be mindful too that, you know, there may be projects in the community that won't pay any mitigation at all, but Mrs. Smith on Warren Street that's trying to do a utility to her house to improve something may be paying mitigation to get something done. So I think we have to be very mindful if we do support this here tonight, Mr. President.
[Scarpelli]: I was going to table this, Mr. President, so the sponsor is available.
[Falco]: Well, you know what, Vice President Caraviello, it's currently in your hands. I'm not sure if you want to move that to subcommittee as well, or if you want to table it. Let's move it to subcommittee.
[Scarpelli]: Yeah, let's move it to subcommittee.
[Falco]: Hang on.
[Caraviello]: Who's the chair? Councilor Knight isn't here. If you want to, I don't have a problem table until next week, or if you want to move it to subcommittee, whatever the council wants to do.
[Falco]: Is there a general consensus from the council as to where we want this to go? Let's move it to subcommittee. Okay. Okay. On the B paper offered by Vice President Caraviello, seconded by... Second. Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, that that go to subcommittee. Clerk Hervey, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Are you sending it to the subcommittee on public works?
[Falco]: Correct, public works, which is chaired by Councilor Bears, and the subcommittee members are Councilor Marks and Vice President Caraviello.
[Marks]: Let's send it somewhere else then, one second. Transportation again?
[Unidentified]: Transportation. I'm on that.
[Hurtubise]: Here comes the roll call. Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight, who I don't think is on the call, but I'm calling his name anyway. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes, six in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent, the motion passes, and that paper will go to subcommittee. On the original resolution offered by Vice President Caraviello and Councilor Marks, and Councilor Marks had a motion to move that to the Subcommittee on Public Works, and that was seconded by Councilor Bears. On that motion, Clerk Hurtubise, would you please call the roll? It's going to the Public Works Subcommittee as well.
[Hurtubise]: It was Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Bears on the main paper?
[Falco]: You are correct.
[Hurtubise]: Okay. Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes, six in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent, the motion passes, and that paper is moved to subcommittee.
[Marks]: Motion to revert back to regular audit business, Mr. President. Second.
[Falco]: Actually, if we move back to the motion to regular audit business, Council Knight has a number of... Mr. President.
[Scarpelli]: Yes. For the information if I can, Councilor Knight has texted me. He's having, he's shut down completely. So maybe we table his resolutions to next week if we can.
[Falco]: Okay. So on the motion of Councilor Mark, seconded by Councilor Bears it will be revert to the regular order of business. All those in favor. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Give me a quick sec.
[Falco]: In this Zoom environment, every call, every vote is a roll call vote.
[Hurtubise]: And here comes the roll call to revert to the regular order of business. Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Councilor Knight is absent. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes, six in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent. The motion passes, we will now revert to the regular order of business. One, I'm sorry, 20-311, and this is on the motions, orders, and resolutions offered by Councilor Knight. Whereas April 5th, 2020 commemorates the 50th anniversary of the passing of the late State Senator Charles E. Shannon Jr., who represented Medford with integrity and compassion in the state legislature from 1990 to 2005, be it resolved that the Medford City Council hold the moment of silence in his honor and be it further resolved.
[Scarpelli]: Can we table this, please?
[Falco]: I'll motion to Councilor Scarpelli to table this until Councilor Knight's return until next week. Seconded by? Second. Vice President Caraviello, all those in favor of Clerk Hurtubise, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight is absent. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent. The matter has been tabled.
[Unidentified]: Tabled to next week.
[Falco]: Tabled to next week. 2-0-312 offered by Council of the Night. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Mr. President, can we table that?
[Falco]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli that 2-0-312 be tabled seconded by Vice President Caraviello, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight is absent. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent. This matter has been tabled to next week as well. 20-313 offered by Councilor Marks. Be it resolved that a moment of silence be held for longtime Medford resident Margaret Peggy Small on a recent passing. Be it further resolved that the April 14th Medford City Council meeting be dedicated to Peggy Small. Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Anyone that knew Peggy knew she was a loving mother, loving grandmother. She loved to be around family. That was her main thing to be, just around her family. Peggy was an accomplished knitter. She would make mittens, hats, blankets, you name it, she could knit it. She loved to garden. She spent a lot of time in her yard gardening. She was also an employee for 25 years of the Medford Public Schools. and served our students and our school system in a great fashion for many, many years. She's leaving behind a lovely family. Her son, John Small, was a retired Medford fire captain who we all know and love. Bob Small, who's a longtime Medford vocational teacher, and their sister, Carol. Margaret will be sorely missed, Mr. President, and I would ask that this meeting be dedicated in her name, Mr. President.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. At this moment, why don't we stand for a brief moment of silence?
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Hurtubise]: Councilors, I know that you generally don't vote on these things, but do you want that voted in the record? Or do you just want me to prepare a condolence resolution from the clerk's office?
