[SPEAKER_41]: Test one, two.
[Bears]: 24th regular meeting Medford City Council December 17 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan, Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming, present. Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President Bears, present, seven present, none absent.
[Bears]: The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Before we start, this is our last meeting of the year. And I do ask my colleagues for limited indulgence and welcome the crowd for being here as well. I just wanna thank my colleagues for an incredible 2024. It's been a busy year of nearly a hundred meetings of this body and committee and in regular session. And I don't think anyone can say that this council has not been outspoken and spoken its mind on a variety of topics. In January, I spoke about three leadership principles, collaboration, planning, and trust. This council has worked together collaboratively within our committees with the city administration, city staff, community organizations, businesses, educational institutions, and thousands of residents to implement and discuss a clear and transparent governing agenda created and published in February. Tomorrow night we're going to conduct our one year review of that plan and suggest updates for the year ahead and I encourage everyone in our city to join us. I firmly believe that this open and direct approach to governance is foundational to good governance and to trust, and I'm going to continue to lead with these principles in 2025. There's always disagreement, and we've had some tough meetings. I'm always open to meet with anyone, whether that's Councilors, residents, employees of the city and others to hear from them. And of course, this council will always hear from anyone who speaks at this podium under our rules. I'm excited for 2025. Earlier this week, released our January to June schedule. There are 60 meetings scheduled on topics including the budget, a new city charter, zoning and much more. And I really just want to implore and invite the community to join us in the process of building a better Medford together. So thank you for your indulgence. And with that, we'll move to the agenda. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 24-512 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council commend and congratulate Barbara Kerr for her 40 years of tireless and selfless service at the Medford Public Library. We thank her for her work with our residents and for providing a welcoming hub for our community. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. And when you talk about, imagine doing anything for 40 years, how impressive that is. And what Barbara has endured for 40 years at The beginning is a library, it's running a library and then a subpar library, then a failing library with ceilings caving in and then going through the process of a new library and maintaining an opportunity in pilot libraries across the city and working together with former City Council President Caraviello to bring to fruition a new library in Medford. a cornerstone now, a great piece of our Medford Square entrance, and to see what Barbara has given to our community, something needs to be commended. If I can, if I could, I would recommend, Council President, that We have Barbara here at one of our upcoming meetings so we can present her with a citation with appreciation for all of our hard work for the citizens and the residents of Medford and working at our Medford Public Library for 40 years. Very impressive. So thank you, Barbara, for all your hard work.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Um, thank you, Councilor Scarpelli for putting this on the agenda. Barbara is such a foundational part of what makes the public library tick. And as you noted, and I think as we can all agree, our library is a gem of Medford Square and it's a gem of the Medford community. Tons of people come from out of the city to use it. Our residents, I think, very much treasure it. And Barbara's hard work is what makes it tick. She works so hard when it comes to making sure the library has the resources she needs. It needs making sure that there's enough programming for of wide range of Medford residents, despite their age, their background, making sure that people feel welcome in that space as well. Her hard work on getting the new library built, as is, is also something that our city council should really recognize and be thankful for. also relevant to the City Council is the work that she puts into letting us know what resources the library needs. I know a lot of us have been at the annual sit-downs before the budget season with the library staff and the Board of Trustees where they let us know what they need. And that's a testament to her organization and her energy doing that work and fighting for the public library. I'm very grateful for this resolution. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli for introducing it.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Great. Thank you as well, Councilor Scarpelli for putting this on and making sure that we properly recognized Director Kerr for her 40 incredible years leading the Medford Public Library. You know, a lot great has been said about Barbara. We could go on all night just talking about Barbara, but what really strikes me about her from all the meetings we've had with her over the past three years is she brings Obviously, so much skill so much knowledge so much experience to run the library and she's been doing this for four decades and she's made sure that our library remains contemporary over the years and she really fought to make sure that we can now enjoy a public modern contemporary public library and. You know, some people know really well just how, just how much hard work and advocacy and how many risks it took to make it the incredible, you know, really model library that it is today. So we can't thank her enough, not just for the recent, you know, really, really visible accomplishments, but for all of the work that preceded that to bring us to the community space that we get to enjoy and that we'll get to enjoy for so many years to come. So thank you, Barbara. We could truly go on all night talking about her. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins, and I just want to note certainly to thank Barbara, and I think Barbara would also want us to thank her staff, the trustees, the Library Foundation, which has been so instrumental in the construction of and outfitting of the new library, the friends of the Medford Public Library, and all of the folks who walk through those doors or use the online resources or take out a book or other material at the library has really become so much more than just a place to go and get a book, but it really provides essential community services to so many people in our community, especially our kids and our teens. So just thank you to Barbara and the whole library team. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, and we will invite Director Kerr for a citation in the new year. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. The records of the special meeting of November 26, 2024 were passed to Councilor Leming. Councilor Leming, how did you find those records?
[Leming]: I find the records in order and move to approve.
[Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to approve the records of the special meeting of November 26, 2024, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan, Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. The records of the meeting of December 3rd, 2024 were passed to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, how did you find the records?
[Scarpelli]: I found them in the order of approval.
[Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve the records of the meeting of December 3rd, 2024, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. When you're ready, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes. Reports of committees. Council Vice President Collins. One moment.
[Collins]: President Bears, I would motion to adjoin reports of committees and approve the single motion.
[Bears]: On the motion to join the reports of committees by Council Vice President Collins, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Is this to join or is it to join?
[Bears]: To join. I think we have to read them out.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Baird.
[Bears]: Yes. I'm in the affirmative. None in the negative. The motion passes. 24-033 Planning and Permitting Committee, December 3rd, 2024. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. At the December 3rd Planning and Permitting Committee meeting, we met once again with our zoning consultant. We discussed a draft plan for 2025, and we had the first introduction before this committee to the proposed zoning for the Salem Street Corridor District. Motion to approve.
[Bears]: on the motion of vice president. Well, we'll take a motion at the end. 24468 Governance Committee, Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Thank you. In this governance committee meeting, we met with the call-in center who helped address questions that councilors had about the charter review process, which we will be taking on next year, early next year. We got a better idea of what that process looks like. And earlier this week, we received a copy of the draft study committee recommendations from the mayor's office.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. 23-055, 24-073, 24-354, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, Councilor Leming.
[Leming]: Thank you, Council President. At the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, we discussed and heard public comments in favor of the Welcoming City Ordinance, which we are discussing tonight. We also drafted a newsletter and briefly discussed some scheduling of the City Council's upcoming listening sessions.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. 24-502 offered by Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: Yes, at this committee meeting, we discussed edits to the CCOPS ordinance, which will also be presented at tonight's meeting.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. And finally, Vice President Collins, the December 11th Planning and Permitting Committee meeting, 24-033.
[Collins]: Thank you. This was another meeting with the zoning consultant. We had our second meeting on the proposed zoning for the Salem Street Corridor District, and it was referred out to City Council for the next procedural step, which is referral to the Community Development Board.
[Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the joint papers? On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve the joint papers, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan, Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative and the negative, the motion passes. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I would motion to suspend the rules to take from the table paper 24-494 for third reading, followed by communications from the mayor.
[Bears]: On the motion to suspend the rules to take paper 24494 for third reading 24510 and 24517. Mr. Clerk, please seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng, President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Shane, would you mind turning the captions on on the in-chamber TVs? Thank you. 24494, Riverside Plaza loan order approved for first reading November 19th, 2024. Advertised Medford Transcript and Somerville Journal, eligible for third reading December 17th, 2024. Is there a motion to approve for third reading? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve for third reading, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Sure. Yes, it's in past packets. It's the Riverside Plaza loan order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes. Seven the affirmative, none of the negative. That is ordained for third reading. 24510. presented by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Loan order, school HVAC infrastructure and roof bonds. Dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the below loan order. By way of some background, the Andrews and McGlynn Middle Schools are in need of extensive HVAC work, as well as at least repairs to the McGlynn School roof. The city has hired an owner's project manager and designer with the goal of conducting the majority of the construction work during the summer months to further the project and keep the timetable for construction In January, the city needs to pre-order equipment, continue to design with the designer and OPM and the pre-construction services of the construction manager to accomplish this, a fundering authorization of about $5 million is needed. In the future, after further designing cost estimates have been finalized, we will likely return for the rest of the cost to complete construction, which is expected to be about an additional $20 million. City of Medford loan order, school HVAC infrastructure and roof bonds, be it ordered that $5 million is appropriated for the purpose of replacing boilers and cooling systems with new condensing boilers and heat pumps, including associated automatic controls, structural and architectural work, electrical work and weatherization at the McGlynn School and Andrew School, and the acquisition and installation of solar panels for a new roof and a new roof or roof repairs at the McGlynn School, including the cost of planning, design, architectural and engineering services and all other costs incidental and related thereto. And that this appropriation to meet this appropriation the treasurer, with the approval of the mayor is authorized to borrow the set amount pursuant to chapter 44 section seven subsection one of the Massachusetts general laws or pursuant to any other enabling authority, and to issue the bonds or notes of the city therefore. and further ordered that the treasurer is authorized to file an application with the appropriate officials of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth to qualify under chapter 44A of the general laws, any and all bonds of the city authorized to be borrowed pursuant to this loan order and to provide such information and execute such documents as officials of the Commonwealth may require in connection therewith. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. We have Director Hunt and Assistant Superintendent Cushing with us tonight to further discuss the project. do you have a presentation before we move to questions from the council?
[Hunt]: I have slides that we showed last night, but what I was going to offer is that I would give you a brief summary and why now. And then if the city council would like to do a committee of the whole with the materials that we had last night at the early January before the third reading, assuming that the council is willing to do the first reading tonight, We'd be happy to do that. We also, the timing of this is that we're asking for $5 million now to get the project, we've been started, but to get a number of the design work done and long lead time items purchased. There are some items we would like to have. We expect to have the air conditioning working by September. To do that, some of the equipment has more than 16 weekly times. And so we would like to order that equipment as quickly as possible. So we're asking for the $5 million now for the early work and the funding to take the design to 100% design and to bring the construction manager at risk on. And then our intention is to come back either in late March or early April and ask for additional money that would be the rest of the money for this project. This is not a $5 million project. This is more like a $25 million project. And we would be happy to do a committee of the whole first week of January, second week of January, if you'd like. or we can end or we could do a more complete once we have 100% construction documents in March, a committee of the whole. I'm also prepared to share some slides this evening or go into some more of the details this evening, but I didn't wanna take an hour out of a city council meeting. I wanted to give you the basics tonight and then schedule something longer in early January.
[Bears]: Thank you. And just to confirm the school committee did discuss this last night and there was a vote of the school committee.
[Cushing]: Yes. Good evening. Thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. Last night, the school committee voted 7 to 0 in full support of this critical repair project for these two schools where the systems are failing or failed.
[Bears]: Thank you. With that, I will go to the council for questions and further discussion. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. I'm glad that I would welcome that we go, we revert this to a committee of the whole meeting. I think that when you're talking something about in the process of a $25 million project, I think this is where we need to sit down before we vote on anything and just look into the finances and what where we're going in our community and where we are since the override. I know that there are big questions out there. What are we still doing with the fire department? What are we doing with the new high school if that comes down the line? How much money will we be able to bond? So it'll be interesting to get those questions answered. And to approve $5 million not knowing, with some clarity for the other $20 million, I think that would that would be irresponsible for us to move that forward. So I would recommend that we move this completely to a committee of the whole meeting so we can look at the different options. I know there's been some talk that there's been some money freed up from ARPA due to the override success. So it'd be interesting to see if we can use other avenues to look into possible ways to fund. So I know it's needed, not saying that I wouldn't support it, but I think that for one council, and we're talking about being stewards of our budgetary process, I think it's important that we sit down and evaluate the whole financial process. It's nice that the school committee voted 7-0 because they should. They want everything fixed, but they don't control the budgetary process, and I think it's important that this council really understands our whole, because I believe we talked about this too, Council President, is understanding our capital plan and understanding where we're going with that capital plan. So I would recommend, I appreciate your thoughts and your leadership, but I would recommend we go directly to community to the whole with this process from beginning to end. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Bears]: Thank you. Before I recognize Councilor Collins and Councilor Callahan, I do just want to note on the ARPA funding that has to be encumbered by December 31st. And we did receive a communication from the mayor at a large chunk of that 800,000 plus dollars that we were able to buy a fire engine from the city of Lynn. So there's a new fire engine coming through that money. So a large chunk of that money has been appropriated. It does have to be encumbered by the end of the year. I'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you so much for being with us tonight and thank you for being with the school committee yesterday. I know it's a really busy time of year, but it's really exciting to see that this project is being pushed forward. We've been hearing about the HVAC issues in Medford Public Schools for a really long time. It feels like forever. And it's exciting to be at a point where we can be talking about pre-implementation and implementation of the projects that will allow the schools to remain the comfortable temperatures that students can learn and thrive in. Before any motions are made, I'd be eager to hear that kind of like brief synopsis about the bird's eye view, why now to kind of get our heads around the urgency around this. To me, we've been hearing from parents and educators for such a long time about the really severe heating and cooling issues in the Medford public schools that I feel pretty comfortable taking a vote on this ASAP. but I'd like to hear your presentation first. Thank you. Or the short form your presentation first, to be clear, not the hour long version. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Steal my thunder. I basically was going to see if you had, like, how short is your short version of your presentation? And if there's something you can give that's five minutes or less that can really give us an overview. And as well, if you can also give us a little bit of an understanding of exactly how important the timing is and whether getting something, you know, obviously this is a process, it would not be approved tonight, it has three readings, whether us bringing it forward tonight is crucial to the timeline. Thanks.
[Hunt]: Council President, thank you. We have with us tonight our owners project manager, Tom Ellis, and I believe that it would make sense for him to actually address the questions of the timing and the urgency that it feels like he's prepared to speak to why and how that timing would work. And I think that's better than trying to go through all the materials about the whole thing. So why don't I introduce Tom and I'll let him explain.
[Bears]: Thank you, Tom. Go ahead.
[Ellis]: Thank you for inviting me today. Yes, the timing of the project financing is important. We've started the design process and have learned a lot about what the needs are for the project. It's a very complex effort to try to keep the schools occupied, as well as make these adjustments in the mechanical systems and replacing them. Basically, replacing the engine while you're trying to keep the car moving. So it's going to be a challenge to do that. But to do so, we're using a construction management risk delivery method, which allows the builder to be engaged in the process because there's a lot of logistics involved with keeping the schools open, how we're going to do the work to keep it safe, to keep the air quality in the school correct as we do the work. But to do so, we need to engage the construction manager early in 2025. 2025. And to do so, we need the funding to do so. So we need the pre-construction services fee to do that. We need to keep the design team moving forward with additional funding. And we also need funds for early purchasing of the mechanical equipment, and it's in excess of $3 million. And because of the supply chain issues with mechanical systems that could take anywhere 16 to 20 weeks to whenever, we need to get that material and equipment ordered quickly and soon. So that's the urgency involved is to get the equipment there so that we can start the work over the summer. and get most of the work done, it will continue into the fall, but to get the air conditioning systems operational. So hopefully in August, the school will have air conditioning available. So that's the urgency of the issue of trying to get the funding to start the work soon. So I think that's kind of the big overview at this point.
[Hunt]: And so I'll just, I think that this council knows this, I will sort of repeat it for the public, that in approving something like this, there would be a first reading, there would be an advertising period, and there would be a third reading. So it wouldn't necessarily, and like this evening there was a third reading that went through very, very quickly because you were all very well briefed on that. at the first reading. I would respectfully request that you consider a first reading tonight and a committee of the whole in January and the advertising to be able to then consider this on the January 15th meeting. I think it's the 15th, 14th. Just to keep this moving, I think your next meeting in January would be around the 31st, 28th. My apologies, I didn't put a calendar up. And it would be great to be able to get these things because the contracting can take a couple weeks, et cetera. So that's the timeline that we're really looking on here. I had one other thing, but it slipped my mind, so sorry.
[Bears]: Thanks. I'll go to Vice President Collins. Oh, sorry, Mr. Cushing, then Vice President Collins and Councilor Scarpelli.
[Cushing]: I also just really want to talk about the why. So as I have mentioned numerous times before the distinguished school body, the reality is that Medford still sees these buildings as the new schools. As Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, hopefully they will be supplanted by a new Med or renovated Medford High School in a few years. These buildings have a lifespan at 23 years old. There are significant challenges with the HVAC systems in those buildings. This project initially started with a comprehensive review of the Andrews Middle School, and not to be outdone, the McGlynn systems failed significantly more rapidly over the last few years. There are large swaths of that building, including gyms, auditorium, cafeteria, that have little to no air conditioning whatsoever. Classroom units, rooftop units that cool the classrooms have failed. And the Andrews Middle School has had problems since the building was first opened. It has been termed by our engineers who work on it from a vendor as just having consistent gremlins over the years. There are issues with both of these buildings that cause a substantial detriment to student learning, staff functionality, and potentially giving climate change the health and safety of our students and staff. There's a moment to act where that can be put on the table for the upcoming FY26 academic year. If we wait, if we wait, that will delay our ability to deploy these systems so that classrooms are cooled. The gyms and other large areas will come online shortly thereafter, probably middle-ish of September. I want to be clear that the first systems that will be completed will be the water side, which services the classrooms, and then will be the large spaces that are done by forced air. I've presented in front of the school committee numerous times on this. It has consumed a large part of the school district's energies over the past several years. And I'm here to basically beg on behalf of the staff and students of these schools that we advance this project with multiple readings. you'll have the opportunity to pull back if our presentations don't meet your expectations. But this is what I would consider to be a moral obligation to make sure that these facilities that service our students, many of whom may be vulnerable for any number of reasons, provide the environment that is needed. There is also, hopefully, that we can slide in ahead with some of this ordering to avoid the impending tariffs that have been described by the incoming administration. It is a significant, the audience may laugh, but it is a significant concern of our team putting this together about what the cost implications may be moving forward.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Cushing. I don't think anyone's excited for the 30 percent cost increases we're all about to see. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the succinctness. Certainly, I don't think that any of us think that our students and educators and school staff should be put in the position of having to beg for classrooms that are a temperature at which you can focus and deliver good education and learn and be comfortable enough to get through the day and really get something out of the education that Medford Public Schools offers. And I would be really happy to work with President Bears to make sure that we can get a committee of the whole on the January schedule as quickly as possible so that we can advance this tonight, if it is the will of the council, do our due diligence, and then try to get this out the door. Because I do understand, you know, I think anybody who has any passing familiarity with projects of this scale, you know, I know that we have a really tight timeframe that you're trying to get this done in so that these improvements are up and running for the beginning. of the next school year. And if we miss that window, that manifests in unhappy students and unhappy educators and unhappy families. So with that, I would motion to approve for first reading and for city council leadership to work to schedule a committee of the whole for more in-depth conversation at our first opportunity in January.
[Bears]: Council Vice President Collins has motioned to approve for first reading and to schedule a committee of the whole in early January prior to third reading for a more in-depth presentation. Is there a second on that motion? Second. Several. I'll go with Councilor Lazzaro and then I will go to Councilor Scarpelli for further discussion. Yeah, I'm just gonna go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor
[Scarpelli]: Oh, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. I can just see social media today saying, quote, Councilor Scarpelli doesn't want to keep the kids warm and the teachers cool in the summer. So let's be realistic. That's number one priority. We all know that. But we also want to make sure that when I taught there 15 years ago, we had the same issues. So we understand that have to get done. But what I'm saying is I don't see a few weeks to track back and really understand the total process. Now, all due respect, Tom, thank you for your presentation. I don't even know who you are. Are we paying you? Like we don't, there's processes like, you know, how is the procurement process look? How are we going to, has issues with the MSBA been approved yet for 25 million? Have we have we looked at other avenues do we look at the trajectory of our city's finances when we're looking to how we're going to bomb this so i think that this is this isn't something that we're saying at least this council saying that i don't want this this is council wants to just bring it back and look at this in totality not because the city school committee voted seven nothing because we have issues like the air condition is not going to work in august This is a few weeks that we slow things down and go through the process the correct way. And that's to see the full health of our financial future here in the city of Method because I'd like to know, there might be more. There might be more that we don't know about because this is coming up that we have to look at. We have to look at what's relatively new and how quick this is and how much it's going to be. Where as we look forward, there might be more that the mayor has has planned, but we don't know about that says, Well, there's another five million that we have to look at. So the kids can go into a safe school. Maybe something's wrong with the doors. We don't know yet because we haven't been discussing this. All we received is this this motion for a loan order and to my council vice president bring that forward and was seconded, but I won't be supporting it for the fact that I'd rather have the meeting before we put five, move $5 million that we can start the process before we know truly what our fiscal overview looks like in this community. Cause that's something that's been questioned multiple times in the last few months. So thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I do feel comfortable voting yes on the first reading tonight, and I'll explain why I've been following this conversation for, as you've noted, this has been a conversation for years, and especially in recent months with school committee meetings. There are materials out there for us to look at and I know they haven't come straight to the city council yet. Um, this is an issue of urgency for a lot of our students for, as you said, for health, for safety, for student performance, for functionality, for our teachers sake. I know a lot of, you know, things were, in my experience, they're having problems in the past with the HVAC system from what teachers and students have told me and parents have told me that things have only gotten worse. I think Councilor Scarpelli does raise good questions about how this fits into our financial plan going forward. And I do know that this is something that has been at the forefront of financial planning for our city. We've known about this cost that was going to come before us for years. for longer than I've been on the city council. But you know what, there are questions. And I think all of us behind the rail are in agreement that a committee, the whole meeting would be good and helpful. The reason why I feel comfortable voting yes on the first reading is as you noted, votes can change. We can decide to vote this down on the third reading if our answers aren't resolved or questions aren't resolved. Um, I think, functionally voting yes on a first reading tonight and both voting for cancer, Scarf Ellie's motion on lead us to very similar places, the difference being the two week gap, the, the, the potentially even more than two weeks gap. that pushing this off would be. I think it's really important to underscore to everyone watching at home and here that that time does matter. That timeline does matter for the success of a city's project. There are tons of projects out there that we've had to wait a cycle or put on hold because we weren't able to get the bids out in time. We weren't able to do X, Y, Z. And it's really important that we meet the timelines as is. I think it'd be helpful for the council going forward if we could submit some questions to city staff before the committee, the whole meeting, if we could see some of the slides before that meeting as well, just to expedite that conversation. I think we can have a very rich and deep conversation about, you know, the questions that my fellow councillors have raised about the need and urgency for this going forward. And I think we can have that depth of conversation as long as we're prepared for it. Thank you counsel is our.
[Lazzaro]: Thank you, thank you for your presentation, I think we can also probably watch the school committee meeting from yesterday in between now and when we have our committee of the whole and review that presentation as well which could be really beneficial to all of us. I feel comfortable voting yes for this I also think that when you mentioned the gremlins. There may have been, I'm not sure if this happened, but there may have been some measures taken in the prior projects being done that we could avoid this time around. Hopefully we won't have gremlins in this project and we can have just a really solid foundation with this HVAC system. I would hope we could avoid that this time. So thank you, I appreciate you coming here and presenting this. Thank you.
[Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins as amended to request a committee of the whole in January, please wait, thank you. On the motion of Vice President Collins to request a committee of the whole and also amended by Councilor Tseng to request the slides be shared with the council by email and also that councilors can submit questions. Should they submit them to you Director Hunt and Assistant Superintendent Cushing directly? Great, thank you. Vice President Collins, do you have anything further? Thank you.
[Collins]: Thank you. Before we vote. I just wanted to appreciate my Councilor discussion of this item. I'm very much looking forward to the committee of the whole. I also just wanted to follow up and to make clear just because of the way that it's being talked about. This is a request for a loan order for $5 million. I don't want people to come away with the impression that the city is, after this vote, writing a check for $5 million. That's not the case. The loan order, you know, this is a process that we very, very, very commonly use for large capital expenses like this. This is normal to take out a loan order for this. It's like the way this is normally done. We're not just writing a check from some city checking account. That's not how this works. Um, and I just, you know, I've had so many conversations with constituents about heating and cooling in MPS buildings for so many years that I really would be remiss to not just affirm that this is not a new project. This is really a harm that people have been feeling for years, and I'm glad that we're acting on it now, but we're actually we're acting on it late. So thank you for getting us to this point where we can be acting on it. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, and I know you guys wanted to maybe respond or answer any further questions. I just wanted to note that this project has been on the radar. It was in a previous capital improvement plan, and it was one of the reasons for the question six vote, because it was a large project that came up. The proposed question six did not succeed, but it was why it was on the ballot.
[Hunt]: Thank you, Council President. I did want to just clarify two things. So we do actually have Bob Dickinson on the Zoom this evening because of this, if there were specific questions for him. And I did just want to clarify the roles that Tom is our owner's project manager. He was hired in June and has been working with us. We've been meeting weekly since mid-August. Our designers came on board in August. We've been using ARPA funding to fund the early work on this as well. So the designers, Dr. Cushing, myself, our climate planner, and the designers in OPM have been meeting weekly since August on this project. We did need to get to a certain point in design. We are right now at 30% design, which is complete schematics. And we needed to have that information in order to know how much to ask for in this bond and how much to be able to predict in the future one. So I do feel like this is why, why didn't you come like a month ago? Because we needed the 30% design or also known as the schematic design to be completed before we could ask for this money. And now we'll be moving into the next steps in design development. I just sort of thought that was very helpful to clarify that.
[Bears]: Thank you, Director Hunt. Any further questions by members of the Council for Director Hunt, Dr. Cushing, or for Director Dickinson on Zoom? Seeing none, we'll go to open this up for any public comment. You can either show up at the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. This is only for this paper. If you have comment on this specific paper. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Nuzzo]: Hi, thank you. I don't need three minutes. My name is Jean Nuzzo. I live at Parr Street in Medford. I just have a question. I'd like to know where the technical documentation and feasibility study and projected budget for this can be found for consumption. Is it available online or does a FOIA request need to be submitted?
[Bears]: I believe the materials are available in the school committee packet from last night. I'll defer to Director Hunt.
[Nuzzo]: The technical documents? I'm sorry, I'm deferring to, excuse me.
[Bears]: Thank you. Director Hunt, do you have an answer to that question? Or Mr. Ellis?
[Nuzzo]: And the feasibility study through the chair.
[Bears]: You need to speak into the microphone. Sure.
[Ellis]: Sure, yes. The feasibility study was initially done, I believe it was over a year ago. So that document is is available. I don't know exactly where. I didn't put it on the web.
[Bears]: But it's on the school. It was considered by the school committee. It's on the school website.
[Ellis]: It's a public document because it's part of our solicitation. So yes, that information is out there. We just received the schematic design documents from the design team. So that's being used right now as a process. We haven't posted that anywhere at this time.
[Bears]: But it will be posted on the Medford Public Schools website.
[Cushing]: So we have not contemplated right now how we're going to publicize and follow through with this, but we will, as we've done in previous projects, and as you'll see coming up in a few days here, right now the Brooks is going through a complete hot water replacement because that failed back in May. Thank you very much for supporting that effort as well. You'll be seeing pictures and you'll be seeing that project being updated on our Facebook page. And we will also have the construction page somewhere on our website. I'm happy to put all the documents up. They are mostly on the school committee page. So if you go and you search the school committee package, you're able to find it. Person does not need to file a four-year request. I'm happy to share anyone who wants to go through schematic design documents and electrical engineering documents. I welcome it. Maybe they can find some efficiencies.
[Bears]: Thank you.
[Nuzzo]: I would, and thank you for the answer.
[Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Cushing. Is your email pcushing at medford.k12.ma.us? It is. All right. Any further public comments, name and address for the record please you have three minutes.
[Merritt]: Nate Merritt, 373 Riverside Ave. I'm sure everyone's aware that, you know, the members of the city residents are maybe a little nervous concern you know upcoming tax hikes and all that, want to make sure that our dollars are spent. most efficiently possible. Was there a course of action given for just say replacement of the existing systems that, you know, replacement parts versus upgrades and it's not clear from the paper, what's an upgrade? Is it, you know, is the roof currently leaking now or is the roof upgrade because of the solar panel installation that's also planned and is that an upgrade versus replacing the parts that are broken for the system? And was there a cost associated with that, like a spectrum? Option A, $5 million. Option B, $15 million. Option C is what we have here, which is what, $25 million?
[Bears]: My understanding is a feasibility study was conducted, and I'll leave the specifics to Dr. Cushing.
[Cushing]: So we recently had an infrared scan. We first had a visual inspection of the McGlynn roof completed. We then had an infrared scan. The visual inspection by our roofing contractor who does this work felt that the roof was probably 10% wet, as it's termed. The infrared scan revealed 25% wetness. So the roof needs significant work as well. As part of this project, we examined the costs associated with a full roof replacement, which under the 2011 building code standards would increase the level of insulation. We then had Brenda Pike crunch the numbers on that to see what the cost savings over the 20 year life of the roof would be. And it pales in comparison to the cost of a replacement. What we can do is a refurbishment, a treatment, Similar to what director hunt led about five years ago now, four years ago now at the Andrews Middle School which is called a white knight application, which they go in they repair the wet spots they repair any damage to the roof, and then they put essentially for lack of a better term, a film heavily durable film that has a 20 year warranty on it. So that's what we will more than likely do at the McGlynn at 50% the cost same warranty same lifespan 50% the cost. So, to answer that question on the roof. Also, to speak directly to your question around, you know, could these units be repaired. Unfortunately, no. The Environmental Protection Agency has banned the manufacture and importation of the refrigerant that powers these units. The refrigerant that powers these units is R22 refrigerant. It was banned about Four and a half years ago at this point, sorry, I used to be a real academic person and help lift schools out of turnaround. I now know HVAC and other systems which it's just part of what school systems do. So R22 was banned, I think it was during 2020. We did significant work on the Roberts, the Misatoch, and the Brooks in the summer of 2019 to replace a significant amount of compressors. That was funded by a free cash award just prior to my arrival in Medford. These systems operating on R22 would be cost prohibitive All right, the only way to get R-22 is to reclaim it from other units that are being decommissioned or from existing stores. The costs associated with that are exorbitant. I have actually the numbers in a previous school committee report. They're just slipping me right now. So to do any type of repair or upgrade on, I'm sorry, any type of repair or retrofit of these units really kicks the can down the road and leads us to maintaining 23-year-old systems that are unfortunately at the end of their lifespan.
[Merritt]: Thank you. And to that, that's great. And I think, you know, please don't misunderstand. I want schools to, right, but just saying form fit replacement versus the solar panels that weren't there, that's an upgrade. Is there a dollar cost? How many dollars is that, right? Are there other upgrades? If they make sense, that's great. Just hoping that that cost breakdown for those options has been presented so people can understand the rationale. And if it makes sense to buy, buy. Thank you. Thank you.
[Hunt]: I will just share that the full feasibility study looks at these sorts of comparisons of various items, but does address the fact that a retrofit is just not possible, really, at this point. An interesting thing with the solar is that we are putting it forward. I am recommending it as an ad alternate on this project. And that is actually because what I have done when we've worked on the last several construction projects, the police, the library, et cetera, When solar is an ad alternate, it comes in at a much lower price than if it was a standalone project, and it comes in surprisingly low, typically because the electrical sub doesn't want to lose the work, and so they give a really good price on that. So we will put it forward as an ad alternate. If it comes in as too pricey or there's some issue with it, then we'll hold that for a later separately funded project. If it comes in at a significantly good price, which is in fact what happened with the police and the library, then we would move forward with it. So I just felt that that was useful to know up front. But these are also some of the things that we would get into both in a short committee of the whole, but also in an in-depth one when we are at 100% design.
[Bears]: It sounds like it's fair to say that maximizing the lifespan, minimizing the cost, and maximizing the efficiency of this project has been the touchstone of the feasibility study and the design process. Thank you.
[Cushing]: I'd also like to say that through our meeting since August, we've had to make serious decisions about this project. And the two things guiding our work are energy efficiency, all right, and making sure that we're helping Medford meet its climate goals, but also fiscal responsibility to the taxpayers of the city. We've made conscientious decisions on this project for these two schools. that are fiscally responsible and, you know, sacrifice quicker delivery in some cases and extend the timeline a little bit because of the extraordinarily high cost for that quicker delivery of certain units.
[Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Vienneau]: Hi, my name is Lisa Vienneau and I live at 19 Paul Road in Medford. I was just wondering where this problem has existed for a while. How extensively or creatively have you looked for resources on the federal level, on the private level to fund this or to help fund this project so that it doesn't always just lean on the taxpayer to have to pay it. Just curious where it's been around for at least five years. You've had time to think, oh, perhaps we should look for funding in other places, not just locally in the city, but maybe federal or private. I don't know if construction is considered a way to get funding, but I'm just curious about that.
[Bears]: My understanding, and I'm sure Dr. Cushing and Director Hunt can add to it, is that federal money has been used up until this point to fund the process up until this point, the federal ARPA money that came to the city. and there's not really private grants out there for this kind of project. And also I believe it was presented to the school committee that the MSBA was approached and they said that this project wouldn't apply under the MSBA, but.
[Hunt]: So I think that a full robust answer on this, I would like to defer to the committee of the whole, because I would be happy to go on at length about the difficulty with federal funding where we apply for grants. I think it's too much for tonight. Suffice it to say, Brendan and I have been looking at that for two and a half years. The MSBA is not eligible because we are working on a new school, the new high school, and they said we could not fund this project with MSBA. At the same time, we would have to put the new high school on hold. Nobody is willing to put the new high school on hold. Nobody is willing to work in a building without air conditioning. in buildings that were designed for air conditioning. So that's a problem with MSBA. We've looked at smaller grants. When you're looking at a project of this scale, some of the smaller things that are available barely touch this project.
[Cushing]: So the mass MSBA is the Massachusetts School Building Authority. Thank you. And that's the that's the funding authority that will hopefully fund a large portion of the work that's expected to be done in Medford High School. Also, over the past several years, as everyone is aware, construction costs have spiked excessively. And that actually caused several projects in Massachusetts under MSBA authority to either pause their deployment or to refigure their plans into what's called value engineer, eliminate things as the construction moved forward. MSBA also shut down several of their programs over the last several years to make sure that funding was being driven to the core program. MSBA is considering and I understand will be reopening some accelerated repair projects. That funding would be for over two years from now, which means another two plus heating seasons. And we're considering those for future work with our other schools that are of similar age. The timeline does not fit for these schools where the systems have largely failed.
[Bears]: Thank you, Dr. Cushing.
[Hunt]: Tom reminded me that we do anticipate $2.5 million in utility rebates on this project. So I just want to put that out there.
[Bears]: Thank you, Director Hunt. Any further questions from members of the Council? Any further comment from members of the public on this item on the loan order for the school HVAC project? Seeing none, on the motion of Vice President Collins, as amended by Councilor Tseng and seconded by Councilor Lazzaro to approve for first reading. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan, Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. No. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. Paper 24 slash five one dash 517 water and sewer capital stabilization fund appropriation request, dear President Bears and members of the city council I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following appropriation from the water and sewer capital stabilization fund lead line replacement rebate program. $100,000. As your honorable body knows, the water and sewer capital stabilization fund presently has a balance of $2 million. This was from retained earnings and appropriation from a stabilization account requires a two thirds majority vote of the City Council. DPW Commissioner McGivern is present to answer any questions. Thank you for your kind attention. This matter respectfully submitted Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. We have Commissioner McGivern, I believe, on Zoom. Did you make him a co-host, Mr. Quinn? Yes. Thank you, Commissioner McGibbon. You should be able to unmute. And if you want to share anything about this project before we go to questions.
[McGivern]: Wonderful. Hello, everybody. Thank you for taking this on tonight. So this is relatively simple. So we are running out of money that we have set aside for our lead line rebate program. And we are trying to actually change that program, how we do it. But we're waiting for some information on a grant that we're trying to get from the EPA. So in the meantime, we need a little bit more money to help that account. And that number is 100,000. So we think that'll hold us over until we know more information on how we're either going to continue this program or change it. I'm happy to answer questions on our plans or whatever comes up.
[Bears]: Thanks. I'm going to Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Burris. Thank you, Commissioner McGibbon for being with us this evening. I know that the lead line replacement rebate program is something that I've heard a lot about from a lot of constituents. I think there's a lot of enthusiasm for this program as homeowners are really happy to know that there are rebates available for replacing lead lines that really ought to be replaced. So thank you for your work on that program in general. I think that this is a really worthy program and it makes sense to use monies from the Water and Sewer Stabilization Fund, which, you know, is a way of making sure that our retained earnings can remain useful throughout the year to be put towards this. And it sounds to me like it's, you know, essentially just a stopgap, a kind of safety measure until hopefully some federal monies start to augment that program as well. So I would happy to make a motion to approve. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public on the lead line? Oh, Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Real quick, this was something that I have dealt with a lot being a renter, living in a lot of different houses, all of which I led when my child was under six years old. And I do think that it's crucially important. I'm very excited that Medford is incentivizing people and giving people this opportunity to get those fixed and providing a little bit of help with that. I also understand that this is simply putting it in place so that it can be used by the residents. Obviously, that'll depend on how many applications come in. So I'm very happy to support this.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none on the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. I'll just saying president bears.
[Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative done the negative. The motion passes. Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you.
[Scarpelli]: Can we hear papers 24-518, 24-519 please.
[Bears]: While under suspension, Councilor Scarpelli has called papers 24-518 and 24-519. Is there a second?
[Darren]: Second.
[Bears]: On the second by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Tseng]: second.
[Scarpelli]: Yeah. I didn't say just it's been on the agenda.
[Hurtubise]: Council Callahan, Vice President Collins, Councilor Zorro, Councilor Leming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng, President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes, having the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. 2-4-518, offered by Councilor Scarpelli, be it resolved that the City Administration report back to the Council on the following information. costs associated with terminating the superintendent's contract, any communications, correspondences, meeting minutes, records, and reports regarding the separation, anticipated costs of the superintendent search committee, and interim appointment, be it so resolved that the finance director appear before the council to articulate a plan to restore our dropping bond rating, be it so resolved that the city administration cease and desist the use of private investigators to follow and harass employees, utilizing contractually afforded leave benefits, Be it further resolved in the city administration report back to the council with the identified line in the budget where we are paying private investigators and a complete financial report from the start of this practice to the present and be it resolved at the city administration report to the council, the cost associated for the drug testing of questionable drug testing of our DPW staff and a report outlining the reasons for these tests. Be it further resolved the council request to move to executive session if these issues are confidential. I'll recognize councilor Scarpelli and also note that I do have a response from the mayor which I will read after your presentation.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Council President. Thanks for allowing this to go forward. I think that as we've spoken about in the past, I think that with the passing of the override, I think every dollar that is going to come through the city coffers I'm going to bring forward because of the lack of transparency. You'll see that there's a trend tonight as we look at different resolutions that lack of transparency or lack of information for our residents to understand the process as we move forward have been a big issue. So I think that understanding phone calls I received as soon as we get the news that the superintendent's contract has just been bought out, and mutually, by the way, I don't know what that means, but when you have someone for a contract, so especially someone that's worked so hard for the community you'd want to see that to the end and i think that not knowing what that that number is that dollar number is and how much these ramifications are going to hit our community i think it's important when you have all these questions about the override and where the money's going where it's truly going and as the mayor said she would have a transparent process i'm just moving this forward to ask that we get a detailed report from the mayor's office And, uh, describing the cost. Um impact that's going to hit this city by paying off a superintendent, um, to go home now and, um. collective paycheck to do nothing while we're now moving an assistant superintendent forward an interim role and what that cost will be in the trickle down effect to costs that are going to have to now pick up her slack financially in the city. So, um, This isn't a secret. I hope no one here is offended. I told everybody here I will question every single penny moving forward, especially after the override vote and anything that would be a little questionable when it comes to processes that as soon as the override is passed, we settle a buyout for a superintendent to move her out. So I think that is going to be super important that we have that, Mr. President. So I request that from our administration. The second is I'm glad to hear that Mia did respond back to us about our bond rating for Moody's that people didn't know that we were taken off the bond rating by Moody's, one of our investment companies that give us our bond rating because of some technical issues with filing. I believe I was told, I'm not sure, but I think that we're here that that is back on, we're back on top and our bond rating has been restored. It's also good to know that we truly don't use Moody's too often or if any, when we look at our bonds, but I think it's important that when something goes out, especially when we're talking about what? financial mismanagement, right? And what do we hear? All of a sudden, Moody's has dropped Medford because of A, B and C. So I appreciate the mayor's response today, letting us know that that has been restored. But I would amend this paper, if we could, to ask a report to be presented to the City Council on the reasoning why we would lose a bond rating, because I think that's more alarming in totality to not just getting the bond back. I think, yay, we got it back. But I think what's important, we talk about the issues we had, especially during the time of the override. We talked about mismanagement of our city's finances. So I think that we need to see if we can, Mr. President, to amend the paper to ask for that report. I would appreciate that. Next is to be resolved. The city administration cease and desist the use of private investigators. I was told that we have had multiple employees that under contract are being followed by private investigators, and this is getting to be a real problem because what's happening in our community, whether you want to see it or not, Our community is being divided in so many different levels, and the administration is the catalyst behind this. And we're seeing practices of following hard-working members of our community off of rumors to follow them around the Commonwealth to see if they're doing something wrong during their contractual sick days, and that's wrong. I'm sure everybody here has said and they fight for unions. But if you truly fight for unions, I hope you stand with me to get a true indication of where our tax dollars are going. Because if these rumors again, the reason why we hear the mayor is sent out private investigators because of rumors. And I as one Councilor, if we're going to play that game, I am now responding to rumors. that I want to report back. If this is a practice, I need an update and understand the cost that's attributed to these these, um, these private investigators and where what line item they're coming from and want a full report, what this practice, how much it's cost us from the beginning to the end, and if they have found anything dealing with any private investigators. I know that, you know, we have one DPW member that's now gone, that has settled for a big number, that's, he's home now, counting his money. And I think that was one of the instances that, looking back, I'd love to see what it's cost us. Again, I'm gonna bring it forward. We had an override, $500,000 to fix all of our streets and sidewalks. Well, let's see where this money is going. So I think this is important that we see that. And last but not least, what I heard the other day, I find it appalling. And I think that this is, again, another example of the division of this community. Everybody wants that. What do we have the other day? We have DPW members. We were commending DPW members because of their hard work and their commitment to Medford. But in the same breath, we're gonna hear that in this resolution that just the other day, I was informed that I believe 45 DPW members, staff members were brought in to do drug testing. And that's a blatant blatant problem. So my question that I can ask right now is how much did it cost us? And what do we find with these these these processes? Because I think it's important that we need to know because these members that are here are the people that get up every day and go to work without any question. Now they're understaffed. They're underpaid. These are the people that, remember, we plotted because, what, while everybody was sleeping and doors were shut and everything was buckled down during the pandemic? Well, they were fired, there were police, and there were DPW workers that were killing themselves every single day for this city. So I know the mayor talks about the pandemic, and we want to talk about it when it sounds good, but these men and women, what happened last week, that's a serious problem. And for one member of this leadership team in this city, I think that we have to have emotion. We have to have information that stops this from happening. Enough is enough. Our city is damaged. Our state is damaged. Our nation is damaged as it is. We don't need any more. So I know that there is a representative here from the Teamsters that's represented the union that could explain some important information. And I welcome that when it's time, Council President. But again, I think it's important for this council right now to understand this process. And we all know that, you know, we can't come from the city because of personnel issues. But I will tell you what I can ask for is what the funding what it costs this this community by I believe it was drug testing and alcohol testing, I believe, for all of the city employees that were, by the way, working on our streets, in our schools, in our parks, on our sidewalks, that were called back to the yard, that had to sit in a room and then be embarrassed and disgraced to get drug tested for no reason. So again, Mr. President, thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I have two documents from the administration that I'll read, and then I'll go to members of the council, and then we can go to public participation. First, I was on the bond rating we received a message from the mayor. Hello President Bears and city council members after a great deal of preparation and bond rating call last week. I'm pleased to report that our a three bond rating was reaffirmed by Moody's financial services company upon receiving updated documentation related to our fiscal year 23 audit. As you're likely aware the AA3 rating is regarded as a quote high grade rating and per Moody's analysis the city is in line for an elevated credit rating in the future. You can read about Moody's outlook on the city's financial health and borrowing strength in a press release on the city website. While this is welcome news it comes with opportunities for us to shore up our financial reporting operations and strive to increase our rating in the future. If you have any questions please feel free to contact my office. We then also received a message regarding Council Resolution 24518, which is what we're currently considering. The mayor said, hello, President Bears, I wanted to provide some insight on Council Resolution 24518. Quote, my responsibility as mayor is to the residents and taxpayers of the city of Medford. When I receive allegations from multiple parties alleging various employee matters, including potential misconduct, fraud, et cetera, I believe our community expects that I investigate these allegations to the fullest extent possible. Additionally, depending on the specific nature of the allegations at issue, our human resources department does not have the bandwidth to undertake investigations that are broad in scope or are too cumbersome that such efforts would impede daily office duties and responsibilities. Also, as it relates to school items, please refer all school matters to the school department. With respect to the portion of the proposed resolution pertaining to drug testing, this is a confidential personnel matter and due to individual privacy considerations, we cannot comment. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Brianna Lugo, current mayor. Yes. Any and if any other Councilors, please, you know, just signal if you'd like to speak. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you. So, Clarity, you're saying the mayor says that so to ask for a a report from the school department, is she is she saying that Are we going to get a report financially so we can understand the ramifications financially for buying out the superintendent? I know that you have nothing to do with it, but did she give you any indication? Because to me it sounds like, you know, go pound sand. We're moving on.
[Bears]: It says, as it relates to school items, please refer school matters to the school department. That's what the email says. So we can send requests to the school.
[Scarpelli]: As the budgetary stewards of this community that vote on that budget, I'm demanding a report, Council President, if you may, to the mayor to break down the financial ramifications of the buyout to the superintendent and what that means to the city. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Councilor, Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate the discussion being put forward. I do wish that these topics were separated into disparate resolutions so we could take them up individually and vote on them individually. A lot to get into here, but I do just feel that we need to be more clear with the language that we're using. And I didn't want people to use, I wouldn't want people to leave the meeting thinking that the city has offered the superintendent a buyout. That's not accurate. It's my understanding again, we are not the school committee. I don't think that we should be taking up matters that are germane to the school committee because that is not our body. Um, but it is my understanding that it is pretty common when a superintendent contract is not renewed that the superintendent does step back from the full extent of their responsibilities before their contract is officially over to allow for that transition. This isn't abnormal. It doesn't indicate that there's any sort of expensive illicit, fraudulent buyout going on, I think that this is normal. So I want to put that out there. I wouldn't, you know, I know that sometimes using these words makes for better TV, but I don't think that it's respectful to the residents to mischaracterize what's going on. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments from members of the council? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you. I don't want to get the tip of tap, but as the mayor just said in her response, when you hear a rumor, she takes up full responsibility to make sure we know what's going on. As fiscal stewards of this community, when the city council, when the school committee mutually ends a contract, and yes, there is a bio with it, there is a financial a financial responsibility to the city by the superintendent leaving early. This is why I'm asking for the resolution. This is why I'm asking the report. I'm not asking for anything bad. I'm not saying anybody did anything wrong. All I'm asking for is a report so we can see what the financial ramifications are by having this buyout, not just with the superintendent, whatever it costs us, if it costs us anything. They come back and say it costs us nothing. But what is it going to cost us for an interim? What's that increase? What is the trickle-down effect? Who's going to take up those responsibilities? Who's going to pay those people? Are they going to get paid? So I don't think this is something that's very confusing. This, believe me, this is pretty clear. So when I asked for a resolution, the resolution doesn't seem to be too dumbfounding, I believe. I think it's pretty self-explanatory. All this council is asking for, ladies and gentlemen, is just a report on the breakdown of the mutual buyout or the mutual dismissal of the superintendent. That's all. I'm not trying to make this more than it is.