[Falco]: Why don't we do this? Why don't we just take a vote just since we're voting? I'll second that, Mr. President. A motion of Council Locke, seconded by Vice President Caraviello. Clerk, could I please call the roll?
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Nunez absent, Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell?
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent, the motion passes. Let's see, 20-315 offered by Councilor Bears be it resolved that the city administration provide an update on the mayor's April 7th, 2020 executive action regarding the extension of the deadline to pay property taxes. The extension of the deadline apply for property tax exemptions, the waiving of interest for late payments, and protections for residents regarding termination of essential services. Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I spoke to the mayor's chief of staff, Dave Rodriguez, today. He's not able to be here. I'm just going to read from, this is mostly an informative measure, just so that folks know that this has happened. Last week, the mayor took an executive action that has extended the due date for real estate and personal property tax bills from May 1st to June 1st. The due date to apply for tax exemptions has also been extended to June 1st. The due date for paying water bills remains May 1st. However, the city will waive fees or interest accrued for late payments as long as they're made on or before June 30th. So that is the update. Chief of Staff Rodriguez said that he'd be happy to provide a written update if any Councilors wanted anything in addition to what was put out in the release. This is mostly just for any resident who may not have caught this online, that those deadlines have been adjusted given the circumstances.
[Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Peters. Okay, on the motion of Councilor Bears, seconded by? Second. Councilor Morell, Clerk Cunaby, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Nugget is absent. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent, the motion passes. So reports of committees, 20-042, did we receive that report?
[Hurtubise]: Yeah, that was the one I sent last week, I believe. March 31st one, I emailed it to you. I emailed it to you last Tuesday. If you need me to dig it out of my email, I might be able to find it, but it's going to take a minute.
[Falco]: Or we can just table it till next week. I don't have it in front of me, so I apologize for that. Okay. Do we want to table that till next week? or does anyone have the committee report in front of them that they can actually give us a brief?
[Scarpelli]: Don't have a table.
[Falco]: Okay, why don't we take on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to table the committee report. Second. Second by Vice President Caraviello. Clerk Curnaby, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice President Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knight is absent. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent. The motion passes. The item is tabled until next week. 19-659 and 20-098, April 8th Subcommittee on Zoning. Let's see, that was a Zoning Subcommittee meeting by Vice President Riccabiello's Subcommittee. Councilor Caraviello, did you want to talk about the committee report and give a brief synopsis?
[Caraviello]: Yes, Mr. President. We had a meeting last week on the zoning on marijuana with the ordinance that was crafted. And excuse me, we did make a few changes on it and sent it to the city solicitor for tomorrow's meeting on the same issue. And hopefully it'll be it'll be ready to maybe vote out of committee to the committee of the whole.
[Falco]: Okay, thank you, President Caraviello. And just to let everyone know or anyone that's, if anybody's watching tonight, that subcommittee meeting on zoning, there is another one tomorrow night, Wednesday, April 15th, 2020 at 6 p.m. And that link to the Zoom meeting is on the city website. So the motion of Councilor, Vice President Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli to approve the committee report 19-659 and 20-098, the April 8th subcommittee meeting on zoning. Please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight is absent. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes, six in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent. That motion passes. Let's see. City Court, Court Card of Appeals, the records is the only thing left, I believe, right?
[Hurtubise]: Correct.
[Falco]: Okay. The records, the records of the meeting of April 7th, 2020 were passed to Councilor Bears. Councilor Bears, how did you find those records?
[Bears]: Well, first, I'm glad I made such a fuss at the last meeting. I had the record, so I'm glad for that. But I found the records to be absolutely unblemished, Mr. President.
[Scarpelli]: We haven't heard that in three years.
[Falco]: Unblemished records. So on the motion of Council of Mayors to approve the records, seconded by- Second. Second. Councilor Scarpelli, Clerk Curnaby, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Vice President Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knights absent. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell.
[Falco]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Falco.
[Falco]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent. The records are approved. The motion passes.
[Scarpelli]: Motion to adjourn.
[Falco]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to adjourn this meeting, seconded by.
[Bears]: Second.
[Falco]: Councilor Bears. Clerk Hurtubise, please call the meeting to adjourn. roll to adjourn the meeting.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Knight is absent, so I skipped him, but we got Councilor Marks. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[Falco]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent. The meeting is adjourned.
[Scarpelli]: Good night, everyone. Thank you and good night.
|
total time: 20.96 minutes total words: 3204  |
total time: 4.99 minutes total words: 747  |
total time: 10.33 minutes total words: 1753  |
total time: 4.99 minutes total words: 907  |
|
total time: 7.19 minutes total words: 1219  |
total time: 2.34 minutes total words: 426  |
total time: 0.73 minutes total words: 150  |
|