[Bears]: I'll go to Councilor Tseng and Councilor Callaghan. Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: I believe Councilor Callaghan. Sorry, I didn't see the order.
[Bears]: Councilor Callaghan.
[Callahan]: I actually would make a motion to sever. I would sever it into five. Perhaps we can do that after public discussion or whatever before or after either one is fine. But I think there's one that's about the essentially lines two and four, which are the cost of terminating. Then the one in the middle, that line three, Uh inviting all communications. I think that's a a separate one. Um there's a question of the bond rating is a third. The question of the private investigators is the fourth and the question of the drug testing is a fifth. That would be my suggestion to sever it into those five.
[Bears]: Thanks. Yeah, we can take that up when we move to the voting if that's okay so we can hear just since it was presented as one, I think it's fair to hear it as one.
[Tseng]: Thank you. I believe that what is more confusing to me, and I believe I'll... is also confusing to people at home, is using the word buyout for something that I assume is quite contractual. If the criticism, and I understand Councilor Scarpelli is not saying that anyone has necessarily done anything wrong. And, you know, it's always good to have more information, but I do, I think the word is what is confusing, but not the resolution itself. When it comes to the topic of the school superintendent I think it's really important to preface anything by saying that there is a clear separation of powers in the city. When it comes to school governance. However, I understand where the Councilors coming from. I just, I worry that we slip into a logical situation where, you know, this is the standard procedure right, the school board the school committee chooses not to renew something, the contract with the superintendent, and there's a transition period. This is also from my understanding very standard. Now, if we, you know, If the school committee, and that's up to their discretion, doesn't want to renew a contract with the superintendent, this is the process. There isn't any other way that we could do it that would cost less. And if there then becomes criticism that this is how it was done, then we foreclose any accountability we have over a hypothetical superintendent. So that's that. And I haven't decided. I think that's just my logical qualm with it. But I understand the resolution. I understand that it wasn't meant poorly. With regards to, and I'll be brief about everything else because I understand there are folks in the audience who want to talk. I do think it's important that in the administration of the city and how we carry out our duties, I understand the need for accountability. I also understand that we, we have a responsibility to the dignity of our workers as well. I'll keep it simple in that, at that, because I know there are a lot of people here who are looking to give us more information to speak as well.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the council? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: I just think that, I think I'll say it again. And I, and I, for what this community has just gone through in November, I think it's important that we do question everything because everybody's asking. So either it's on the city side, school side, it comes, it's coming out of our city's budget and there are questions that aren't being asked. So when residents come to me and say, what are the implications financially, especially after an override, it just doesn't smell right. That's why I'm saying these are the, these are the important things that all that is, is just, showing the information, understanding the information moving forward. So when we talk about accountability, don't you think it's about time that the mayor is held accountable? I mean, don't we think that this administration is held accountable? This is the problem. So she's getting a free pass by hiding behind different levels. And the bottom line is enough is enough. We need to fix this community. So thank you.
[Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation on this item. We'll take alternating public participation at the podium and on Zoom. Please raise your hand on Zoom if you'd like to participate. We'll start at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. It's all one item, so whichever items were included in that
[Campbell]: Good evening. My name is Nancy Campbell, 544 Main Street. I'm a field representative with the Teamsters Local 25. I'm one of three agents assigned to represent the City of Medford Union employees. We're here today because this past week, the mayor singled out our DPW workers, violating their rights, and broke the law again. This time the mayor demanded that 28 of our DPW members, almost the entire bargaining unit, take a mandatory drug test. The 28 DPW members were lined up outside in broad daylight for all the world to see. One by one, they were loaded into the back of a drug testing van like criminals. They were forced to sign away their rights, a violation of mass DOT regulations, and then they were told to pee in a cup with a stranger peering over their shoulder. The stranger took each test in rapid succession with so much as non-sanitizing his hands between each. This sort of mass drug testing is unheard of. It was humiliating, inhumane, and illegal. To be clear, there was absolutely no just cause or reasonable suspicion for any of these members to be tested, let alone all 28 of them at once. By the mayor's own account, a single unused needle found in the bathroom on Monday morning justified the mass testing. But let's call a spade a spade here. The bathroom where the needle was found wasn't only used by DPW workers. It was used by the public and other city employees. So why then were only DPW workers singled out? I'm sure the mayor will be scrambling around to come up with a good answer for that one. The mayor's despicable actions last week demonstrated poor leadership, bad judgment, and a failed labor relation policy that has become typical for her administration. but that serves absolutely no one but the management attorneys who line their pockets with taxpayer dollars defending the mayor's unlawful actions. In one fell swoop, the mayor managed to violate the collective bargaining agreement, state labor law, DOT regulations, the city's own drug policy, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects all citizens from unreasonable government search and seizure. If a police officer wants to give somebody a breathalyzer to see whether they have been drinking and driving, they need probable cause, reasonable suspicion. They can't just shove a tube down their throat because they feel like it. And they certainly can't start pulling over random passerby after finding a single beer can on the side of the road. Yet here in MedFed, that effectively is exactly what happened. Without reasonable bias whatsoever, upon finding a single unused needle in a public bathroom, the mayor subjected 28 city employees to drug tests. Why? Because she felt like it. She did not have any reason or evidence to suspect that any of the needles belonging to any one of them. So it should come as no surprise that the drug test results show that every single tested employee passed. Again, I wanna be clear. Every single employee who was tested passed not only a drug test, but also a breathalyzer. Not one of our members showed up to work under the influence of drug or alcohol. Here in Medford, you have a mayor who thinks she is above the law. You have a mayor who thinks the US Constitution means absolutely nothing.
[Bears]: You have one minute.
[Campbell]: The mayor, an attorney by trade, feels as though these employees, citizens of Medford, should not be afforded the same rights as all Americans. But to our members, who were the ones subjected to the embarrassment of being forced to take these invasive tests against their will or lose their job in the face of embarrassment of residents thinking that these hardworking men dedicated in keeping your city street running safely are using drugs at work. Under the mayor's tenure, the city has already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting unions across the city rather than giving them fair wage adjustment and benefits. The message is clear. The mayor would rather spend your money fighting her employees than supporting them. The council spends time talking about the council, the mayor, the school committee raises, but no one No one discusses the regular employees like police, fire, dispatchers, Teamster employees. Why? She got three raises this year, but she doesn't think they deserve one.
[Bears]: Thank you. That's time. And we went two minutes over.
[Campbell]: Lastly, we are calling on the mayor.
[Bears]: I'll let her finish her sentence, but I just want you to acknowledge the time. Thank you.
[Campbell]: Finish the sentence. Thank you. I'd like to finish. Excuse me. The city has paid another many hundreds of thousands of dollars to employees throughout the city for mass wage violations, as well as employment lawsuits. What are you doing as city councils waiting for? Are you waiting for additional civil rights lawsuits like the one that was just filed today or more wage violations so the city finally goes into bankruptcy? Because I can assure you that is exactly the direction you're headed in. You have asked the residents of this great city for overrides under the guise of keeping their schools properly staffed, but also while paying for her constant and deliberate mishandling of their money for attorney fees lawsuit settlement and wage violations. If the city was being properly managed by a competent mayor, instead of a mayor playing favoritism and using city funds to finance her personal vendettas against her employees, you wouldn't need any overrides. When will you start doing your jobs that you were elected to do and protect the resident and employees from this constant harassment and mistreatment from the mayor? I urge all of you to take a step back and reassess if you're really stepping up to the plate and doing the very best you can as elected city councilors. I wanna urge the residents here in Medford to start doing the same. Is the mayor doing the job you elected her to do by wasting your hard earned money on attorney fees, private investigators, unlawful drug testing to settle personal scores of the employees? Wake up everybody and start paying attention. and put a stop to this once and for all because we will not stop fighting to protect our members, their rights, their jobs and their dignities. Lastly, we are calling on the mayor to take a urine drug test in the front parking lot of the DPW in an unsanitary van. with the door wide open, with a line of people outside watching, which is exactly the humiliating conditions our members, your hardworking DPW employees, were mandated to in the last test on Monday, as a condition of their employment, by the way. And if she refuses, she should face the same repercussions they were threatened with. She should be fired.
[Bears]: Thank you. I just want to acknowledge, I know you were speaking for a number of people. We do have rules. I did extensively go beyond those rules to hear the comment. That's going to be the one time that I do that tonight on this matter. If there are other people who would like to speak, there'll be a three minute time limit.
[Hatch]: Brian Hatch, Local 25 Teamsters. Thank you.
[Bears]: You have three minutes.
[Hatch]: I have eight copies of a lawsuit filed today in US District Court against the Mayor and the HR Director by our members at the DPW. I'll give you those copies. Teamsters Local 25 represents over 14 communities. We have never seen such an egregious act and disregard of a member's rights and dignity. I'll leave it at that. Here's your lawsuits from the members. Right here, there's eight copies. Read them.
[Bears]: Thank you. If you could place them on that desk over there.
[Hatch]: You can place them on the desk. Wish you the best.
[Bears]: If you could please place them on the desk over there. Thank you. Councilor, you can place them on the desk over there. Thanks. Sure. Do we have any other public participation on the matter? Seeing none on Zoom. Okay. Name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Flagg]: John Flagg, 55 Garfield Ave, Medford. Through the chair, I'd like to know what the councilors think about the mayor's actions. Did anybody have a comment on this? Forcing people to take drug tests on rumors? Zach, got anything?
[Bears]: You have your time, I'm waiting for you to.
[Flagg]: I don't need three minutes, I asked a question, anybody gonna answer it?
[Bears]: You are allowed to make a public comment, thank you.
[Flagg]: Public comment means asking a representative questions.
[Bears]: No, it doesn't, it means that you have three minutes to share your perspective.
[Flagg]: You can make up any rules you want.
[Bears]: Thank you, it's not made up. Any further public comment? Oh, you relinquished the chair. You relinquished the podium. You relinquished the podium. You walked away from the podium. If you'd like to speak again, you can speak after anyone else who'd like to speak. Thank you. Thank you. Please follow the rules. It's how we maintain decorum and have civil discussion. It's fun, right? So fun. Any further public comment. Any further public comment we'd like to have here.
[Reno]: Reno 158 Concord road, thank you have three minutes, you know, I I too have a problem with this I've never seen anything like this with my 28 years and the team says local 25 to sit there and be embarrassed. Have these hard workers essential workers who busted their butts to coven any problems that were thrown their way, as well as the fire department, and the police department as well. And for you to sit up there and think it's funny. I don't, I kind of resent that. I don't think this is funny at all. I just think people should be disrespected. Rad, rad, rad, that's not funny. That's what just came out of the crowd. That's what just came out of the crowd. Our problem is, you know, these workers were treated unfair, unjust. It's embarrassing to be sit there and lined up like they're criminals. They come to work every day and they work a hard day's work for a hard day's wage. They showed up every day and to be treated because they, because the mayor heard a rumor, Is that what goes on? You could have taken that $7,500 or $8,000 it costs to do those tests and gave it to the schools to start the HVAC program. Gentlemen said about watching where every penny goes through this city. It's embarrassing to have these guys stand up and have to go one by one in a band and then have to get up here and to fight for their jobs. and they don't take that drug test, they lose their job immediately, I find it very uneasy. And I ask the members of this council, does that seem right? If you were asked today, you know, all five of you or seven of you to sit there and one by one go up and have to take a drug test in front of your coworkers and everybody in the public's eye. This is a very serious issue. And hopefully the council will sit there and act appropriately and come to this resolution so it never happens again. It's unconstitutional. It's against their contract. It's against the American way of life. It's like being treated like a piece of dirt on the ground. These guys show up day after day, every day, and they do their job to make this city better. And I really don't think that our mayor here in this town is standing up for what the people voted her in for, spending money relentlessly, ridiculously. There's issues that have to be dealt with in this city. And I really don't think putting 28 guys in the middle of a van to take a drug test and a breathalyzer is one of them.
[Bears]: You have 30 more seconds.
[Reno]: 30 more seconds. Thank you for listening to me. Thank you.
[Bears]: I'm gonna just reiterate how the process works here. What has been described is not something that I would be comfortable with as a person, my role as the chairs. I shouldn't even be saying what I'm saying right now, till we've heard from the public till we've heard from all the Councilors until we that's that's the rules of this process are here, so that we can hear from the members of the Council I'm chairing the meeting. We can hear from members of the public under the rules, and then we can make comments. We've heard a case has been made. Folks have had an experience and said they had an experience that they felt very uncomfortable and felt was unjust. We've heard that. We have a short response from the mayor. I'm going to guess that most of the people behind this rail would like to learn more about what happened. And also just to be honest and direct, our role in this process is we do not, I am not the boss of any employee in the city. No one behind this rail is the manager of any employee in the city, except for this person right next to us is the only person in the city who works for the city council. Everybody else who works for the city of Medford works for the mayor of Medford or the superintendent of schools of the Medford public schools. So that's the role that we play here. I'm sure many of us would feel dismayed and feel that the experience that was described by the representative was not something that they would want to go through. I think everyone in the crowd would probably say the same. Now the rest of the facts that come out of that. We don't know all the answers. We just have what has been presented so far. And our action simply would be to say, we do not like that you did that mayor. When we talk about accountability for the mayor, that happens at the ballot box every two years. And that is how she's held accountable. Beyond that, there is nothing in the city charter, the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, federal law that empowers this council to order the mayor to not do what she did. The union has filed a suit, as is their right, on behalf of their members, disputing what happened. Individuals filed the suit. Thank you. Then the individuals filed the suit themselves. Thank you. And the representative presented it. I assumed that Teamsters Local 25 represented, but the members have filed suit. That's their right. Beyond that, their recourse is we can hear facts here. We can hear statements made here. People can speak at the podium and the Councilors can look for additional information, but that's why we're having the discussion that we're having. And no one behind the rail is obligated at this point to say, their opinion, whether they feel like they have enough information to make an informed discussion, all I can say is that the experience that was described is not something I would want to experience, and I'm sure we all would like to find out more information about why it happened and to make sure that whatever recourse is available to the people who experienced it is there. Thank you. And one of the reasons that we have rules is so that we maintain decorum and that I can explain the process and what this council has the power to do and not do. So I appreciate that. I'll go to Zoom and then we'll come back to the podium. On Zoom, we have Nadeen. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Moretti]: Hi, can you hear me? Oh, hello?
[Bears]: Nadeen, we can hear you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Moretti]: Okay, great. Thank you, Nadeen Moretti, Birgit Av. I just want to say something brief. Of course, what's going on is just disgusting, and it just seems to always compound with every week, every meeting, every issue. What I do want to point out, though, the level of maturity that is missing oftentimes from the response with people that are behind the podium or that come up to the podium to speak, it's just, it's unthinkable. I just can't get over the response sometimes, the laughing, you know, not from every single council member, but I just don't think it's appropriate when you have people that have deep, real feelings what's going on and people are upset and we're constantly upset coming to this council. That's all we ever are. I just don't think it's right. I think it's very unbecoming of what a council, I'm not talking about everybody, I'm talking about one person right now, should act. And I just think that you really have to dial it down because it's just not appropriate to laugh at people who are coming up with deep-rooted feelings of the stuff that's going on, which is not right by the mayor and most of the committee. So I just wanna make a point of that. I think that you really need to, think before you laugh or think before you speak. You know, there has to be a level of maturity that is just unfound. So thank you for your time.
[Bears]: Thank you. Um, we'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. Mr. Castagnetti, you have three minutes.
[Castagnetti]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. Uh, I, I'm very confused and It's sad to hear this. It's a new method happening, I guess. I never heard of this before. But I just have one question for, I believe, for a Councilor, and hopefully that Councilor can respond this time. Did I hear a Councilor say that a needle was found in the bathroom in the City Hall premises?
[Bears]: I believe the representative from Local 25 said that a needle was found, an unused needle was found in the bathroom at the DPW facility.
[Castagnetti]: I see. OK, could that have been a false flag? could have been planted by anyone and could that happen again and do emergency testing all over again in the future if that's the case?
[Bears]: I do not have information. I mean, I don't have that information. Um, all I have is the statement that we received from the mayor, their resolution by the Councilor and what we've heard at the podium.
[Castagnetti]: Do you know the location?
[Bears]: I was, I've heard from the representative that it was at, uh, the DPW bathroom.
[Castagnetti]: Where's that located?
[Bears]: At James street.
[Castagnetti]: Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record please. You have three minutes.
[Spinney-Flagg]: Lori 55 Garfield Avenue. I just want to make a point. I didn't even know this had happened and I think it's disgusting for a star but more disgusting was just three months ago. We as the residents on Salem Street. were picketing and fighting a methadone dispensary being put on Salem Street. And the mayor now finds that she has the authority to go after employees. because a needle was found? Does she even start to think of how many needles would be lining Salem Street if that dispensary had been approved there, which I understand is still on the table somewhere along the authority's ruling to put somewhere else in Medford. Just wanted to point that out. It's kind of, You can put a dispensary in, but now you're going after your employees because a needle was found? I don't understand that. Dispensaries are okay, needles are okay there, but. I mean, I don't think needles anywhere in the city are good, but it's kind of funny that the mayor would go and go after her employees for a needle that they don't even know where it came from. It was said earlier, it's not just DPW, it's a public bathroom. I mean, just doesn't make a lot of sense, the management of this city these days. And if you guys don't understand, that the residents are not happy with what you're putting forward these days. And maybe you should start listening to some of the residents because two years is coming soon. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public? Name and address for the record. You have three minutes, Nate, and I'll wait till you get to the phone.
[Merritt]: Nate Merritt, 373 Riverside Ave. Just a point of information for you all. There's a number of reasons why needles can be used for very legitimate purposes. Some people use them to administer fertility treatments on themselves. Diabetes. There's another number of legitimate medical concerns. Maybe it's something that y'all could maybe get more specifics on the needle that was found and perhaps if it had a potential alternate use for something non-nefarious.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Martin. In terms of the specifics, I mean, it sounds like this is going to be litigated and evidence will be presented on that litigation. Any further public comments? Seeing none, I will go to Councilor Callahan and then Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Leming. Councilor Callahan. Oops, sorry.
[Callahan]: comment was actually from earlier just to explain. To the person who's asking us to respond that like actually, I think I at least for one Councilor was really hoping to hear from the public first. I did not want to interrupt and put in my own comments. I really wanted to hear a little bit more about what people had gone through and experienced. That was why I was not responding to that. I also do hope that we can. Are we going to sever before we discuss each one or are we going to sever at the very last second? I think it might be easier to sever and then discuss each piece.
[Bears]: I'm just going to take the discussion that's on the table and then we can take any motions. Go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: If I can, Mr. President, I think that if I can have the representative from local 25 And I think that part of this process, I think that there was a clear trend in meaning behind my resolutions. And I know it was something that's horrible and it's something that would be vetted out properly in the courts. But I think that what was clear is making sure that our community understood a few things. is one, we get a report that breaks down the funding mechanism and how money's being spent. That's the first thing. The second thing is that understanding the process that our leadership in this community in the mayor's office is lacking and it's causing a huge divide in our community. I mean, we've talked about the police today, 900 days without a contract. We're talking about the firefighters having some serious issues right now. Um, and then right. And what we're talking about right now is what I need to know is how much just this one is an issue cost. And then you brought up a good point, Mr. Hatch. You said that, you know, how many communities do you work with? If you can, can you, what, what are they? If you can, do you know what, what communities...
[Campbell]: uh, we have the city of Newton city of walled dam. Cambridge, which is where I came from, Concord, Stowe, we have Hingham, we have, I said Watertown, Waltham is another big one, Chelsea, Billerica, Malden, Everett.
[Scarpelli]: Okay, I think that the question I need to ask you, you've obviously represented those communities and you've had leaders in those communities. Is it an anomaly? Is this a trend that we're seeing just because we're in Medford, we're isolated? I know by working in a municipality for the last 18 years, I see the difference, but most people don't understand that some people actually come to the city of Medford say, this is the norm. This is what a mayor is supposed to do. can you just shed just a little light on your experience and your other communities? Do you see the same trends and do you see the same financial impact to their communities that we're seeing here in Medford?
[Campbell]: Well, I can tell you that me specifically, I worked for over 23 years in a municipality, in several, Concord and more recently for a while in Cambridge, one of the biggest cities in the state. And now I represent all of these cities here with Local 25. And I can honestly tell you Medford is hands down the worst city to work with. I can call any other community. I can call a city manager, a mayor, a town manager, no matter what, and ask a question, get an answer, work together, get our contracts done in the city of Medford. For somebody to violate somebody's constitutional rights, we've never seen it in Local 25, that any of us have been here. Some of us have been here over 25 years, fighting for these cities and towns. It has absolutely never happened. Our attorneys are in awe that this just happened. We don't see it anywhere. It's wasteful spending, and it's like nobody has control here.
[Scarpelli]: OK, so that's my final question is this, because this is what the point is. The amount of money we spent on drug testing and breathalyzers for these employees is important. I wanna see that. But I would love to see the cost that to the Teamsters, because we're not getting the true indication of what the city is paying for our attorneys, because we don't have a city solicitor. So I would like, if you can, if you could report back to the council and just give us an idea of what the Teamsters pay, their council, and fighting method issues, because that will at least give us a true indication that in the last five and a half years, we've seen that the teams have paid X amount of dollars. And from what I gather, it should be pretty equivalent to see where our money is going. Again, I'm bringing this forward to the community so we can understand a major impact to our community. And I bring up the override every time because we talk about mismanagement of funds. And when we have the representatives of 14 other communities, and we hear that this doesn't happen anywhere else, that's a red flag. So again, I know what was happening. We don't like it. We stand against it 1,000% as human beings. But truly, the intent for this resolution is really to understand, A, the financial impact that we're seeing in all of my other resolutions I put in place, and then B, again, the lack of true transparency and true leadership with the mayor of this community. So again, I thank you so much. Again, I apologize that things are getting heated again, but I know it's something that's very emotional. I talked to at least 10 DPW workers that call me directly that I've grown up with, I've been friends with, that were absolutely appalled and embarrassed. Their wives called me and said, this is a disgrace. What my husband had to endure today was a disgrace. And I can't speak to that more than I can, or I wish I could because I would have called the city solicitor and asked him how far I can go with this. But I know that you have put forth the civil rights lawsuit, I believe against the mayor and against the city, correct? So that's going to be interesting to see. And again, another financial impact to our community. So thank you.
[Campbell]: plus, just to our members, aside from other unions. But we'll be more than happy to get you that information.
[Scarpelli]: That'll be interesting, because I know that this administration, what they love to do is they like to come back and say, oh, in Everett, they pay this much, and in Malden, they pay this much. What I'd like to see is what you pay out to fight issues legally with Everett, with Melrose, Chelsea with Cambridge, just to get a true indication how poorly mismanaged this community is when it comes to fiscal transparency.
[Campbell]: Just a quick side note on that. A lot of those cities, so you know, have city solicitors on the payroll. The city of Medford doesn't, so he works by hour, but he's more controllable than a city solicitor. So we'll get you all that information. Thank you.
[Bears]: I would just note that we have received dozens of warrant articles, multiple reports about the legal costs paid out by the city, from the city administration. It's public documents. We can provide them. They're sent to us by email on a monthly basis. The administration can provide them. And the city has never spent more than the budgeted amount for the law department, budgeted in our fiscal year budget. there has been no additional spending or major financial impact on the city beyond the legal budget that is budgeted every year through the fiscal year budget process and that is proven out by the financial documents.
[Campbell]: I think all of our legal payouts should be accounted for. Thank you. Yes. All the settlements. Thank you very much.
[Bears]: I'm speaking right now. Thank you. Any further comments from members of council? I'm going to go to Councilor Leming. I'm going to go to Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Leming.
[Leming]: Yes, thank you, Council President. So I didn't do this earlier because I wanted to hear what the folks from the DBW in the room had to say during public comment. And it is a point that I have a lot of sympathy with considering that I work a job where I get uh, urinalysis testing in front of my colleagues at least three times a year. So, um, but there are, there are, uh, other issues with this resolution that I have mainly OML considerations, which has been discussed in this council before. And I want more information about the private investigator issue, uh, as well as, uh, the fact that I'm not sure about the city council stepping into strictly school committee issues. So I'm going to go and invoke rule 21 on this. We can move on. Thank you.
[Bears]: Councilor Leming has invoked rule 21. I think we have a number of financial items. We talked about, we talked about Hold on a minute, please. Thank you. Cost associated with terminating the school and superintendent's contract. Finance director appeared articulate dropping bond rating. Utilization of a complete financial report. I mean, there's multiple financial items in this paper. I'll read the rule.
[Scarpelli]: It's talking about when we talk about when you're voting on funding. This isn't a financial paper voting on funding. This is a resolution asking for financial documents that are spent by the city. We're not asking for spending money. That's a negative way to get out of this. And I tell you, I'm embarrassed that that just happened.
[Bears]: I'm just, I'm... Any councillor... I'm going to read the rules. I'm going to read the rules. Thanks. We'll take a look and I can ask for an interpretation. Oh, that's our parliamentarian. The clerk needed. Thank you. does any finance paper related?
[Scarpelli]: This isn't a finance paper, Mr. President. This is a resolution asking for not to fund a finance paper. It's to ask, inquire of how much was funded. That has nothing to do with financial intent for the rule. And you know what it is, Mr. President. So I don't know why we're doing this on a phone show. You're smarter than this. Don't embarrass this council like this. This is nothing to do about calling for rule 21. They're talking about moving money forward in a financial resolution. This is not the intent of it. Please don't do this again.
[Bears]: Please hold on a minute, Councilor Scarpelli. Please just take a breath. If we would be willing to discuss the financial elements or sever out the financial elements of the paper. Um, the rule is really broad and it's been used incredibly broadly in this council for a very long time. So, um, yeah, it has been several times. Councilor Scarpelli, please. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli. What are you talking about? You have done rule 21 multiple times as well, Councilor Scarpelli. Okay. I'm going to rule that we're not going to invoke rule 21 if we sever out financial elements from non-financial elements of the paper. Is there a motion to sever the paper into at least elements regarding finances and non-finances? Or does the Councilor want to pull back rule 21?
[Leming]: No, I'm keeping, I'm keeping my rule 21 invocation. Thank you.
[Bears]: On a motion to question the ruling of the chair by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Ms. Clerk, please call the roll. I'm not sure what the motion is. It's just a... I have said that I believe that there are financial elements to this paper. My ruling that there are finance elements to the paper that rule 21 would apply here. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you. I would note that it wouldn't be my preference to rule 21 this resolution, but I do think that we should separate it out into at least four resolutions and then proceed from there. The first four lines as one resolution, and then the next four paragraphs as one resolution each, and we should, that would be my preference to go from there.
[Bears]: Sounds like there's two options in front of us. One is I have ruled that there are financial elements to this paper. Um, we could move forward with questioning that, that any of this counts as a finance paper, um, or we could consider the motion to sever prior to that. Uh, that's up to, um, councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Callahan did indicate their decision wanting a motion to sever. Okay. um then uh there's but it was after the second there was already a motion to question the ruling of the chair the motion to sever was was that we would do it after discussion you didn't make a motion to sever you said it was a recommended course of action there was no second there's a second emotion to overrule the ruling of the chair that there are financial elements in this paper that qualify under rule 21 Okay. If they want to reach out to me now, I would be happy to hear their interpretation.
[Callahan]: My mic is on. Does that mean I am allowed to speak?
[Bears]: Is there further discussion on the motion of question really in the chair?
[Callahan]: I would just say that I, I think rule 21 is very unhealthy for us to use. I think that we should use it incredibly sparingly. I believe that a financial paper is in fact one that moves funding, and we are not doing that. This does not actually move any funding anywhere. So to me, classifying this as a finance paper with regards to Rule 21 really makes Rule 21 far more broad than I am comfortable with. I did not think that was what, like, I don't read rule 21 as saying that. So, you know, I think a ton of people have come here to hear our thoughts on this and to hear us make, you know, either move this forward or not. And I think it is, it's not really the best, I think, for anyone if we do not allow this discussion to have a conclusion tonight.
[Bears]: Yeah. And I would just note that I am actually operating under legal opinions that I received that rule 21 stems from the charter right. Councilor Scarpelli invoked the charter right in June, and I had to go to legal counsel to discuss that charter right, and legal counsel informed me that the charter right under this rule applies to any motion, order, or resolution under consideration by the council. So it's kind of a catch-22 situation. I don't like it. It's one of the reasons I think we need to have a charter change. And I believe I misinterpreted it last time by being too restrictive. And that's why I'm not being restrictive now, based on advice of counsel. So, we are where we are because this has been invoked multiple times by multiple Councilors, and given the council opinion that I received in July. I believe that under mass general law is the charter that's been adopted by the city. The interpretation that I received from the city's legal counsel was that literally any paper could be postponed by any Councilor until the next meeting for any reason. So, um, huh? Yeah, it wasn't from the mayor. It was from the council at KP law. So, um, We could take a motion on the ruling of the chair, but again, that's the council advice that advice I received from council. I've been on both sides of this. I was too restrictive last time when I ruled something one way, and now I'm trying to go the other way because of the advice I received.
[Scarpelli]: It seems like it's kind of a no-win scenario for the chair.
[Bears]: He said that he wanted more information. He wanted more time to receive more information. I don't know if he can speak to it, If we want to go on the motion overall, the ruling of the chair by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan, that's the motion that's on the floor. Councilor Scarpelli has not withdrawn, so I will take the vote on that. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Vice President Collins? No. Councilor Lazzaro? No. Councilor Leming?
[Bears]: No.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng?
[Bears]: I can't vote to overrule my own ruling, can I? I'm going to vote yes. Actually, that's a great idea. I will vote present. 3-3, the motion fails. So we'll go to the next motion, which is the motion to sever. Is there a motion, there's a motion to sever, Councilor Callahan, do you want to go further into that?
[Callahan]: It's her motion to sever. Can you please repeat exactly how you want to sever it?
[Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you. My proposal would be to sever into four resolutions. The first one comprising the first four lines, the second one being the second paragraph, or sorry, the fifth line. The third one being the second to last paragraph and the fourth one being the last paragraph.
[Bears]: So they're divided by topic. The motions would be the first vote would be on requesting those from the school department, the following information, the cost associated with terminating the school superintendent's contract, course communications, correspondence, meeting minutes, records, and reports regarding the separation and the anticipated costs of the search committee and interim appointment.
[Collins]: Correct.
[Bears]: All right, the second is the finance director appear before the council to articulate a plan to restore the bond rating that was amended, I believe by Councilor Scarpelli. Okay. Okay. The third one is regarding private investigators and resolve that the administration report back to the council that identified line in the budget where we are paying private investigators and a complete financial report from the start of this practice to the present. And then the fourth is the administrative reporting to the council on the cost of questionable drug testing and a report outlining the reasons for these tests. I'm being further resolve the council move to executive session if the issues are confidential. Does that sound right, Councilor Collins?
[Collins]: Yes.
[Bears]: Is there a second on the motion to sever? Second. On the motion to sever by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Ms. Clerk, please call the roll. Before we call the roll, Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: The reason I had split it into five was because the first and third sentences, their cost associated with terminating school superintendent's contract and anticipated costs of superintendent search committee and interim appointment, those to me seem to go together. Asking for any and all communications, corresponding meeting minutes, I may have a very different opinion of that one. So I would start. Thank you very much.
[Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli has struck that. So on the motion to sever as amended, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Fares.
[Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. Motion severed. Or is that 5-2? 6-1. 6-1. Thank you. So we'll take the first one, which is regarding the cost associated in terminating the superintendent's contract and the anticipated cost of the superintendent search committee and interim appointment. Any discussion on that item? I think we can label these 518A, B, C, and D.
[Lazzaro]: Councilor Lazzaro. The only reason I will vote no on this first issue is because it's a school committee issue and because of the separation of powers in our city. Not because it's not interesting, not because it doesn't, it may not have a budgetary impact on us. We will see the budgetary impact when it is pertinent to our body. It's it's it's like the main job of school committee is to oversee hire non-renew, rehire, start a search committee, this whole thing. That is what school committee does. That's not what City Council does. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on that item? Mr. Jones, do you want to talk about the superintendent? Is it regarding the bond rating, the private investigators, or the... Sure. Let me just recognize you. Public participation, three minutes.
[Jones]: All right. Bob Jones, 5 St. Mary Street. As you said earlier, The legal fees, wrongful termination suits, all those type of monies that have been paid out have been paid out of the legal fees account. Legal department account, is that what you stated?
[Bears]: No, I said that what has been presented to the council and the legal fees paid to outside lawyers hasn't been paid out of the law budget and has not exceeded the law budget in any prior fiscal year. based on the reports given to us by the administration.
[Jones]: All right, so the law budget, as I understand it, is for the law department, which has solicitor, city solicitor, and an assistant.
[Bears]: It also includes ordinary expenses for settlements. How much is that? I think it's $100,000. Very small, $100,000. It's a quarter to a fifth of the law department budget.
[Jones]: OK, so we're talking about $100,000. I have documented $880,000 of KP law expenses. There is $500,000 in lawful termination suits. There are many millions of dollars that are being spent on legal fees. I don't think anybody knows where they're coming from, because they're not coming from the law department. I, as well as many of you city councils, have been to many a budget hearing, and I have never discussed claims paid, line item, of a million dollars plus in the budget. So I would love to know where they're coming from, because it can't be coming out of $100,000. It's not coming out of the law department. This is not enough money there. I don't think anybody knows. And I'd like to get a clear answer on that. From the discussion Scarpelli's motion. It's not coming out of the law department, I'll tell you right now.
[Bears]: From the discussions we've had and several of them in public session, there are claims paid by insurance that are paid by the city's insurance. Which type of insurance? I would have to look into the specific insurance policies that they're paid out under.
[Jones]: I've looked at the budget many times. I have a degree in accounting. I've been the treasurer for 20 years. I can't figure it out.
[Bears]: Yeah.
[Jones]: So, I must not be the only one. I don't think anybody knows. So, I'd love to get an answer.
[Bears]: We have been presented the warrant.
[Jones]: Where are these are coming from? Can I see the warrants? What line item are they coming out of?
[Bears]: You can absolutely see the warrant articles. What I'm telling you is that inside the warrant articles, there have not been settlements paid in those amounts. So, they're not coming from the city's general fund. Okay. So, where are they coming from? We have been advised by the administration that there have been settlements paid by the city's insurance.
[Jones]: says insurance.
[Bears]: Okay. So we have a policy with an insurance company that's paying these out. There are several policies that the city has with insurance companies on a number of issues. Okay.
[Jones]: What, then what line item does that come out of to pay for those?
[Bears]: The premiums for the insurance are paid and there's an insurance section in the city budget.
[Jones]: There's a group insurance. That's part of the city budget. I'm not sure of any other insurance type of, there are, I, we could, I could talk to you about it after the meeting. Okay. I'd love to know because it seems like, Nobody knows where this money's coming from. If it's an insurance company, then I don't know how we're still getting covered by this insurance company and what type of policy that we're paying into. I thought we were self-insured in that regard. Thank you, Mr. Jones. All right. Appreciate the answer. Thank you.
[Scarpelli]: Councilor Villes isn't wrong that the line item for the legal department is correct. But the warrant articles that we have, I'll give you an example. I have them all right here because I have them ready. And from month to month, I could break it down with you. I'm coming with you tomorrow, Mr. Jones, and I'll show you, I'll give you an example right off the bat, which was alarming. In June of 2023, the city of method paid KP law through the warrant articles, not in the law, not in the law item in different, different departments over $230,000 just for that one month. So I will come and I'll share this information with you just to see council bears isn't wrong. The line item for the legal department isn't, they take exactly what they're supposed to. It's correct. But the Warren articles that we get month to month, you could see the breakdown. You could see the expenditures to KP law for different departments for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
[Jones]: Right. Thank you. I understand that. But what line item in the departments are they coming from? I'll bring it. I'll bring it. You can break it down yourself.
[Bears]: It's not meant to be a back and forth.
[Jones]: I think it should because we're talking about millions of dollars that nobody knows where they're going.
[Bears]: We do literally audited in the city ward articles. Thank you. We do. It's not accurate. All right. Is there any further discussion on the item regarding the school superintendent?
[Tseng]: Thank you. I understand that the, the resolution at hand is not. meant particularly in ill will. Having been on a superintendent search committee before, I just worry that this past City Council saying this, passing this, hinders the ability of that body to perform its duties with confidence. I understand that it's, in my view, this is testing the waters with separation of powers. And so that's why I plan to vote no on this.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Senna. And I just did pull up the Mass General Law, Chapter 43, Section 22. which was invoked by Councilor Scarpelli in June. I did seek legal counsel advice after my interpretation of that rule, and I would just say again, legal counsel essentially informed me that any member can postpone any resolution, motion, or order for any reason if they want to. It's chapter 43, section 22. He said rule 21. He didn't. He didn't. He didn't. Correct.
[Scarpelli]: But he said rule 21. Right. And I'm glad you figured out what you made a mistake by when I invoked rule 21.
[Bears]: I sought further opinion.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you. I appreciate it.
[Bears]: I will say some other lawyers disagree with the interpretation of council, but I will go with the interpretation of the city's legal council, even if I don't agree with it. Any further discussion on the motion? Is there a motion to approve? On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve Paper 24-518A regarding the school superintendent's contract, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Gallagher. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. This is now the be it resolved that the school department respond, report back to the council the information of the cost associated with terminating the school superintendent's contract and the anticipated costs of the superintendent search committee and interim appointment.
[Hurtubise]: You ready for me? Yes. Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming.
[Leming]: No.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. No. President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes. Three in the affirmative, four in the negative. The motion fails. 254518B. This is regarding the bond rating. Do we want to amend that to something else? You had said earlier, Councilor Scarpel, you wanted to amend that to request a meeting? So this is amended to be resolved that the City Council requests a report on why the bond rating was temporarily rescinded. On that motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Hang on. Councilor Callahan. Yes. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming.
[McGivern]: No.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Ferris.
[Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one of the negative, the motion passes. 24-518-C which is be it resolved that the city administration cease and desist the use of private investigators to follow and harass employees utilizing contractually afforded leave benefits be it further resolved the city administration report back to the council with the identified line in the budget where we are paying private investigators in a complete financial report from the start of this practice to the present. Any further discussion? Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: I would be in favor of something that was not exactly this, but that requested from the administration to understand what is our policy? What is the reason which we are doing this? I mean, for me, both of these last two paragraphs are, I will say, I hope we have a really good reason if we are doing either of these things. I looked a little bit into different state laws, in different states, different state laws on drug testing, for example. And it has to be only under certain circumstances. So I think for me, I really want to have an explanation of what our policy is as a city for both of these. And if we are doing either of these, what the reasoning is behind it, I don't think that I am completely ready to vote yes on this before I have more information, a flat-out cease and desist, although it does, like, I mean, hearing the language, you know, may seem attractive, but before I have more information, I'm not willing to vote yes on it. I would vote yes if this were amended to say we want to know a full policy, we want to understand, you know, when this is used, and then the cost as well.
[Scarpelli]: If that would help to get the information that we're looking for, I would be amenable to changing the language so we can get some information through the administration to see if these are the practices and if they are where we stand as a council. So I would be willing to make those amendments.
[Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan, could you articulate those amendments?
[Callahan]: let me do my best to request that the city administration provide its policy regarding the use of private investigators with regards to any city all any or all its city employees and then I'm okay with the second sentence be it further resolved that the city administration report back with the identified line items in the budget
[Bears]: Any further discussion on the item? Councilor Tseng?
[Tseng]: I agree with Councilor Callahan. I wanted to chime in and request that. I wasn't comfortable, and I am not, I'm not comfortable with with language that I think is overstepped that line, the separation of powers line. And this is the way that it was worded in the first place, I think, overstepped that line. I appreciate your suggested amendments. And I agree with what you said about, we should have a very good reason for why we're doing things like this. We should, but it's not our role as a council to step in and say what we can or can't do and compel a mayor to do something that's within her charter right to do. We'll talk about charter review next year. But I think we need to follow the letter of the law, and I'm much more comfortable with the amendment.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan, if you have more comments, Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Thank you. If I may, I have to say, I am overall, whenever I have looked into specific questions, things like how much free cash we get at the end of the budget year, and whether that is something that is viewed by the state of Massachusetts, by bond agencies, et cetera, as is that something positive or negative? There are other things that I have looked into that the city has done that have been questions about what the city is doing. And when I've looked into very specific things like those, I am usually, I find that what, or for example, the other one is like creating capital stabilization funds, these sorts of things, I have found that the city administration is actually doing things that are considered, in those two cases, considered best practice by the state of Massachusetts. And that being said, I, if, if we were a city council where I genuinely believed that the mayor or the administration were doing something that I disagreed with, even if it were the purview of the mayor, I, as a city Councilor, I would feel comfortable making a motion that says the city council does not agree with X, Y, Z practice if that were the case. Um, so I just want to make it clear that I don't think that we as a city council are in any way trapped against saying what we believe our opinion of what the administration should be doing is. I think that we can say the same thing to Tufts. We can't control Tufts, but we sure can say we wish Tufts were doing something different. We would like Tufts to do something different. I think we can say that to the administration. So a slight disagreement, I think, with my fellow Councilor, or maybe not, but if I was understanding you correctly. I just think I don't have the information, and I really want to have a lot more information before I make any kind of decision on something that would say something so strongly worded as that. But I'm happy that I think we're going to get a wording change, and we'll be able to get a little more information.
[Tseng]: Just to quickly clarify, that's not completely correct. I meant a compulsion order. I think that's over the line.
[Bears]: Yeah, I don't think we have the authority to require the cease and desist.
[Rafferty]: Yeah.
[Bears]: Any further discussion on this item as amended? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: Sorry, can you just repeat what the amended for me, what the amended motion was?
[Hurtubise]: Mr. Clerk, whatever you have. What I have is a request that the administration provide a policy regarding use of private investigators with regard to any and all city employees and have the administration report back with the identified line item in the budget from which that expenditure is made.
[Bears]: Does that sound about right? Great. On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli as amended by Councilor Callahan as seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan, Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming,
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng. President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes. I have any affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. 24 518 D be resolved by the city of minutes that the city administration report to the council, the costs associated for questionable drug testing of DPW staff and report outlining the reasons for these tests and for the result of the council request to move to executive session. If these issues are confidential. Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Callahan.
[Scarpelli]: If you want to look at this process and make sure that the wording is correct, just to get some information, the truth of the matter is just understanding the cost impact on drug tests for DPW employees.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: I actually, to be honest, I would like to know what our drug policy testing is for all city employees.
[Scarpelli]: and report back what our drug policies are for all city employees. It's a good idea.
[Bears]: Thank you. So it sounds like the amended resolution is being resolved that the council requests the administration report on the city's drug policy and the cost of drug testing of employees. Right. Okay. Mr. Clerk, when you have that, let me know. Councilor Kelly.
[Callahan]: I do think that the reasons for these particular tests, I would be interested in that as well.
[Bears]: I'll be honest. I do not believe that we will ever receive that information. And I personally do not feel comfortable asking for it.
[Callahan]: I honestly I think that we might because of the reading that I did on drug testing in different states in the United States. There are certain, there are only certain times that it can be done, it is not at the whim of the mayor or anyone else in the city. there, you know, it falls into certain categories where it is legal and then other categories where it is not legal. So I imagine that we will, we will get an answer that at least will fall into like some vague category. And I would be happy with that.
[Bears]: What are Councilors saying?
[Tseng]: Then Councilor Scarpelli from my reading, from my legal reading and research into this, there are splits between different federal courts, state courts, circuit splits on this particular issue for when it comes to public employees. There are public and private factors to weigh. That's all to say it's actually very not clear-cut. There are restrictions on the government's ability to do this, of course, but it's not very clear-cut.
[Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli. I think the union representative was very clear in the process and the policies when to be drug tested. So, um, regardless what the federal laws are, but there are agreements and laws that were made, uh, in, in negotiation to make sure that these weren't violated. So I think that the mayor has that, uh, to be honest with you, that would be very clear and understandable for everybody here. Cause she definitely violated that.
[Bears]: I would just note that regardless of any of that, this is very clearly the subject of litigation and the city will reply that because it's the subject of litigation, they're not going to be providing any information that could be detrimental to their case. So if we could stick to things Yeah, great. So we're going to stick to the drug policy and the cost associated with drug testing employees. Great. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilor Callahan, I seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan, Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes. Senator, another negative motion passes. 24-519, be it resolved that the city City Administration give an update on the request of meeting to review the report compiled Medford Fire Department report compiled by the consultants of the City Council voted approve for its funding for the resolve that the administration include Fire Chief and MFD Union leadership to review the report and be prepared to meet an executive session to have a discussion with its findings. Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: I wanna have some clarification. Um the requested meeting. So, I'm assuming this is a meeting between the administration and the fire department that you're talking about. Like, can you be a little bit more clear?
[Scarpelli]: Council asked for when we had the the chief chief Evans here when we talked about the And the report then was presented to the deputies and the chief. And we were waiting on a meeting to inform the council of what their findings were with that meeting.
[Callahan]: So you're asking that the meeting with the council also include the fire chief and the union leadership.
[Scarpelli]: The administration.
[Callahan]: But that if there needs to be an executive session, we would have that without those folks.
[Scarpelli]: they would be included in that executive session because you're bringing them in to discuss personal. They have to be there for talking about that. So that's the intent of executive session.
[Bears]: I'm not sure what the executive session exemption would be. I think we're going to have to consult council on that. I believe we move forward with this resolution. Did we make a motion to request a meeting? We did that that evening. That evening. Okay. That was a motion that we've got nothing back. And this is a motion to request a meeting. Request an update on the meeting requests regarding the MRI report for the fire department.
[Scarpelli]: Correct. And the second piece, Council President, if you want to leave it open-ended, after consulting the legal team, that we then have the ability to go to executive sessions so they see fit, or they deem it approved.
[Bears]: Okay. So, amend to the second session to be that. Okay. Uh the council will, council leadership will speak to the city's legal council to determine if there's a valid executive session. Option. Option. Got it. Okay. I'll go to
[Lazzaro]: I support this. I think that that would be great. I would also say if it would make sense, we could hold it in the public health and community safety committee. And then if we could leave the committee to executive session, I don't know if that's common, but that way we would avoid any open meeting on violations. I don't know if that's, if this meeting would be in open, in an open session or not, but the, it seems to me as a community, as a public safety, organization, the fire department, we could do it in committee if that makes more sense.
[Scarpelli]: I think that the process that this council's totality voted to fund this report and having an open forum, having the report presented to the public and then go to executive session through open meeting
[Bears]: Right. Yeah. All of all meetings have to start as open meetings.
[Scarpelli]: So, but as a committee, a committee, a meeting with all the, all the members of this council, because they think that committee of the whole versus the public health and safety committee, I'd rather, I'd rather that if that was the option.
[Bears]: All right. So this is a motion to request an update on the requested meeting, uh, to review the MRI report regarding the Medford fire department. And the amended resolution is to, uh, request a committee of the whole meeting and to determine on advice of legal counsel, uh, whether or not, uh, the city council can enter executive session to discuss elements of that report.
[Scarpelli]: Perfect. Thank you. All right.
[Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilor Lazzaro, as seconded by Councilor Tseng, is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Jones]: I say, Mayor Sridhar, I believe the night that we, the Council so graciously appropriated the money for this report, I requested a copy of the report. I have not seen one as of yet. Plain and simple, the union would like a seat at the table to see what the consultant decided when information was discussed and what we need to do to move forward. As of yet, we have not seen anything from the report. Just asking the union has a seat at the table. Thank you very much.
[Bears]: Uh, just to clarify, has that not been provided with?
[Jones]: No, I have not seen anything. I'd like to be a present at the meeting. Union union leadership.
[Bears]: Yeah, it'll be a public meeting. So you can absolutely be present. Okay. And the report is public record. It was sent to us. I'm happy to forward it to you.
[Jones]: That would be great.
[Bears]: Great. I believe there's any issues with the name tells us have any issues with that. Great. Thank you. Yes, it's still Yeah. I don't think a further amendment is needed. Yeah, no, it's it's public record. It's public document. And you have you have a copy of that, correct? Councilor Scarpelli. Yeah. Alright. Thank you. On the motion. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. I believe the second was Councilor Lazzaro Bennett and Councilor Tseng is the second. Thank you.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes. 7 affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. 24490, this is a continued public hearing. We open this public hearing on December 3rd, 2024 in our regular meeting. This is regarding the Mystic Avenue Corridor District zoning. I'm reopening the public hearing now. We did receive a report. This was reported. Recommendations were reported to us from the community development board. So we have Mystic Avenue corridor district in front of us. And with that, I will entertain any motions or discussion from the council before we hear from members of the public in the public hearing. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: that I know that had a great discussion with our director, that there were some questions with the process of notification in our processes through the city council, whether they were done legally, and they are. Unfortunately, the software that we have When the resolution is opened and moves forward, it's not written out in totality. So people didn't see that tonight's would be the final vote for Mystic Ave rezoning. We're informed that the process was done correctly and that if there is a way that we can look in the future to try to share that information to make sure that there aren't any questions moving forward, I think that'll be helpful.
[Bears]: Yeah, it is in page six of the packet here, public hearing notices, it's amendments to add the Mystic Avenue corridor district. And we've now have joint advertising of community development board and zoning city council public hearings. So we opened this hearing on December 3rd and it was continued by a vote of the council to today's meeting. Council Vice President Collins and then Councilor Kelly.
[Collins]: Great. Thank you, President Bears. And I do appreciate the discussion, the clarity around the noticing. I think especially with these zoning ordinances, I think the process is clear, but it's complicated. It's one of those things that is wonky and technical and it has to procedurally, legally, it must kind of go from body to body. So I think it's really understandable that, you know, there's for folks who aren't intimately familiar with the zoning referral process. It's not intuitive, and that makes a lot of sense. And due to, you know, continued collaboration, especially between members of the planning and permitting committee, We're kind of continually trying to make sure that we're messaging these meetings ever better and making it easier for folks to know where we are in the process and I think that this is an easy thing that we can add to kind of the increased levels of communication and flyering that we're doing around our ongoing zoning work just to try and do what we can to make this important, technical, complicated, you know, very interesting process a little more legible for just regular folks in the community. Having said that, just if you'll indulge me for just a little bit of retrospective before I make a motion, really excited that Mystic Avenue Corridor District zoning proposal has come back to the City Council tonight. It's taken, you know, as with any zoning proposal, it's taken a thorough and storied road to get here. We had a mapping workshop back in July. We decided that Mystic Avenue Corridor District was going to be one of the first things that we took a deep dive into because, you know, between our housing production plan, between our comprehensive plan, from so many comments that me and my colleagues have received from constituents over the years talking about just, it's so visible, I think for so many people, the untapped potential on Mystic Ave. I think that the kind of, there was a very clear vision for how we could do more. even more with this really valuable property in Medford and Leverage. It's a transit corridor. There's some really big lots. It's good for a lot of things and we should be doing more with it. This council has been really focused on doing what we can to try and set the stage for more commercial development so that we are building our commercial tax base as much as possible and having that trickle into things like schools and roads and public services. So we began our discussions of the Mystic Avenue Corridor District in August. We workshopped it for a couple months with city staff, with our zoning consultant in committee, receiving feedback from the community. We looked at a lot of different options. We took in feedback. We made tweaks after committee. It was referred to the Community Development Board. It came back to us tonight with some recommendations to just further tweak it and make it more legible for developers, make more sense, be easier to understand, and just be easier to achieve some of the requirements, incentives that we're really hoping that developers will take us up on on Mystic App, so that we'll both get great development along Mystic App that's in the line of what the community really wants to see there, but is also, you know, simple and clear enough that People can look at it. Residents can look at it and developers can look at and say, OK, it's obvious to me what they want. It's obvious to me how to meet these requirements so that we can partner with the city to do more on this to have. Having said that, I think, you know, happy to have more of a discussion on the specific amendments that the CD board is recommending that we adopt tonight. They are in our packets. I think they're pretty straightforward and intuitive tweaks, but I would motion to approve for first reading the Mystic Avenue Corridor District zoning proposal and adopt the recommended amendments. by the Community Development Board, as well as to change the special permit granting authority on cannabis uses to the ZBA and to change the special permit granting authority on adult uses to the City Council to maintain consistency with the rest of the zoning ordinance.
[Bears]: Thank you. And just for clarification, those last two items are keeping in how it is currently in the ordinance. And there was just a typographic error in the final document. Great, I'm seeing a nod from the- That is correct. Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability. Thank you, Councilor Collins. Is there a second on the motion by Councilor Collins? Councilor Tseng? This is for final approval because there's not three readings on zoning. Yeah. Well, technically there's like five readings on zoning. And this is the end of it. There's a lot of public hearings on zoning. So I will go to Councilor Callahan, Councilor Tseng, Councilor Scarpelli. Sorry, Councilor Callahan, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Thank you. I apologize. I don't see where the zoning board. I'm on page six.
[Bears]: That's the hearing. The documents were distributed to the council by email and are attached online.
[Callahan]: They're not in the pocket.
[Bears]: Yeah, they were not.
[Callahan]: My computer is dead. Yeah. So, I see page six, I see. That's it.
[Bears]: Just go to the, that's the hearing notice. Go under the meeting files. You see them under the meeting files. I'll go to Director Hunt to describe the Community Development Board memorandum. We also do have Danielle Evans still with us at this point. If you want to go to Danielle.
[Hunt]: Thank you. Danielle and I are communicating. She's available for questions but said she was happy to have me speak since I was here in the room.
[Bears]: Thanks for sticking it out.
[Hunt]: Pardon me if I'm a little punchy. So the recommendations of the Community Development Board were pretty straightforward. We changed up the table of development incentives for the affordable housing. The way it was written was very confusing and was very hard to interpret. And so what we did was turned it into a table format that is a little bit easier to understand. It was actually a recommendation that came from the our consultant. And in fact, if you saw the Salem Street zoning in our public meetings, it's the table that you saw in the Salem Street. So we've been kind of leapfrogging each other. So because we figured it out in between, it had to come as a CD board recommendation. The other changes, I believe, are all things you saw in that the development bonuses that we're removing certified as LEED Gold or equivalent standard for as an incentive because that's almost essentially required by our building code right now. And so we would be giving them a floor for doing something they kind of have to do anyhow. But we kept to meet LEED Platinum or equivalent and as one floor, And what we are saying is that we change the word certified to certifiable because you don't get certified until a year after the building is open. And in fact, we don't literally care if they get the plaque, we care that they meet all the standards. So it's changing that language from certified to certifiable. Another thing that had gotten carried over, so these are the same incentives that were in the zoning that we did for the Wellington area MBTA zoning. And one of them we weren't allowed to make required in that area was to have 75% of the ground floor as commercial. So we were in that neighborhood in Wellington giving an extra floor to incentivize it because it was MBTA zoning. In this area, we're actually requiring 75% active first floor throughout. So we're not giving it again, we had to, that was essentially a typo, we were not giving a bonus for something that's required. And then Oh, yes. Dimensional waivers. It came to our attention that there might be opportunities. So we actually in this zoning have a minimum height as well as a max. And so we said with a special permit, the CD board should be able to waive the minimum height requirement because you might have a fantastic project that everybody wants to see, but it's not going to be three stories high. And so that in the languages there, that if it's consistent with the purpose of the district and the goals of the Medford Comprehensive Plan, the board could waive the minimum height requirement. And those are the recommendations from the board on this. And then, yes, Councilor Collins caught the typos that we had.
[Scarpelli]: It's in height, not stories.
[Hunt]: There are height and stories.
[Scarpelli]: So the recommended is height though, and best practice is height?
[Hunt]: So we actually are doing a minimum of three stories. And I believe there's a minimum height in there as well.
[Scarpelli]: So it shows both?
[Scarpelli]: Thank you.
[Hunt]: Yes. The minimum for height is only in stories. The maximums are in height and stories. So how many, sorry, the amount of stories you, sorry, my brain, I apologize. It is late. The height for a ground floor story has a minimum of 14 feet and a maximum of 18 feet. For an upper floor story, a minimum of 10 feet and a maximum of 12 feet. So there is in fact maximum heights, but it's per story. It's not like you could just make one 30-story first floor. And frankly, somebody said to us, but what about the Great American Beer Hall? It's amazing. It's kind of one story and like kind of like it's got a balcony. Like, how would you consider that? And I said, we said, well, actually, maybe for the really great projects that have a really great design and make sense, you shouldn't hold them so strictly to some of these items. But overall, for design and look and feel, you would want to do that. So those were the things. And then the typos that we caught with regards to who is the permit granting authority.
[Bears]: And generally, you're talking about situations where projects would already be undergoing a special permit process or site plan review?
[Hunt]: It is so we have minimum of 10,000 square feet building goes to site plan review. So it is a high expectation that projects along this corridor will end up in site plan review.
[Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli, anything else?
[Scarpelli]: I just, I know that we've been, I'm going to be redundant and I know that this is my, my cry from the beginning. Um, and I know the director has tried and we've, we've talked about this and informing the public. I know we've done, um, you know, what you feel is due diligence, but I'm going to stick with what, what this council prior really wanted to see was really bringing these meetings to the neighborhoods. When I did talk to residents of the corridor and business owners, and I know that you've corrected me a few times and said, George, we put it in the water bill, we've gone directly to the businesses, but the members that have reached out to me, the neighbors that I've talked to, truly don't understand the process still. And I think that there are some restrictions. I mean, when you look at our zoning process, we still, we're only Zoom. So that really hurts. So people really can't get involved. And I think, again, I think this is my biggest battle is that As we're moving forward, I really would like to see us go into the neighborhoods. I know Innes said they would look to see if it's possible to do that. I know that that was part of the RFP that I read that we looked at back in the day when we first started this process. So again, I just think that's important, especially when you're making these changes that we haven't done in 100 years, that residents feel like they've been listened to. I know that we've done a lot of listening sessions. We've had a lot of meetings. But again, I think that that last piece, I feel, is a big void. I think that we need to go to the neighborhood, and I'm gonna stand on my soapbox to the end with that. So thank you for listening.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'm gonna go back to Councilor Callahan, then to Councilor Sanz.
[Callahan]: Thank you. The one change I would additionally like to make is I am hoping, I know that we have not had a chance yet to discuss co-living, which as far as I understand it is really just people who are not related to each other living, renting an apartment. And I feel a little bit uncomfortable with the fact that that is disallowed in certain sections of MSTICAV. So I'm hoping that we can just remove that definition and everywhere it appears for this particular approval tonight. And that'll give us time to talk about it. And we can always add that definition later. I don't think it's going to delay anything or be problematic to simply remove that. But I'd love to ask you your opinion. Do you think that we could just
[Hunt]: For this evening, I think it would be simpler to say strike line A8 of the use table, and that way it wouldn't be explicitly allowed, it wouldn't be specifically not allowed, and then we can sort of work out the clear understandings of what that means.
[Bears]: Yeah, I would also just note, I don't think that people who are unrelated are allowed to live in an apartment regardless of whether co-living as a specific use is allowed or not. Right. But okay, is that a motion to strike line A8? Yes, thank you. There's an amendment motion to add to the motion of Councilor Collins to strike line A8 from the use table by Councilor Callahan. Is there a second? All right. Is there any, I guess really, is there any opposition to that amendment? Seeing none, that'll be included in Councilor Collins' motion. Any further discussion? I'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Thank you. I want to thank you for your hard work on this, to thank the team at Innis Associates for their hard work. I know a lot of us on the City Council have been working really hard, but I do want to give a special shout out to our planning and permitting committee. this is a huge, huge deal for our city. Any zoning change is, but this one is one of many that are coming. I know people in the neighborhood who are very excited about this, and especially with this being one of the corridors into the heart of our city, one of the gateways into our city, to have a more thriving scene there, to have more business in Medford to have more residences in Medford, these are all good things. When we consider the environmental impact that this will have, this is a really great thing for the environment. When we make changes like this, and you know, this is a reckoning that a lot of cities have been having, is that we can actually win on housing, we can win on the environment, we can win on business development. And I think this is one of those proposals that will move our city in the right direction. So I'm very grateful for this. I think this is something that we should celebrate as a city. It's great to be ending the year with something like this, and I very happily support this.
[Bears]: Great, thank you. As I noted, the public hearing is open unless there's any further comments by members of the Council or Director Hunt. The public hearing is open and we can hear from anyone who is in favor or opposed or otherwise has comments on this proposal. You can come to the podium and you'll have three minutes.
[Vienneau]: Hi, my name is Lisa Serio, Lisa Vienneau, and I come from 19 Paul Road. I was just wondering, when you design a neighborhood, what values are you looking for? Like, are you looking for resourcefulness? Are you looking for safety? I mean, I'm just thinking, we're designing a neighborhood, you call it a corridor or whatever it is, but like, don't you like want to know what the value of Like what you're trying to bring to the neighborhood like we want it to be safe, and we wanted to just seems like you're designing stuff beer gardens this that I don't know what the value is I'm trying to figure out like. What are you looking for what do you want in method, I'm trying to see if we could find common ground on what we value, like in a neighborhood, safety, shared shared areas where children and older people and younger people can. I'm just trying to. figure out like why I have like reservations on the Salem Street and the Mystic Ave because I can't find common values. I'm looking for the common value on this and I just don't know what you value. It seems like you just pop things up and it's like, you know, What are you bringing? Where's the neighborhood? Like, that's kind of like my question. I don't, with all of the stuff that you're doing, I'm just trying to figure out what are we trying to achieve? That's all, I'm just, I know it's 100 years old and it's gotta be modernized and all this, but I just don't see, I don't see the common ground. I think that's a problem. I don't know, just my thought.
[Bears]: Thank you. And I would just point to the city's comprehensive plan talks about shared vision and values for the future. That's the document where a lot of the zoning comes from. Name and address for the record, please name, you have three minutes.
[Rodriguez]: Hi, Cheryl Rodriguez, 281 Park Street. I reviewed the zoning, pardon my blindness. And what stuck out to me was, I couldn't find the answer to this question, which is, what commercial to residential ratio is required on this corridor, not only for it to be self-sufficient from a taxation standpoint, but to also provide a net benefit to the city finances? As we all know, heavy residential is detrimental to municipal finances without guardrails in place. There seem to be no guardrails. So if you add hundreds of units of housing here with very small first floor commercial, a little coffee shop or something, we're going to find ourself in a bad financial situation because we're not going to be able to afford this density. I'm wondering why that was not considered since we paid an outside consultant. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Thompson]: Jamie Thompson, 86 Lawrence Road. I just want to follow up with Councilor Scarpelli's comment about getting into the communities, especially with the upcoming zoning for Salem Street, West Medford, Medford Square. And then separately, as a representative from the Medford Chamber of Commerce, just wanted to read in a letter that they put together, but they weren't able to submit in time. Dear Medford City Council, the Medford Chamber of Commerce is encouraged by the proposed zoning changes aimed at fostering.
[Bears]: Jamie, if you could get a little closer to the microphone and we're going to turn you up a little bit.
[Thompson]: The Medford Chamber of Commerce is encouraged by the proposed zoning changes aimed at fostering commercial development and strengthening the Medford business community. These efforts represent an important step forward, taking Medford a more attractive and accessible place for businesses to grow and thrive. However, as plans as the Mystic Ave corridor district move forward, it is essential to ensure that existing locally owned small businesses in the area are supported and included in the discussion. The current restrictions and in some cases outright prohibitions on parking facilities pose significant challenges for these businesses, many of which are already struggling to meet customer parking demands, specifically in the mixed use three zone. We strongly recommend that non residential parking garages and additional parking areas be permitted to better accommodate businesses neighbors and their customers. Furthermore, the Mystic Avenue corridor district's proximity to I-93 offers a unique opportunity to attract and serve drivers seeking convenient access to local food and business establishments. Unfortunately, the current prohibition on drive-thru facilities undermines this potential. Allowing drive-thru options would enable businesses to better cater to highway travelers and capitalize on the district's prime location. Mystic Avenue already has multiple drive-thru businesses. We respectfully request that the drive-thru prohibition be reconsidered or removed. Thank you for consideration. Laura O'Neill, Executive Director, Medford Chamber of Commerce.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments? Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Eckert Lee]: Thank you, Josh Eckert Lee 347 Main Street, just near the corridor. I'm also a planner, I love this plan I think it's really impressive. I have to have one question and first, just a response to that comment from the Chamber of Commerce, I think prohibitions on parking are essential for safe and multimodal transit across our city. I would really love to see even more aggressive parking regulations to keep me. Yes, sorry, Director Hunt. More parking regulations and more support for us as pedestrians and cyclists in the city is welcomed and encouraged completely. Truly. And I just want to also ask for additional clarification on the low-income solar co-op program that is discussed, but given a sort of to-be-continued point in the table.
[Bears]: Yeah, I'm happy to answer that. We're going to be considering the community solar program as the discussion and the zoning project continues. We need to look into some specifics on it, but the plan is to include it. Right now, I'm actually taking some information provided to me from some community activists, providing it to the zoning team that's working on this, and then it's likely that that, excuse me, will be included. as an incentive piece across all of the districts where there's incentive zoning. We just want to get it right. Thanks. Any further comment on this public hearing? Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Vardabedian]: Paulette Vardabedian, Central Ave, Medford. I just want to make a very strong suggestion that when this may be, moving forward beyond this meeting. But when we look for contractors for this upcoming, whether it's Salem Street or Mystic Ave, that we do much more due diligence in who we're working with. Because from what I've gathered, both the methadone dispensary and this St. Francis proposal, the people that we were planning to work with were undesirable, have bad reputations, or had no prior knowledge or experience with the project that they were going to work on. So when we are choosing what builders we're going to work with, et cetera, I hope that we don't just go with the cheapest one and we go with the one that is the best suited for our community and that has a good reputation and is able to work with us and again, not just the cheapest one. Thank you.
[Bears]: Uh thank you, Paulette. I just want to note both of those projects were private projects. So, the private property owner decided who they wanted to work with and then they were the ones who submitted the plans to the city and and the city doesn't have any choice as to who we would get to representing private property owners and they are allowed to. petition the city within the zoning ordinance and the Massachusetts general laws for whatever they need to do on their private property. So, so we don't have any.
[Vardabedian]: We don't have, we don't have any right to refuse a company that has a horrible reputation. We're going to bring them into our community.
[Bears]: Only the private property landowner has the right. They have their unlimited right to choose who they want to represent them when making petitions to the city regarding permits, licenses, et cetera. We don't have any control over that.
[Vardabedian]: So the only thing we would do is to, um, if we didn't want a particular party to come to our city is to not license them or, uh, they, any, any party has any right to ask for relief or any of the city's processes.
[Bears]: That's, that's, um, pretty, pretty foundational, um, under the current way that the state and federal laws work for private property.
[Vardabedian]: I understand. Um, you don't want to restrict in the prejudicial things and such, but, I think we should have some type of say into the reputation of a business that's coming into our community. But that being said, I'm assuming that when these construction starts, whether it's Salem Street or Mystic Ave, that we're going to put out a bid to different companies to bid on the projects.
[Bears]: No, so that would be if the city owned land and was then trying to build a project in these areas, then we would have to go through this process, the bidding process procurement. Zoning affects private property owners. I mean, it affects public property nominally, but most of the property in the city is owned by private entities, individuals, corporations, groups. So when we change the zoning, that changes the laws about what we allow private property owners to do. um private property owners can pick any construction company any lawyer or any designer any architect that they want to make a proposal make a design um and the city just has the process of outlined here like a site plan review process or special permitting process where the city has some limited, in some cases limited, in some cases significant discretionary choice as to what to allow, but we do not control who owns private property and we do not control who private property owners choose to hire to design projects, to construct projects, to make proposals to the city. So, and I don't think there's any law that would allow us to change that.
[Vardabedian]: Well, that's good to know, but hopefully it will be someone good and it will be historically appropriate for our city and not just another.
[Bears]: I know that between the performance standards and the other things that are set in the zoning ordinance, the different boards, community development board especially, and other site plan review and special permit granting authorities will use the power allowed to us by the state zoning law to from these processes.
[Vardabedian]: Good. Thank you. Thank you very much.
[Bears]: Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Navarre]: William Navarre, 108 Medford Street, apartment 1B. I mainly wanted to get up and say that I support this because it will allow the city to grow and welcome new people in the new housing. And that's a very important thing because Medford isn't full, and people need a place to live. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment? Name and address for the record, please.
[Merritt]: You have three minutes. Just something that came up with this last ordinance, I guess, is zoning change. Drive-thrus. So I live on Riverside Ave, literally down the street from a new drive-thru that opened. Some of you may know it. Raising Canes. They haven't been yet? I haven't. I don't know. I have. Is it good? I'm sure people assumed. Is it good?
[Bears]: It's all right. OK. It's chicken, man. There's not so much you can do.
[Merritt]: Yeah, the sauce is pretty good. So they put it in my neighborhood, which is fine.
[Bears]: It is Councilor Lazzaro's birthday, so let's give a little. And we have a big crowd, but.
[Merritt]: What, do you not like the sauce?
[Bears]: I think she just doesn't want any more comments on the sauce.
[Merritt]: Chair, do you not like the sauce? So that said, it's in my neighborhood, and I don't think my neighborhood is necessarily any less safe or any more safe because of it. And my neighborhood has had a lot of development over the past few years since I've moved in here. So now you have a major corridor on Mystic Ave, and we say, you can't have a drive-through at all? I mean, what if Chick-fil-A opened up, which, by the way, is a gold mine. And if you like King's Chicken, Chick-fil-A is awesome. just my opinion. And rightfully so, in Woburn, a lot of other people think so, and they get off the highway, and they go to Chick-fil-A, and they pick up their food, and they leave, and they're very prompt. And considering commercial business is part of the lifeblood of this city, I think that restricting, you know, because of this particular issue, right, with drive-thrus, might not be a wise choice given our fiscal situation. So maybe I don't know if that's something that can be amended or not to reconsider that particular part of this. You might wanna reconsider it. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further public comment? I see one hand on Zoom. I will go to, oh, that hand has gone down. So I will, if there's no further public comment in this public hearing, I will declare the public hearing closed. Any comments on the motion by Councilor Collins as amended by Councilor Callahan and seconded by Councilor Tseng to adopt the recommendations of the Community Development Board and to typos and strike line A8 of the use table Councilor Callahan
[Callahan]: Thank you so much. I just wanted to say how much I appreciated the comment about our values. I think it's always really important to discuss our values. And I agree that in the comprehensive plan, it really is sort of filled with that kind of discussion. And you can read about what people in the community, what values other folks who live here wanted to bring. I know for myself, one of my highest values is a sense of community and vibrancy and people being able to walk to a place that they meet with their neighbors and really love. So that's something I'm always thinking about. I know for Mystic Ave, it really is not a place that people just love to walk down. So it's something that we've really been trying to work on is to make Mystic Ave something that serves us as a community and as residents. But another underlying thing that we understand that people want is there to be more new growth right so that new growth is both going to be commercial businesses moving in it's also going to be about new housing that brings in new revenue to the city they both bring in revenue to the city so I think those are among the many different things as well as well as you know we have these new green score that is going to bring more places which I think were mentioned about like where young and old people can, you know, spend time together where there's trees, where there's benches to sit on and places to, you know, to chat. We're going to be incentivizing that from developers. So these are all things that I think we have, we have brought forward as, as values. Each of us individually has values, but we also have some values that came out of the comprehensive plan that we are trying to make happen through the zoning process. So thank you so much for asking about that.
[Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you so much. I'll keep it brief. I have a lot to say about this proposal. I'm really proud of it, really grateful to all of the staff, the Planning, Development and Sustainability Office that worked on it with us and the zoning consultant and continues to work on it with us and really laid the groundwork for this and other zoning proposals with work in the community over the course of years to really gather the information and the desires from the community that inform what we're doing here, what we know that people want to see around Medford, and how to articulate that in the, yes, rather sterile, but incredibly impactful language of zoning, which when you look at the proposals, looks, you know, if you were like me, not a zoning lawyer, it looks like nothing at first. But if you're one of those people who wants to know more and wants to know how our community values, or just you know what you want to see in your community is showing up in the zoning proposals I really do implore you to join us at our planning and permitting committee meetings where this work will be will continue throughout the rest of the fiscal year and possibly beyond that. We usually meet twice a month. Please do join us. I also, and I'm sorry, but just a really minor point. It's not the case that you can never ever have a drive-through on Mystic Ave. In the commercial district, you could apply for a special permit through the CDB. So just a, I believe a very minor fact check to round out this agenda item. Thank you for indulging me. And with that, I would move the question.
[Bears]: Thank you, yes. And I think, you know, appreciate that correction that, There is one of the districts within this corridor, a sub-district that does allow special permit for the drive-thru, that's the commercial district, that is south of Mystic Valley Parkway-Harvard Street intersection and bordering the highway, which tends to be the area with the least possibility of becoming a more walkable area in this district. The rest of the district is really primed for becoming a much safer and much less of a, um strode as people call them which is a very very wide street that people drive down very very fast and is very very dangerous for anyone who's not in a car and quite frankly is dangerous for people who are in cars um so that is uh some of the values that we put in here um i just want to uh note that this is a long meeting um appreciate folks who've stuck around sometimes these kind of major changes get lost in the sauce of meetings like this. That's happened really a lot this year. We've made a ton of progress this year, and this is a really important ordinance that I think, for me, advances values of safe, well-maintained, and climate-resilient streets and open spaces, housing affordability and stability, and a number of other values that I hold and that I know were part of the reason that I ran for office and continue to run. It's a big moment. We have a motion to adopt this proposed amendment to the Medford Zoning Ordinance as amended by adopting the recommendations for amendment by the Community Development Board and the further amendments by Vice President Collins and Councilor Callahan. And that is as seconded by Councilor Tseng. So on this resolution, the first of many to come in this zoning updates project, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. No. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes, it's the affirmative. One of the negative, the motion passes. At this point, I would like to, quite frankly, given the late hour, I'd like to run a quick unofficial poll on the remaining items. How many people are here for the special permit for signs at the Meadow Glen? He's gone. So, all right. Is there a motion to table that to the next regular meeting?
[Hurtubise]: Is that a special permit?
[Bears]: It's a continuance? All right, we'll do that. We'll do that and then I'll take my poll. On the motion to continue the amendment to the special permit for signs, paper 24514 to the next regular meeting. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Sure. It's Scarpelli Callahan. You want my job? You might both need to do it.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan, Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes. I've been affirming the negative motion passes. Let's continue to the next regular meeting. 24, 516, Barry's back. Let's take this quick. I think everything's in order. This is common victors license for Mrs. Murphy's. Barry, if you want to talk about the business for a second.
[Rafferty]: Yeah. You know, I've got very little to say other than we're very excited to get it opened. I think the community have been asking us for a long time when that opening date will be, and we're hoping sometime around mid-January.
[Bears]: And this is a pub in Medford Square. Correct. A pub in Medford Square. They said it could never happen. Thank you. Yeah.
[Rafferty]: Thank you.
[Bears]: Yeah. Councilor Scarpelli, recognize you on the speaker. Go ahead. Oh, here you go. I gotcha. There you go.
[Scarpelli]: You're gonna be sick of hearing me tonight, but we see everything in its order, Mr. Rafferty, and I really drove by today. The front door looks amazing. It's really inviting. And I'm so happy that you're gonna have Saria A games there. It's so funny that- Yes, sir. I appreciate that. Yes, sir. But I see everything, so I move approval as long as my fellow colleagues have no other questions.
[Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, do you have a comment? seconded by or comment by, is there a second?
[Collins]: I'll second it.
[Bears]: Councilor Collins, comment by Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Really excited to see the sign go up. Can't wait to visit in January. And just to confirm, you will be keeping like extra late hours on Tuesday nights, right?
[Rafferty]: Apparently so. Yeah. You can come back for that for not to.
[Bears]: Yeah, we're working on that to wait a few months. And I do want to recognize the clerk who rarely speaks but would like to speak tonight.
[Hurtubise]: I Barry I just want to reiterate. What a privilege and a pleasure it's been on behalf of the clerk's office to work with you. You're always just so, so much fun and so professional and so kind when you come into our office. And everybody in our office really appreciates it when you come in there. And I don't normally speak on these kinds of things, but your kindnesses to the team in my office have been noticed. And I just wanted you to know, and I wanted to say publicly what a pleasure it's been to work with you on this.
[Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, and I just want to echo that there are a lot of people in this building who have difficult jobs dealing with folks who want things to happen faster and when you hear from the clerk and representing his clerks about someone who was calm and patient with the government process over many months, including tonight. It doesn't go unnoticed.
[Hurtubise]: I mean, I asked him a couple of questions. He just said, come on across the street with me. We walked over and he showed me what was going on. The level of involvement was outstanding, but it wasn't just the professionalism. I don't think I've ever spoken on a Common Vic license before. But the level of kindness and professionalism, you just got it. And it was such a privilege to work with you. I just want to say that.
[Bears]: Thank you. I'm grateful. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Calio? Yes. Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[Bears]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Councilor Tseng? Yes.
[Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. Good luck. Thank you.
[Hurtubise]: Thank you, folks.
[Bears]: He thought about it. He thought about saying more. Vice President Collins, you're recognized. Oh, you're recognized.
[Collins]: Well, I was gonna make a motion that might supersede the poll that you're about to take.
[Bears]: I mean, there's three items left. I'm guessing on the poll of the three items left, how many people are here for the Safe Communities Ordinance and the Community Control Republic Surveillance Ordinance? If you could raise your hands. How many folks are here on Tufts? And how many folks are here on Salem Street Corridor referral? All right, got it. So, and that, if you could just move to take the, let's just get the folks out of here.
[Collins]: Great, I'll move to suspend the rules to take 23-055 and 24-502. On the motion to suspend to take 23-055 and 24-502 by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng.
[Bears]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Kelly, Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Kelly, Councilor Tseng, President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes, Assembly Member Nunn and negative motion passes 23-055. This is the welcoming city ordinance. Is there a motion to waive the reading in favor of a brief summary from the proponent? On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, once again, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan, Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Fleming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Kelly, Councilor Tseng, President Paris.
[Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative and the negative, the motion passes. All right, so Councilor Tseng, if you want to give a summary and then we can move into Councilor discussion and then public participation. Great.
[Tseng]: If you, there we go. I'll give a very brief summary and then Councilor Leming has some amendments that we got sent earlier before this meeting, technical amendments. I mean, first, I really just need to thank Councilor Leming and the resident advocates for our immigrant community here in Medford for all the hard work and persistence in trying to get this passed. When I introduced this years ago, I introduced this because I had talked to a lot of friends and a lot of residents who feared for their safety and feared interacting with City Hall. with our city government and with our institutions. And they didn't know that we have an existing non-cooperative a non-cooperation agreement policy with ICE when it comes to non-criminal matters. And, you know, that's really technical language, but so many cities put it out there and codify it and make it clear where they stand when it comes to the fundamental truths and values of dignity, of community, and of compassion. I believe then and I believe now that it's important for Medford to state where we lie, where we stand on these values, on these fundamental truths. The next four years are going to be very trying for a lot of people who are so foundational to our community, to our neighbors, to our friends, to our family. And it's important, in my opinion, to codify the policies and to give them that security that We already one already have in place but to expand that secure that sense of safety and security for them and give residents a chance to feel safe in their own homes. Being brief. about the content of this resolution is really not that much different from what our city already has in place. Our city administration has reviewed it. We've met about it in committee. This is essentially just codifying and making sure that in the future, this policy can't just be overturned, that residents can know that there is a formality, there is longevity to this policy, and that will be put on the books. So I'll stop there and let Councilor Leming provide the amendments. Going to Councilor Leming.
[Leming]: Thank you. I'm just going to share my screen really quickly to this Google document that I have. All right. Can everybody see that? Hello?
[Bears]: It is visible on the screen.
[Leming]: All right, great. So we went over the text of this in the most recent meeting of the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee meeting. Following that meeting, I had some lengthy discussions and feedback from the City's legal teams, as well as some lawyers that work with the ACLU who are involved with Medford People Power. And I was kind of doing a little bit of back and forth to figure out what sort of language both parties could agree upon. Before I get into it, I'll also quickly add that this version that I'm working with contains a slight change from what was forwarded to my colleagues earlier today, because just before the meeting, I believe it was Councilor Callaghan who noticed some misspellings under whistleblower protection. I ended up amending that in this current draft. But essentially, the reviews by the city's legal team clarified the relationship throughout a lot of this ordinance with respect to the city's working relationship with federal agents and federal law and sort of how that works out in practice. So there's a couple of points here. For instance, the use of local resources. What you can see here is in green, these are the edits that were provided. And these are sort of edits that This kind of covers situations where if someone is detained and they end up getting fingerprinted as a result of a criminal proceeding, then that biometric data would end up going into a sort of a centralized government database, which is just how criminal enforcement works, both on the federal and local level. But that doesn't really say, but that's kind of like separate from its potential relationship with ICE. And there's just a few, there's a few other things here that kind of that site-specific federal laws. One thing that came up that the ACLU lawyers pointed out was this phrase right here, an officer employee of Medford Police Department may participate or assist with an operation led by a federal immigration agency to detain persons for civil immigration enforcement purposes unless it is in direct response to a request for immediate response on a temporary basis for officer safety purposes. or assistance in the apprehension of an individual for whom there is an active arrest warrant issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This officer safety phrase in quotes is actually fairly common to include in these sorts of ordinances. And there is a history of court decisions about the use of officer safety and asking for assistance. So I'm comfortable including that in there. Otherwise the most the biggest changes that Yes.
[Bears]: If I could just is it fair to say that these amendments reflect the view of legal counsel to ensure that this policy aligns with federal law while maintaining the intent and integrity of the Of the ordinance proposed and the policy that has been in place through the Medford Police Department for the last eight years?
[Leming]: Yes, yes, it does. The main, so I'll get to that. So the main points that the city brought up was the complaints enforcement, et cetera, bits that were added in there at a point in the editing process where We originally had this complaints, this complaints procedure, but that actually that actually was redundant to the internal policies of the Medford Police Department. So we ended up deleting that and this other cause of action that there that ended up that turns out that that just replicates things that are already in involved in state and federal law. But otherwise, yeah, this replicates state and federal laws. But otherwise, these changes basically just make this ordinance consistent with, um, just clarifies the relationship of the ordinance with federal law. I'd be pleased to answer any specific questions from my colleagues about it.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lemmie. If you could, um, save a copy of this with no track changes and submit a clean version to the clerk for inclusion in the council records, that would be much appreciated.
[Encolada]: Will do. Thank you.
[Bears]: And also we need it for the advertisement for second reading. With that, I will go to Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Lazzaro]: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify one thing that this is something that is already in practice for the Medford Police Department. We discussed this in our committee meeting at length, but I did want to say for folks gathered here today that may not have been at the committee meeting that When we put something like this in an ordinance, it's much more difficult if something were to change down the road to, you know, change a policy. is something you can do kind of quickly to change an ordinance, it would be much more complicated. So we're enshrining something that is practiced now in our city ordinances so that it's something that we are affirming and saying that it is something that we believe in very firmly, that this is something that is part of our local laws and it will be hard to turn around. It's something that I think is very important, and I think it's important that we're doing it tonight, and I appreciate all the work that's gone into it thus far. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli, then Vice President Collins. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to thank Barry and Marie. having a conversation and really having an open dialogue. I think that we expressed a lot of information about this ordinance and having my support. And I think that my biggest concern are two basic issues. And one thing I'll ask is, as I get started is I'd like to see this to be tabled so we can sit with the chief because I don't think that we've had a conversation with the chief and understand the impacts with the police department when we make an ordinance and how it could conflict with the city ordinance and what his job requires him to do. So I think that he, you know, I think that that's, you know, the understanding that the ACLU, the support and the involvement of the ACLU has left some residents questioning, you know, their beliefs in what policing is and what this means with this ordinance. So I think that the understanding the slippery slopes when we talk about, we talk about this, this ordinance. And when I've talked to the chief and I've talked to city officials, when chief Sacco put together the federal immigration enforcement plan and really put this in place, you know, they shared that, you know, the number one priority is our community safety and comfort of this community. And I think it's important because I think this is very important. I don't think I can sit here and attest that as a city councilor, I've sat in a house, I've stood in a house with six ICE agents and a family of undocumented members of a community and, um, I know the fear. I understand it. But I also think that when we move something toward an ordinance, I think we need to do our due diligence and make sure that we really have the information and we're all coming into this as a plan. And I talked to the chief and the chief has been part of this. This is a very important piece. I think that having the chief of police sit down with our body and say, what are some limitations? What are some concerns? How do we fix that? How do we express it? How do we bring it forward so we can move forward? That hasn't been done yet. So I think that's important. I think before we move forward, I think that table moving into a meeting to sit with the chief and understand that this is a process so we can all understand what the ramification is as a law enforcement officer. Because we don't. We're doing something that means well, and we want to do something to protect people, which is good. But I think we're talking about an ordinance. I think we need all the information. I don't think we have done that. And the other piece, and I would also like to invite the administration, the financial director, for the other impact. it is gonna be a different time in a few weeks. And we've seen it openly discussed how communities that put ordinances or rules in place like this, that the national agenda is to harm us financially with federal funding. So I think we need to also understand that platform. So again, it's not something that, this council is not supporting for the good reasons, but I think it's important that we get all the information out there. I know it's goodwill. It feels good. People have done some great work and really put a lot of passion into this, and I commend them. But again, I can't support this unless we do our due diligence and sit down with the probably the most important person in this community, the person that actually does our policing. And he's always been involved. He's always been welcoming to come sit down with us and share his opinion and see what our police department and what those impacts means when you talk about changing an ordinance to what they do every day by law and how that might be intertwined in a negative fashion. So I think that's something that I'm going to stand with and I hope my colleagues can understand that. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I want to first start by thanking the community members that have been advocating this for a very long time, and then Councilors Tseng and Leming for leading on this. To me, what this ordinance project says is the city's existing policy of non-cooperation with federal ICE agents is so good and makes so much sense and is so common sense that we should enshrine that as a city ordinance. And I just agree with that wholeheartedly. To me, what this says is we want to protect Medford resources for the purpose of taking care of Medford residents, not for carrying out orders or agendas that were promulgated somewhere far away from here, not in our community. Our resources, our personnel, the expertise and the time of our public safety officials, people doing that work in our community, that should be for us, not for a national agenda. and not for the agenda of any other state or entity. So for that reason, I think it's really the right time. I think any time would be a good time to enshrine that existing policy as an ordinance. I think this is, I think the moment is now. I'm really proud of my fellow Councilors for putting this together and making sure that you know, this policy that the current administration and city staff and public safety officers have been doing just because it's the right thing to do. And it was obviously the right policy to have that we can make sure that that is protected for the future, come what may. With that, I'd motion to approve for our first reading.
[Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve for first reading, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Sanz.
[Tseng]: Thank you. I also, um, I believe that in working with Councilor Leming, he wanted to motion to waive the three readings as well. To respond to some of the points that have been brought up, both I and Councilor Leming have reached out to the police chief over the last few years about this. when we were meeting about it years ago, and in the lead up to the recent meetings about it, I was DCed on an email. I know Chair Leming reached out as chair of the committee this was in. We didn't receive, or I hadn't received in my inbox any notes to the contrary. That's why we felt comfortable moving forward with it. As the executive branch that's in charge of community safety, policing, and the like, we did make sure to cooperate with the executive branch on this since they will be carrying out this policy. And that's where Councilor Leming's proposed amendments come from tonight as well. I believe there's another point I might be slightly forgetting. Oh, we did talk about the federal funding piece. Lots of that was overturned in federal litigation. Many components of the Trump, first Trump administration's course of policies against municipalities were overturned. We also need to note that, you know, this is about values and to understand that there is a even if there is a monetary impact that, number one, that that is limited. During the first administration, they tried a lot to see what they could do to coerce municipalities to align with their federal agenda on this. The answer was not a lot. And the restrictions on funding were minimal. And the second is just a realization that our values are worth more than that. The federal impact is limited to certain, very, very certain streams of funding. It's not limited, it's not so expansive as to include much of what we actually get from the federal government. On Councilor Collins' points, I think it underscores one other thing, the importance of this to the taxpayer. there's lots that our city is doing. There's no doubt that there's more to do than we have the capacity for. And so that's the situation that we're in. It shouldn't be on our local police department that is already working so hard on local safety. to enforce federal laws, especially given the nature of federalism in our country, especially given the separation of powers on different levels of government. And so that's what I would say. And I do appreciate the positive feedback and the strong support of our residents here.
[Scarpelli]: If I can, I would request that at least you not waive the three readings. I would hate.
[Bears]: Okay. All right. Thank you.
[Scarpelli]: I just, I, again, I think that I talked to the chief. I think that it'd be something that it would be fruitful for us to understand the process. That's all. And again, with the last administration, both the house and the Senate now fall with one party. So, there's going to be a that's something that when I've talked to my my contacts at the higher level, this is what the fair is now is understanding that there isn't an option to stop the process.
[Bears]: So, so, okay. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to
[Callahan]: Yeah, I also not inclined to agree with any sort of waiving of three readings. I think the three readings are good. Also, there were a lot of changes that just came in recently. So I think, you know, I'm comfortable passing it for first reading. It'll, you know, give me a chance to go through line by line every single change that was made, which I know was recommended by KP law. And I would be perfectly fine if we want to make an official request that in between our first reading and the third reading that we ask the police chief to come to a
[Bears]: I believe he's been invited, but he can continue to be invited again. I understand that, yeah.
[Callahan]: But I think it's a different request when it's past first reading. So if we want to make a request that he show up to a committee meeting where we can discuss this and any reservations he has, I would be open to that as well.
[Bears]: Because this is moving for a first reading, there can't be a committee meeting on it, but we could discuss it when it's up for third reading.
[Callahan]: So we get it in between.
[Bears]: We can't hold a committee meeting on a paper that's not in queue.
[Callahan]: Ah, yeah, right.
[Tseng]: Yeah. So I'm also happy.
[Bears]: Yeah, that whether you do or don't, it's not happening. Yeah, I hear you. I'm just saying it doesn't, there's no extra vote that's needed on it. So it doesn't save 10 seconds. Um, any further discussion by members of the council, like councilor Leming.
[Leming]: Yeah, so I just would like to reiterate that I did reach out to all members of the school committee as well as Chief Buckley and asked all of them to submit their feedback. I invited the chief over to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee meeting with any concerns or feedback that he might have. I did not receive a reply. to that request and I did receive some from the from the school committee and their feedback was incorporated into it into this draft. The concern that I had, the concern that I ran into from the administration regarding the regarding the police mainly had to do with the enforcement clause, which I was told could interfere with police union negotiations. And in this current draft, that ended up being nixed. So I would like to point out that there were efforts to include that feedback into this draft. The other thing I'd like to point out is that there is a timeliness issue to this. The new administration takes office in late January, so I do think that more so than other ordinances, having a policy that protects our undocumented populations in early is essential to me. Um, I don't see I don't really see the need to try to weigh the three readings. That's unanimous. And, you know, obviously, my colleague is voiced his concern. So I would be fine with going for the with just approving the first reading tonight. I would ask that that motion be amended to specifically accept the edits that were that were proposed in this in this current draft because I didn't hear that. that that was explicitly said in the motion. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Otherwise, that's all I got. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the Council? I'm just going to say very quickly that on this and the next ordinance, a very dangerous federal administration with a very particular and specific agenda is going to be coming into place in about a month. And As a council, I think it is responsible and essential of us to act by passing a law that lets the people in this community know that the police of this city are not going to enact an agenda that weaponizes people's identities, people's documentation status, people's very livelihoods. And that is essential. Yeah, there might be consequences. We may not get the FBI grant for, I don't know, whatever, more, we might not get the weapons that come for a discounted rate or something, right? These certain things that the Department of Justice and other agencies send to municipalities. To me, that is a very small cost to standing up for what's right, standing up for our values and letting, again, the people of this community know that they will be safe If they want to report an incident to a Medford police officer, that they don't have to be afraid for their livelihoods and their ability to stay in this country. If they want to be a witness in another case, if they just want to be a good citizen, right? And there's a lot of other reasons too. Folks who are pulled over, folks who are questioned or whatever those might be. They shouldn't also have to have that added fear that they may well not be going home to their kids, because what we've heard over and over again in the last administration, and quite frankly, this administration seems dangerously more competent to implement this horrific agenda, is that kids went home after school and their parents were gone. And that's not something that we should have in this city. With that, I will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. If you'd like to speak on this item, you can raise your hand on Zoom.
[Vienneau]: But my name is Lisa Vienneau and I live at 19 Paul Road and I just wanted to say that I work in a sanctuary city in Chelsea and I also worked as a teacher in Cambridge. So I know what sanctuary cities kind of feel like and I think it's a huge undertaking to just say that we can be a sanctuary city. I think I kind of like agree with Mr. Scarpelli that it has to be a little thought out because even though it's the correct thing to do, I think we have to know like just like what the police chief thinks and what the, how much money is involved. And just like, I think that you just can't accept something like that as big as that without some thought. I mean, we just got like a really bad report from saying that we really don't look good as a city with a lot of things that we do. So I would want us to have a really good plan in place if we take this on. I don't think that we can just always embrace everything and say, yeah, that girl just said something really bad about the city, that we don't have a good mark when it comes to like presenting. So I just think that if you're going to take on a big project like this, you have to think about it. It's correct to do it. It is correct to do it, but you have to think about it and execute it correctly. You can't just be, wow, this is great. Let's do it. Yeah. We get bad grades everywhere else. Let's make sure we do this one appropriately. So it doesn't look bad. That's all.
[Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to switch to Zoom. We'll go to Munir Germanis. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Germanis]: My name is Munir Germanis. I live at 3 Summit Road in Medford. I'm here to really enthusiastically support this effort. This is not a random effort. This is a well thought out effort. We are just confirming what our current police policies right now is doing. Actually, we're here to help the police not waste their time on following rumors and potential immigrants who may or may not be documented, just to make sure that we satisfy some somebody way up high in the federal government. I myself am an immigrant. I worked for many years in research with a lot of people. I had colleagues from New Zealand, from England, from India, from Russia, from Ukraine, from all over the world. And our company was first class because of their contributions. I already hear rumors and news, not only rumors, but news, actual news of businesses closing down because some of the employees are afraid to show up because of this. So there are a lot of positive things that will come out of this. So I wholeheartedly support this and I implore the entire city council to support it right now. Thanks very much for your attention.
[Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes and then we'll go back to Zoom.
[Rotolo]: Good evening. My name is Laura Rotolo. I'm 14, Rita Drive, and I'm here wearing two hats this evening. One is a proud Medford resident, and also as part of the American Civil Liberties Union, where I work as field director and representing our 3,700 members here in Medford. I'm very proud to stand before you today to put our full support behind this ordinance, which has been many, many years in coming. There is nothing in this ordinance, I believe, that is at all inconsistent with what is current policy of the police and of the schools. That is what we have been told and that is what the police order says. That the current policies and practices are simply to focus on local issues and serving our local communities. and not doing the work of the federal government and not voluntarily collaborating with the federal government's deportation and immigration enforcement efforts. We believe this is wholly consistent with current practice. It has been looked at by KP law. And I think the moment that we're in right now, we're going back to the idea of what are our values as a welcoming city. It's important to enshrine those values in law. First of all, to let the community know what those values are, but also to let people know that this exists. If this policy is not well known in the community, then no one will take advantage of it. And the police will not be able to gain the trust of the residents who may not know this as current practice. And to the question about consequences and perhaps losing funding, I just want us to know that Medford is not alone here. The city of Boston has recently reaffirmed its trust act, which is very similar in nature, and many of our surrounding communities, including Somerville, Cambridge, Arlington, Chelsea, and Everett have similar policies, whether as an ordinance or as a police policy or as a practice. We are not alone here. anyone's going to defund Medford, they're going to defund all of us. We are not alone, and yet about a quarter of our residents are foreign born, and they do need these protections and this statement of our values. So thank you again for the City Council's willingness to take this up after, again, many years of work by many residents. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. I will go to Zoom. Name and address for the record. Jamie Tallarita, you have three minutes on this item.
[Tallarita]: I'm just going to take, I'm 68 Charnwood Road, Janie Tallarita. I'm just going to take 10 seconds and just say that I want to express my support as well.
[Bears]: Thank you so much. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Giurleo]: Nick Giurleo, 40 Robinson Road. Good evening. I just want to comment tonight for the public, primarily coming before you as a licensed attorney just what exactly is in this welcoming city ordinance as I read it. I think it's common for legislators and not just the city council, but really all legislators in general to use kind of soft kind of flowery language to describe what laws are really saying. So I think this welcoming ordinance is a pretty good example of that. What you might not realize, unless you actually read the fine print like I did, is that really the crux of it is not really to welcome anybody, but actually to just significantly hamper the police department's ability to do its job of working with fellow law enforcement to keep the community safe. So what do I mean by that? I think the ordinance essentially prevents the Medford Police Department from cooperating with all federal law enforcement and enforcing immigration laws. I think, in my opinion, this is not only illegal, but also a seriously concerning violation of the concept of limited government, or as we've been hearing a lot tonight, separation of powers. The ordinance, for example, says that Medford PD can't comply with immigration detainers, detainers being requests from the federal government to hold a person who's in the country unlawfully. So this means even if the Medford PD became aware a person was violating a federal immigration law, Medford PD wouldn't be allowed to do anything about it, which is confusing to me because it's the job of law enforcement agencies to enforce the laws and our city council and mayor making it essentially unlawful for them to do their jobs. The previous draft of the ordinance that I read mentioned a cause of action, basically giving an opportunity to sue the city at the taxpayer's expense if this ordinance were to be violated. I'm grateful to see that that's out of the ordinance now. But it was in there before, which I do think speaks to the motive behind this ordinance. Another thing that concerns me is the very end where it talks about the Medford Police Department, having to report data on its detainers, and you think that data would go to write to this legislator the city council but. That's not what it says. It goes right to the mayor, which is a little suspicious to me. So my legal opinion is I think this is a legal ordinance. And even if it isn't, it shouldn't be. And I think it just is a matter of policy, too. It's terrible. Shouldn't be on the books. That's my take. Thank you. Thank you.
[Bears]: Go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Elizabeth Burke]: Elizabeth Burke from 12 Stephen Street, and I want to thank Councilors Tseng and Leming very much for their work on this, as well as the entire council for addressing this ordinance so quickly. I'm speaking today as part of Medford People Power, and this ordinance codifies what is already best practice in Medford. The Medford Police Department has had this policy in place since 2018, and it is a policy that Medford People Power advocated for then. It is not new for Medford. Codifying and expanding it to other departments in Medford sends a message to our immigrant communities, of which we have many, that they are safe and supported in Medford. This ordinance restricts Medford from cooperating in mass deportations that have nothing to do with criminal behavior. This ordinance does not interfere with criminal laws or a judicial warrant. It only restricts cooperation with ICE on administrative detainers and providing logistical support for raids. It also restricts Medford from cooperating with ICE on solely immigration matters. This matter is urgent because Trump plans to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, which is the estimated total number of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. Almost all of these immigrants will have no criminal history starting on day one. We don't know what this will look like, but based on the past administration, we know it will result in significant harm to families. Medford is not alone in passing these types of ordinances. Medford will join many other Massachusetts cities that are vowing to protect immigrants, including Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, and Arlington. Protecting our immigrant neighbors is the right thing to do. We need a functioning immigration system, and we don't have it. However, mass deportations are not the solution. This approach is mean-spirited and hateful. It treats people like they are less than human. Medford is better than that. We value community and coming together to solve problems. We value respect for each other. This ordinance brings out the best in Medford. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. We'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Meyer]: Hi, my name is Anna Meyer I live at six Douglas Road, and I'm here tonight as a high school history teacher, and it's really important me to speak on this even though it's way too late for a school night, but I really want to just kind of share some experiences of my students. I used to work in Providence with newcomer students, many of whom were seeking asylum. And I would have students taking calls from lawyers during the school day. A lot of them were from rural Guatemala. They'd ridden trains, on the top of trains, through Mexico to reach the US. And I just saw firsthand what that instability looked like for them and the way that it affected their ability to concentrate in the classroom. I also taught in New York City for four years. I had students from the Dominican Republic and West Africa. Central America and other places. And I also saw firsthand from them what it did to face immigration uncertainty, to be separated from their families, to not know when they could travel there or their families could travel back to see them in New York. And the way that detention and incarceration just like was so deeply distressing to students and to see how hard it was to concentrate in school. And I stand in favor of this resolution because I think it will do so much to at least alleviate that burden the way that we can in Medford, just to make sure that students and families have a little bit of that fear alleviated so that they can interact with services in the city and schools and just know that their community is doing what it can to protect them. And then I think beyond that, it sends a really important message to our immigrant community that we care about them and we'll do what we can in Medford to protect them. And I think in addition to all that's been said about the potential of deportations, I also just think the anti-immigrant rhetoric that's happening in this country is obviously as old as the United States itself, but the way that it's increased recently, I think that also takes a really important stand just to saying to our residents and our students in particular that we don't stand for that in Medford. And it's a way of taking a stand there. So thank you so much for consideration. I hope you'll vote for it tonight.
[Bears]: Thank you so much, and good luck tomorrow morning. I'm going to go to Zoom to the Reverend Wendy Villarola-Padre. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes, Reverend Wendy.
[Miller-Olapade]: Hello. Can you hear me all right?
[Bears]: Yes.
[Miller-Olapade]: Thank you so much for staying up this late. Good evening, members of the city council and dear neighbors. I'm Reverend Wendy Miller, well, I'm Wendy Miller Olapade and I live at 105 Brook Street. And I had the opportunity to share these thoughts with the committee. I'd like to say them kind of again, cause it's important. I've heard people asking about our values. I'm here to testify as an advocate for this ordinance for beloved community. I work really hard at making love and justice real. And I believe that we have to do that through our actions, our policies and our laws. I'm here as the president of the Medford Interfaith Clergy Association, where I am often asked to support immigrants in their faith communities. We have many immigrant faith communities in our city. I am the mother of two young men whose father is an immigrant, and I'm a proud resident of Medford. So I speak in support of this ordinance because of the values that I think we want to practice in our city. It's the right thing to do. And I want to say a word about how across our diverse social and faith traditions, there's one message that I hear constantly, it resonates clearly. And that is the call to welcome, protect, and uphold the dignity of all people, especially the stranger, the immigrant, and the marginalized. So becoming a welcoming city is not just an ordinance, it's a moral and spiritual imperative that's rooted in the shared values of all of our spiritual and faith traditions. In Christianity, the call to hospitality is unequivocal. The words of Jesus and the gospel of Matthew are clear. He said, I was a stranger and you welcomed me. And Paul writes in Hebrew, do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers for by doing that, some have entertained angels. without knowing it. In Judaism, the command to welcome the stranger is foundational. The Torah repeats it no fewer than 36 times, more than any other commandment. You shall love the stranger as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. This isn't about remembering our history, but about cultivating empathy and justice in our communities today. It's a reminder that our humanity is bound together by shared vulnerabilities, and shared aspirations. In Islam, the principles of hospitality and equity are deeply ingrained. The Quran commands believers to act with compassion and justice. Do good to parents, relatives, orphans, the needy, the neighbor who is near, the neighbor who is a stranger, and the traveler. And in Buddhism, the practice of metta, or loving kindness, teaches us to extend compassion to all beings without distinction. These shared spiritual values call us to act now, not out of fear or division, or worried about whether there'll be enough money, but out of love, justice and equity, becoming a welcoming city aligns Medford with the highest aspirations of our traditions of our values. to be a place where every resident, regardless of origin, is treated with dignity, and is free to live without fear. It also reflects the very foundation of our democracy and the history of America, as a nation built on the ideals of equality, inclusion, and the belief that all people are created equal. This ordinance reflects the heart of all of our faith traditions, our shared humanity, and the values that our city says it wants to live by. It strengthens our community by affirming that everyone is valued, all are welcome, and all deserve safety and respect. Let us live up to these sacred values and make this happen now. Declare Medford a welcoming city. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you.
[Navarre]: Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. William Navarre, 108 Medford Street, apartment 1B. I want to make a different point that others have made, and that's that we really want to avoid getting swept up in Trump's plan for mass deportations. Our mayor and our chief of staff have wisely put in these policies. And we should recognize that Trump and the right-wing media and so on, his whole apparatus has a really good skill of making the unthinkable thinkable. And that's why we need to say, no, we're sticking to these policies. We're sticking to our liberal values and we're not going back on that. We're not backsliding. That's the term that's sometimes used. And that's why I think it's so important that this be passed, that it be an ordinance. because it's so easy to just whittle away at these things, get swept up in a trend, get swept up in the national rhetoric. Maybe the unthinkable will not just be thinkable, it'll be moderate in a year, in two years. Well, you have a chance now to make the unthinkable illegal. And that's what you need to do to make sure that you don't get caught up into that craziness that Trump wants to visit upon our country. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zotter]: Good evening. Jean Zotter, 36 Saunders Street. It's way past my bedtime, so I'm going to cut to the chase. It was hard to tell what the amendments were that I couldn't really see it on the screen. I know that KP Law had some concerns around the enforcement section. Those changes are fine with us. There were some changes KP Law suggested for order section 5103. that seem to weaken what is our current policy. So while we don't know what the final edits were to the ordinance, we would just encourage that it not weaken what is already our existing policy and has been enforced for at least six years. So without knowing that, we just wanted to make that one comment and appreciate you taking this up quickly and understanding the urgency of this matter. Thank you for your time.
[Bears]: I appreciate that. Thank you, Jean. Councilor Leming, do you want to, I really don't think, I would really prefer that you stop sharing the screen. At this point, I personally cannot handle looking at the lines of legal text. If you could explain changes or explain who you've communicated with about those changes beyond KP law, or that we could have a further discussion between now and the third reading, I think that would be my preference. I just appreciate folks dealing with the fact that I just can't look at green line changes at this point.
[Leming]: No, so I corresponded with the folks at both the folks at KP Law and Medford People Power, including Lauren Jean about this earlier today. So the, I believe it was Jean was talking about 5103C. Was that what she mentioned?
[Bears]: or nodding yes.
[Leming]: Yeah. Yeah, so I put into this current draft the one change that was proposed for that, that they proposed for that, which was that no Asian officer employee of the city in performance of official duties shall make any inquiry about citizenship, immigration, or residency status. And they specifically wanted to make it so that they couldn't ask about immigration status. But I am not 100% sure where else this would have weakened it. So yeah, I did respond. I did respond. Yeah.
[Zotter]: The current police policy that the Medford Police Department is enforcing says that they cannot ask about immigration status unless relevant to a criminal case. So that's the current policy. The changes for KP law, and I can read it to you, say that they can only not ask about immigration status if a person is seeking to enforce their rights or attain benefits. So it's not clear what enforcing rights means, but it's very different to have a blanket policy that, if it's not relevant to a criminal investigation, you don't ask about immigration status, to changing it to, if a person, an immigrant, is seeking to enforce their rights, the police can't ask about their immigration status. So I'll give you an example. Say I have a busted taillight and I'm pulled over by the police. I'm not enforcing my rights, but the police, when they come to my car and say, your taillight is busted, Can they then ask about the immigration status of a person with a busted taillight, even though it's not relevant to why they pulled the person over? It's not clear from the changes from KP law that that, I don't know if this is making sense, and I know we're all tired, but their changes seem to weaken what the police can do.
[Bears]: I think Matt, if you could read that sentence and then Jean, if you could read that existing sentence from the existing policy.
[Leming]: So the deleted one was the struck through version was no officers or employees of the city of Medford may inquire about the immigration status of a victim, suspect, arrestee, 911 caller or other member of the public with whom they have contact except as required by state law or to provide a public benefit and the replacement was no agent, officer or employee of the city in the performance of official duties shall make any inquiry about the citizenship, immigration or residency status of any person seeking to enforce rights or obtain benefits or discriminate in the enforcement of rights or the granting of benefits on such basis, unless federal or Massachusetts law so requires for the termination of eligibility of benefits or as may otherwise be required by law or a court of competent jurisdiction. No police officer or any city employee shall inquire about the citizenship or immigration status of any victim or witness of domestic violence or any other crime except as required by law. That's it.
[Rotolo]: Jean or Laura. Yeah, I can jump in on that as well. Thank you. So the current police policy says that officers shall not question any person, so any person, about their specific citizenship or immigration status unless such information is required by law. And the changes to the ordinance by KP law said that only, as Jean said, if a person is seeking to enforce their rights, would that prohibition apply? It's much narrower. We want to make sure that the police cannot ask about immigration status of anyone that they come into contact with, whether it's somebody they pull over, somebody they're investigating, interrogating, or someone who's seeking to enforce their rights.
[Bears]: Was the language that Councilor Leming read prior to the amendment received late today by KP Law in line with the policy in your opinion?
[Zotter]: The previous language was.
[Zotter]: The changes proposed significantly weakened.
[Bears]: Got it. OK. I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: I was just going to suggest that maybe public comment at this meeting is not the best, like given that late hour and everything else is maybe not exactly when we want to be line by lining, you know, specific wording and that you know, the sponsors of the legislation working with, you know, like between now and third reading. Does that make sense that that might be a better way to make edits that may be doing it right now?
[Bears]: I think at this point, we've talked through the one I agree with you going forward on the rest of it. It does sound like maybe if someone wanted to make the motion to adopt all of the amendments from KPLL except for that amendment, and then we can do the rest. I think it's working. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, Councilor Collins, are you making a motion?
[Collins]: Yeah, I'm sorry. I lost track of the 5013C. Sorry, couldn't hear that. I'll just finish my sentence. Thank you.
[Bears]: Give Councilor Collins a floor. Thank you.
[Collins]: I'd be happy to make the motion to approve Sorry, late. Take a vote for approved for first reading with the amendments presented tonight adopted with the exception of that one amendment that Councilor Leming knows the number of.
[Bears]: Jean, could you just say the section number for me again? 50-103 subsection C. Thank you. Got it. All right. We're going to go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Merritt]: Nate Merritt, 373 Riverside Ave. I guess I'm a little confused at this, where, first off, is this a sanctuary city policy or not?
[Bears]: This is a welcoming city ordinance.
[Merritt]: No, no, no. Is it a sanctuary city policy or not? You can call it whatever you want. Is it a sanctuary city policy?
[Bears]: Mr. Merritt, I'm just going to give you your time.
[Merritt]: No, it was a question. You have three minutes. So you won't answer yes or no. Two minutes and 30 seconds you have, Mr. Merritt. It's been 15. OK. So how you do something is just as important as what you do. I come from a family of immigrants. My wife is an immigrant. She was not born in this country. My in-laws were not born in this country. They are not in fear of anything. They're not in fear of getting, my wife gets, you know, she has had a car accident, never got hauled away. You have a city Councilor who's held to a higher standard to serve and protect this country, right? And he comes under a whole different set of rules, federal rules, Uniform Code of Military Justice. What are we saying if we say we're going to choose to enforce some rules that we like and not the others? I have to teach my kids this. And there are laws for a reason. I think it's a slippery slope when this city chooses to get involved in certain things that they like with a current administration and then others that they won't stand with because the administration is going to change. Why not just stay out of it, in a sense, and let the federal government and things at the federal level work? the way they're going to work. There's federal laws. If we don't like them, elect new people. That's been said tonight over and over. This council won't pass a resolution to say, don't drug test people in a line, right?
[Bears]: We did pass that.
[Merritt]: No, I don't think they said not to. I don't think that was the resolution. It was to find out the financial impacts, but not to actually do it as a policy. And it certainly didn't pass when it says don't follow people around or private investigators when they're using their civil liberties, your own citizens. Definitely citizens, because I don't believe that the city can employ people who are not legal citizens. Is that true?
[Bears]: The city can employ people who are not residents of the city of Medford.
[Merritt]: Can they employ foreign nationals?
[Bears]: Yeah.
[Merritt]: I don't know. Absolutely. But legal documented foreign nationals. Can they employ undocumented people? Because that's what this is talking about.
[Bears]: I apologize for interrupting.
[Merritt]: So if you're not willing to go to bat for your own employees, why are we doing this? And literally, what's on the table is to pass a law to potentially ignore some law. This doesn't make sense. I get the intent. but it doesn't make fundamental sense. We're a nation of laws or we're not. We're a community of laws or not. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. I will just note there are a lot of things that have been legal that have not been moral. in the history of this country and many other countries. And I will also note that I have multiple people very important to me who are naturalized citizens of this country who are very afraid of being deported because the president has said he's going to do it. Or the president-elect, sorry. Thank God for another four weeks. So yeah, I'm grateful that your experiences, that the people in your life who have that identity are not afraid. There are people very close to me who are citizens of this country, who were not born citizens of this country, who are deeply afraid that they will not be allowed to remain here because of the words and actions, promised actions of the person who's going to be taking the office of the president. So, yeah, I like that Medford's not going to do his bidding because I want people I love to stay here. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Vienneau]: Yes, it's Lisa Vienneau, 19 Paul Road. I want to agree with him that it's a slippery slope. I work in property management in Chelsea. It's a sanctuary city. All the documentation I get is I would say 60% to 70% illegal, which means the applicant's name on my application and all the pay stubs that I get do not match. Social security numbers names don't match to the applicant name. That's just one slippery slope that I'm on as a property manager. My apartments alluded, it's a two bedroom apartment. I've got at least 15 people. living in my apartments. MedFed has not seen that. MedFed has not seen what's happening. RAFT and all of the federal money that pays for their rent, because they're allowed to apply for federal money to get their first and last month's rent. But the rent they're after is their responsibility. And they have to come up with, you know, in MedFed, what is the going rate for an apartment? Approximately $2,000, maybe 1,500 for an apartment. Where are they getting that money to live in an apartment in Method? Where is that money coming from? That money has to come from somebody else's social security that allows them to use it so they can work in a job that then allows them to make some money so they can pay the rent. Think about it. Where is the money coming from for these undocumented people? Where is the money? Where is the job? They have no Social Security card. How can they work? They can't work legally in the United States. My parents were immigrants. I understand what it's like to have immigrants as parents. I am not against sanctuary cities. I am not. But it is a slippery slope that the landlords are not going to be able to deal with coming. If you allow everybody to just come in here and think that they can live in our apartments, I'm not saying that everyone's like this, I'm not. It's just that that's what I look at daily, and when we go to court. The courts are not on my side. This is Massachusetts. The court's on the tenant's side. So I lose again in court. So just so you know, it is a very slippery slope. And that is just with property management and real estate. I'm just talking about that right now. In school, I'm sure the kids are going to be OK. In other ways, probably they'll be okay. I agree, the police will probably not be problematic. I don't see that in Chelsea at all, that the police are problematic with the population. Nor are the teachers problematic. The problem is, where is the money coming from? They're illegal. They're using all fake documents, all fake documents. I just want to let you know that it's not as clean as you think it's going to be. It's a great, great thing to be a sanctuary. I'm not saying it isn't. It's just not as clean as you think it's going to be.
[Bears]: Thank you. I'm sure they'd love to use real documents if they could. I'm sure that they would love to be using real documents if they were legally allowed to. I'll go to Councilor Collins. Thank you.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears genuinely appreciate all the discussion around this item I'm glad that we're putting in the work to get this done this month I think this really is urgent I'm really proud of us for doing the hard work to move this from policy to an ordinance. Um, I'd like to move the question. I also did just want to note just just again for the record that undocumented immigrants like do have tax ID numbers. So, um, you know, that's just wanted to correct the record on that. Thank you. I move the question.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Thanks, and we will, but I'm going to say something first. Um, something I've been sitting with up here for a couple hours that I've just want to voice When we talk about dehumanizing rhetoric, when we talk about a dehumanizing politics that is infecting civil discourse at all levels, we experience that here. I really don't mean to personalize this, but this ordinance is one thing. We're talking about a surveillance ordinance in a minute. I just want to say that a member of the community tonight wrote about me in a public forum. If Zach turned up dead, I would not mind it. So that was written about me tonight. And I'm just raising that point, it's not really exactly relevant to the core principles of this ordinance, but it is relevant to the idea of a welcoming city and about just horrifically dehumanizing rhetoric that is pervading civil discourse. So when we talk about maybe not disrupting a public meeting and following the rules and listening to the rules of the chair and making sure that people feel safe to talk to their government officials, whether that's police or city councilors or anybody else, it is a local issue. And so I've stood here for two hours after having had to read that. And I just felt like, quite frankly, people deserve to know that this isn't just about a police policy and putting it into law. It's about some really harmful things that are happening in this community, some really harmful approaches and words and actions that are being brought to the forefront of a politics that I don't think any of us benefit from. So when we talk about division, that's what's dividing us. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to adopt this ordinance for first reading as amended, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming.
[Leming]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes, six in affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes and the ordinance is moved for first reading. Offered by Vice President Collins. Amendments to the Community Control of Republic Surveillance Ordinance. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I'm going to try to keep this brief, but I do think that this project, like any other ordinance, benefits from just a teeny bit of exposition. So let me just orient these proposed amendments in the context of this ordinance and how long it's been on the books. These proposed amendments are tweaks to the Community Control over Public Surveillance Ordinance, which was passed by the City Council in March of 2023, and the amendments are proposed to make sure that the ordinance does a better job of reflecting its original intent. So this ordinance was worked on in City Council from 2022 to 2023. It was collaborated on by city councilors, residents, city staff. The police chief was present with us at many, many subcommittee meetings throughout the process of crafting us. We had sit downs in subcommittee with the mayor, chief of staff, and the chief of police was really grateful to them for putting so much time and conversation into this ordinance. It's not in a way, it's really simple. In another way, there was a lot to talk about, and I'm really grateful for them for doing that work with us over the course of months, which was predated by literally years of advocacy for such an ordinance by residents in the community. So what is the Community Control over Public Surveillance Ordinance? This is an ordinance that is in no way unique to Medford. They've been passed in many communities around Massachusetts and elsewhere throughout the country. They provide a way for local communities to have oversight over what surveillance technologies may be used by our municipal governments. They empower city councils and through the venue of the council, the public, to essentially ask the questions, why does the city want to use surveillance technology in our community? What problem is this supposed to solve? How will it solve it? How will it help? What are the potential risks? What are the costs? The City Council may then through the ordinance make a determination of whether the benefits outweigh the potential costs and whether to improve the technology or that use of surveillance data. Or not, or you know potentially condition it or put certain stipulations on it, etc. It creates a forum to have these discussions over this extremely new rapidly proliferating form of technology that has known, demonstrated, documented bad implications for civil liberties, for privacy, especially for marginalized populations, but not only for marginalized populations. creates a way for the community to have more of a listening ear and more of a voice in these conversations that often have to do with incredibly expensive things that cities are being lobbied to purchase from private corporations. A lot of these technologies are being very, very aggressively marketed to municipalities like ours by the corporations that develop them. And, you know, as one Councilor my goal with this ordinance is to make sure that in in one year and five year and 25 years, we're still spending public dollars on things that actually truly help Medford's public safety, more than they enrich the bottom lines of technology corporations. So that's, that's the briefest overview I can give, but if anybody wants to talk at length about surveillance technology and civil liberties with me hit me up. The amendments that we're putting forward tonight that we workshopped in community that came from suggestions, sorry, that we workshopped in committee. that came out of suggestions from the community. These are two amendments that just constitute two ways that we can further tighten up this ordinance. I also want to note just again for background, it's not at all unusual to return to a fairly recent ordinance or an old one and make amendments to it. We did this with our kind of technical zoning tweaks over the past couple years after we put forward some like technical amendments, we put them into use and that putting it into use alerted us to things that We're having unintended consequences. So we go back and you know now that we've like put it on the road a little bit we go back and fix it, tighten the screws. I see that as being part of this process, making amendments that help us to better embody the original intent of the ordinance. So there are two sections that I'm proposing changes to tonight that we worked on in public health and community safety committee that was circulated to Councilors. The proposed addition to section 5079, which covers enforcement, remedies, penalties, and whistleblower protections. That is to, that's additional language. That says, I read this all out of the committee meeting last week. To the extent permitted by law, including but not limited to, the requirements of the Massachusetts Public Records Law or the Municipal Records Retention Schedule, any video footage or other data recorded or obtained illegally or in violation of this ordinance shall be immediately destroyed and not introduced as evidence in any criminal or civil proceeding, except in those proceedings related to violations of this ordinance. What's the point of that?
[Bears]: Vice President Collins. Would it be fair to say that to summarize these two amendments, the amendment to Section 5079 requires that any records kept by surveillance technologies that are not exempt, that are not required to be kept by the state or local law would not be kept?
[Collins]: I think, yeah, I think that is comprised within it.
[Bears]: And then 5080, that this is amending essentially that it was unlawful for the city.
[Collins]: I can go faster, but I can.
[Bears]: Okay, thank you.
[Collins]: So you can just say that. Section 59, there is an oversight in the original ordinance. It states how surveillance data can and cannot be used. It doesn't say what happens if we find ourselves having surveillance data that we oughtn't. This says it's got to be deleted. Similar to how if evidence is obtained without a warrant, it can't be used in a trial, the similar principle. In Section 5080, this covers uh, contracts that might result in surveillance data being generated elsewhere, being used by a municipality. Um, this is to remove an exception, um, that bulk commercially generated surveillance data may be used if it's in service of law enforcement. Um, it's, it's still being wrestled with by state and federal courts, um, if it's constitutional for this to happen at all. But by removing this exception, we're just making this section consistent with the intent of the rest of the ordinance. No carve-outs, just one process. If we're going to use surveillance tech or surveillance data, it's going to be subject to a public process. And I do have one really small tweak to make to the section in 5080 that is really just a semantic change. But I can, well, I'll just say it now. The change to 5080 would be to strike the word bulk. That appears bulk surveillance data. We don't need the word bulk. We're going to strike that. And I would also add the phrase or any information derived from such data after the words surveillance data.
[Bears]: Is that in the first sentence?
[Collins]: In the first sentence and then in the last sentence, which is an addition.
[Bears]: So could you send an amended version to the clerk, please? Thank you. I think they're the same change in both sentences.
[Collins]: Same change. It's just to clarify that we're talking about both surveillance data or any information that might be derived from such data. And I will email that to the clerk right now. I would motion to, after consideration by my fellow councillors, I would motion to approve for first reading.
[Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve for first reading, seconded by Councilor Tseng, we'll go to Councilor Scarpelli. As amended.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. If you recall, this process was very well vetted by the chief. And there were so many concerns that he talked about with public safety. And I know this was in subcommittee, and we're coming right to the floor with this and understanding that this is clearly politics over public safety. This is frightening. This is a process without having the chief involved. I think it's where you're stepping overbound, because I remember those days, he was heavily involved, Councilor. to hear that he wasn't part of this because these are some of the things he definitely talked about that helped him keep our residents safe and our community safe. I remember that specifically. And him not being here and us just pushing these through, I just think it's wrong right now. Again, I wish that you would table this to sit with the chief and have him review this to see the impacts. I mean, we're seeing what's going on. I, you know, I've talked to neighboring communities and understanding that, you know, I understand the process and the understanding where, um, how it can affect people in a negative way, but the pros outweigh the cons in so many ways. I mean, look how they look, look how they found the murder, the gentleman who killed the, uh, in New York City. It was all by surveillance camera, by following him around. They took a murder off the street that way. You're looking to put into action policies that take away that ability for our police and our community. I just think this is stepping over a line. This is something that, you know, we just don't do this at 12 o'clock at night. I know, but to do it at 12 o'clock at night and not have the process over just a subcommittee meeting where everybody wasn't privy to it and then come to here today and start moving these ordinances.
[Bears]: Sure, and I would just note that the CCOPS ordinance exempts CCTV cameras on public buildings. It exempts the ability of our police department to receive data from private cameras, which is what most of the data was in the case that you mentioned. So it actually doesn't do any of that. Councilor Collins. You can't help it. Truth matters, George. I'm sorry, George. But don't do what you're doing. It's just the truth. George, please stop. Councilor Collins has the floor. It's embarrassing.
[Collins]: A couple points to clarify. One, I didn't state that the chief wasn't involved. I reached out to him. He didn't respond. I know he's a busy guy. We involved him every step of the way when the 99.9% of the ordinance that isn't changing was crafted between 2022 and 2023. And another thing that I do remember specifically from those months of meetings in the previous term was that the chief repeatedly emphasized that the city of Medford currently does not have a practice of purchasing surveillance data targeted or in bulk, and also has no plans to do so in the future. So this would have, unless that is no longer correct or wasn't correct at the time, this would have no impact on the work of public safety in our community.
[Bears]: Thank you on the motion of Councilor Collins to adopt for first reading, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Ingber]: Hi, Barry Ingber, 9 Draper Street, North Midford. I'd like to thank President Bears for joining us on this journey five years ago, and then to Vice President Collins for carrying the banner for God knows how long, for us. This CCOPS ordinance exists because city council and Medford residents have a shared concern and interest around civil liberties, public safety, privacy, transparency in government, and sound decision-making around major financial decisions. It reflects the widespread public opinion that the use of surveillance technology should be made public and the government should protect people's privacy. This ordinance doesn't outlaw any surveillance tools. It just says that city council and residents should be involved in the decision making around that acquisition and purchase. Members of Medford People Power spent over four years working on it in partnership with the ACLU, with the chief, and gaining the endorsement of a wide range of community organizations, institutions, and faith organizations. While the passage of the CCOPS ordinance in 2023 was a great victory for Medford residents, a loophole remains regarding the city's potential purchase of commercially available surveillance data. This type of contract potentially threatens both public accountability and civil liberties and threatens to undermine the entire purpose of the ordinance. We strongly encourage the city council to restore the original language of section 5080 that included the Medford Police Department along with all other city departments as prohibited from surveillance data purchases or exchanges. We want to make sure that our dollars are being spent going towards true public safety, not on expensive gadgets and software that enriches corporations more than they actually help us.
[Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. And if you'd like to speak in your own Zoom, please raise your hand.
[Vardabedian]: Thank you. Thank you, Paulette Bardabedian, 27 Central Ave, Medford. I have to say that I agree with Councilor Scarpelli that we all have said many times, I'm so tired, I'm so tired, it's so late, that this doesn't, this ordinance that we're dealing with now doesn't seem like it has to be pushed through tonight. I think that really should take some time. I understand it's been going on for years, but there have been changes in it. And to not be able to use some surveillance cameras or have them there, I feel it's really against public safety. I agree with with Councilor Scarpelli, the cameras got a murderer. If something's, I watch court TV. I'm not talking about your Judge Judy and those things. I'm talking about real court cases live. I watch it like every single day. And so much is solved by surveillance cameras. Now, I don't want someone watching me like, you know, walking down the street, talking to myself or whatever, but it's very important to have these things and to say we have this, but we can't use it in a criminal case is, I'm afraid for my safety. It has nothing to do with, um, dignity or things like that. It's just, it's common sense. I just don't get it how we're pushing through all these things, quick, quick, quick, quick. Is there any public input into your decisions? I just, I feel like it's almost none now. I mean, I've been in residence for Medford my whole life. Again, my family.
[Bears]: Yeah, I know, but you're not the only one.
[Vardabedian]: You're not the only one. I mean, I don't, I just feel it's just, I don't know. It's just very disturbing to me to hear this. And again, maybe the previous ordinance you wanted to get through, but this one, I don't think it needs to be pushed through tonight. It can be postponed till the next meeting. Give people a chance to talk and see what they think about it. And I have to just say this too. I like living in this part of the country because of diversity of everything, whether it's religion or ethnicity, language, I love it. I could never live in what my term is, a white bread place. I want all this diversity, but to have someone come in and speak their opinion about religion and politics, our country is founded on a separation of church and state, and it should remain that way. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Paulette, I hope I can allay some of your concerns just to say this does not ban surveillance cameras, does not ban the police from asking private businesses that have surveillance cameras to provide that information to them. It does not ban the city from having surveillance cameras for a number of purposes. And this ordinance is an amendment to an ordinance that already exists and has existed for over a year and has not impacted criminal enforcement and cases in the city. So I hope that allays some of the fears that you just raised. for, you know, when information goes out there, sometimes it can be interpreted in different ways. I just want to tell you all of these two paragraphs are amending is about the city being able to go and buy everybody's data from Amazon and then use that for some purpose other than, you know, I don't even know what purpose, but essentially going to a company and buying everything that the Internet knows about you. and then using that to try to control your life. That's what this is about tonight. Okay. It's not about surveillance cameras. If you read the existing surveillance ordinance that's in place, it exempts CCTV cameras that protect public property. It doesn't mean that private businesses can't have their surveillance cameras like the hostile in the case recently that the mask down.
[Vardabedian]: Right.
[Bears]: It doesn't do anything like that. So that's not what this does. I don't want you to be afraid. This ordinance is about the government and its access to information about its residents and not abusing residents by buying information in bulk to try to use that for some purpose. Who knows what purpose they might use it for.
[Vardabedian]: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.
[Bears]: Thank you. Stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Meyer]: Hi, Anna Meyer, 6 Douglas Road. I just wanted to share briefly that I think that taking a stance to close any gaps on the COPS ordinance actually does a lot to reinforce Medford's stance as a welcoming city as we just passed. And I think it's really important to do this in response to some of the actions of the Boston City Council last week that just passed millions of dollars that will go to the Boston Regional Intelligence Center that will affect so many of our neighboring communities, including like Everett and Cambridge and Somerville that actually does a lot to like increase its funding of surveillance, which can then be sent to immigration enforcement, including ICE. I don't know that's not specifically what we're discussing, but I just really appreciate that Medford is taking so seriously the use of surveillance data to protect its citizens from that. And so just thank you for introducing us tonight.
[Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Eckert Lee]: Josh Eckert-Lee, 347 Main Street. I want to echo Anna and Barry's words. I am grateful for this update, Vice President Collins. I thank you for your work and your words. As an immigrant and a naturalized citizen, I'm grateful for your vote also earlier this evening and want to say as a municipal employee, I know how limited our cybersecurity training is as public employees, and our ability to be a vector for getting this private security sort of data out to hackers by being a kind of weak point is super real. So minimizing that risk is super important, and I'm grateful for the closing of that loophole. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the public? Seeing none, is there any further discussion by members of the Council? On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to approve these amendments to the CCOPS ordinance for first reading. Mr. Clerk, please. As amended. As amended. Please call the roll, Mr. Clerk.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. No. Councilor Tseng. President Bears.
[Bears]: Absolutely. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative, the motion passes. So that brings us, I believe, a reversion to the regular order of business. There's two items left. We have whatever is left of the regular order of business, I guess I could say. We have mine, which I can't find right now. And I'm going to turn this over to Councilor Collins to read and control. If you could leave your copy down there, you can use my copy up here.
[Collins]: All right, paper 24513 offered by President Barrett's resolution to request changes to propose Tufts Dormitory Project. Whereas Tufts University has proposed a new dormitory project at 401 Boston Ave, and whereas the City Council strongly supports legislative efforts to pass fairer state laws to encourage collaboration and partnership between large nonprofit institutions like Tufts and municipalities like Medford, and whereas the City Council also strongly supports the goal and intent of providing significant additional on-campus housing by Tufts, and whereas the City Council thanks area residents for voicing their concerns and attempting to have more robust and collaborative public input on the Tufts dormitory proposal, and whereas the City Council does not have a decision-making role regarding this project, Now therefore be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we request that Tufts University use an alternative site plan or add another site to the project to reduce height and impact of shadows on the surrounding neighborhood while also increasing the tree canopy and adding additional streetscape improvements to their project. be it further resolved that we request that Tufts University drop opposition to and or state their support for state legislation to implement the Institutional Master Plan Home Rule petitions proposed for nearly a decade by the cities of Medford and Somerville and state legislation to create a mandatory pilot payment in lieu of taxes law for large educational and medical nonprofit institutions. Be it further resolved that we thank the Community Development Board and our city staff team for their work as this proposal moves through the public process. President Barras.
[Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins, for your presentation. I think it really speaks to all of the issues, or at least some of the issues around 401 Boston Avenue. I do know we have a number of residents still on Zoom who wanted to speak to this. I just want to note that tomorrow night is the Community Development Board. The Community Development Board is the authority that is reviewing this application. And I just wanted to also note a couple of things here. To me, I am grateful that Tufts is taking on this responsibility to add housing on its campus. That is something that this community has wanted Tufts to do for a long time. But every project that Tufts does falls under a greater scope of the balance of power between municipalities and large educational nonprofits. That is way out of whack when it comes to our state laws. When it comes to our state laws around site plan, Dover amendment, and what these institutions have to do to collaborate with municipalities and their neighbors. When it comes to the pilot legislation, payments in lieu of taxes and the, you know, five years ago we analyzed the Tufts on its non-taxable property would be paying $8 million. and it is paying $500,000. It's a huge loss for us when it comes to the city services that we need to provide, and the city services that institutions like that consume, both on campus and off campus. So this really does fit into this larger question, which is why a big piece of this resolution is about the state legislation that this body has supported. both the home rule petitions around institutional master plans that we have submitted along with our neighbors in Somerville to ask Tufts and require Tufts to provide a master plan for their growth and development so that we can be aware of that and inform our community about that, as well as the pilot legislation to require a 25% pilot versus the completely voluntary system we have now. One reason I bring up the institutional master plan is that around this Tufts proposal, you know, couple of years ago we had Tufts initially doing the storm proposal at around seven stories and 400 beds. It's now 10 stories and 700 beds and I am actually a fan of more beds I think Tufts taking on more responsibility for on campus housing is a good thing. But I can understand how residents feel that the maybe the scope of the site plan and the height of the building and the shadows are a major issue, or even residents who just feel that the process itself, where it was seven stories now it's 10 stories, how do we get there. And what what's the city's role in trying to mitigate and mediate and collaborate and negotiate in that process. City doesn't really seem to have much leverage. So I really just respect the residents in the area who have advocated for changes to this project. I want to put ourselves on record as supporting those efforts. I also did speak to the mayor earlier today about this issue. She and noted that she had sent a letter and that she supports our efforts and advocacy around this issue, but also that she has had some good conversations with Tufts and is hopeful for an outcome that has more mitigation, more community benefits than the initial Tufts proposal of three or four months ago. That process is ongoing in the Community Development Board. I also spoke with Rocco DiRico from Tufts, and I do have want to just read an email that he sent over. This is to the Honorable President, Zach Bears, Medford City Council regarding Resolution 24-513 to request changes to the proposed Tufts Dormitory project. Dear President Bears, I ask that the following statement be read at tonight's City Council meeting. Tufts University is proposing a new residence hall to be operated by Capstone Management on Boston Avenue. The proposed project is part of an ongoing effort that meets many of the city's and the university's shared goals. More on campus housing, mixed use development, density near public transit, and an energy efficient building design that meets the city's specialized stretch energy code. The university has spent the last four months meeting with neighbors, government officials, the Community Development Board, and other stakeholders. As a result of those meetings, we have added several community benefits to the project. Those improvements include new sidewalks on both sides of Boston Avenue, new crosswalks, new trees, new retail options, and a blue bike station. All these improvements will make Boston Avenue greener, more walkable, and more accessible. Tufts University has hosted three community meetings on this project. At these meetings, we listened to our neighbors, acknowledged their concerns, and acted upon feedback. The university has also agreed to a $500,000 one-time payment to create a neighborhood improvement fund for the neighborhood impacted by the project. We look forward to working with the neighbors and the city to determine the best way to utilize these funds. Thank you for the city's partnership with Tufts University on this project and many other initiatives. The university remains committed to building more housing, revitalizing Boston Avenue, and improving accessibility. This project will have a positive impact on the city and the university. Sincerely, Rocco DiRico, Executive Director of Government and Community Relations, Tufts University. So I wanted to read that to note. That is the position of Tufts University. And Rocco and I have disagreed on many issues over the years, and we are able to have amicable discussions based on the positions that we both hold. And I just say that because, again, commenting on civil discourse, I think, and what that means and how the truth plays a part in it. And I also just want to say I have some honest disagreements. with Rocco, especially when it comes to what is the responsibility of these large educational nonprofit institutions to the municipalities, the cities, and the towns that they call home. And I don't think state law reflects what the best arrangement of that should look like. And I think until we have changes there and until Tufts and cities like Benford are able to work together as partners to rebalance that relationship, it's going to poison processes, community processes around construction, around pilot, around expansion, around what these institutions mean to the communities that they call home. And I think that's what's happened here. I think there's a lot of good that can come out of this project. I think there's some things that could change, and I would hope would change, and there's some things that maybe just can't change, and that's going to be really difficult to deal with. I know that a lot of folks don't feel heard in the process, even, even with everything that Rocco said, people don't feel heard and people feel like Tufts just has so much power that it feels like a bully institution. And that's really difficult. And I don't think Tufts wants to be seen as that I don't think they want to act like that. And I think because, sadly, everyone in our society seems married to the idea that we just have to do whatever the law requires and nothing more, because the law is so imbalanced in Tufts' favor, they may not even realize how they're appearing and presenting to the community. So I really hope we can see some systemic change here. I think this project is sitting in that larger context. But I do hope that our Community Development Board can work to get to a project approval that also reflects as much mitigation as possible. And that in some ways, this resolution enhances the negotiating position of the city to secure additional community benefits. Thank you.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Barris. I'll go next to Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Tseng]: I'll be so brief because I think President Baird has captured a lot of what I think very well. I think two things can be true. There's a lot of, there are good things about this project, adding beds is something that our city has set as a goal. And I know a lot of Councilors ran on and that's something that will alleviate housing costs and address much, much of the problems in the hillside. I mean, the things that energy efficiency is good and all of that to mixed use development is good. I think the other thing can be true too, that there are real concerns about shade about the for-profit management company that's going to come in, what that means for the students who are going to live there, their rights, and the accountability process there. There's the process concerns that Councilor Bears mentioned, and the need for trust and social trust in a big institution like that, that many of us call neighbors. And that means to patch up that trust and to work on that trust means doing things that you don't have to do not do more than the bare minimum and doing being a good neighbor. And I think that's the definition of being a good neighbor. So engaging with community, addressing resident concerns and all of that. Look, we don't have a lot, a lot of tools as a city. And there isn't, as Councilor, as President Barrett said, there's a power imbalance here. And I think that's something that we all need to get innovative about. But I think that's something that this council has been intent on with the many steps that President Perez lays out in this resolution. I think our residents deserve to be heard by a big institution. They deserve to feel like they were heard and were engaged in the process.
[Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Sheng. Councilor Scarpelli. Oh, wait, sorry. I did your mic wrong.
[Scarpelli]: I too talked to Rocco DiRico. First, I think we're very fortunate both between Barbara and Rocco and having liaisons from Tufts University that pick up the phone the minute we call them. So I think that's a huge benefit. But I truly believe what our neighbors are saying when you talk about, you know, these different corridors and you look at you know, 12 stories, and how frightening that is, and Tufts even conceding to 10 stories. And I've seen all the concessions that Tufts made, and I've been fortunate enough to be involved with a mayor that was directly involved with Tufts University. And he allowed me to watch him be a partner, but make sure that his community was present and getting the best with that community needed. And what's frightening to me is what we see, and I'm gonna be critical and I could care less if anybody cares or not. It's 1215, so who cares? But when we are talking about this mayor and the process that's been happening since August, and all of a sudden she comes out now, well, she should have been present from the beginning when you talk about our neighbors. and their impact of the quality of life. You're seeing it all over the community, by the way. That's why the community is now focused on creating groups and paying attorneys and fighting because they don't believe that this administration can fight for their rights and their beliefs. So, um, I too disagree with the size of this dormitory. I appreciate the fact that everybody is focused on housing and how important it is, but I truly don't think it's going to impact the housing like people think. I have two kids in college, and the first thing they wanted to do is get out of a dorm. I wish that it's gonna open up some housing around that area. I just don't see it happening, but I also see the impact that this is gonna make for residents. So, but again, I did see and had discussions with Mr. DeRico and understanding the information that was put out there. and how many people they touched to make sure that everybody knew about it. One thing you knew in that neighborhood, people knew that Tufts was putting forth this development. And people were talking about it, but it seemed like nobody was listening until the 12th hour. Now all of a sudden, we're scrambling. Because I think the truth of the matter is, if you talk to Tufts University and you said, as much as we love our environmental plan, Maybe some concessions would have been made to alleviate some of those big ticket items that could have supported maybe dropping it down to eight stories. And it wouldn't affected a quarter of the shading for the neighbors. But there were no discussions. We're coming in right now and hoping that people do the right thing. So again, when it comes time, I think this community should really wake up and understand what has this administration done in the last five and a half years? And are you willing to give these people another two years? Because it's not working. That office is not working for this community. Thank you.
[Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. We're going to go next to seeing no further comment from City Councilors. We're going to go next to public participation. Seeing nobody at the podium, we'll go first to Zoom. Every speaker will have three minutes. We'll go in order that I see you in. Jeremy Martin, please state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes.
[Martin]: Good evening, everyone. My name is Jeremy Martin. I live at 65 Burgett Ave. I also serve as a Medford Conservation Commissioner. Thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight in your consideration of this resolution. It's late, and I'll try to speak quickly, even though that's not my usual style. I appreciate the support of City Council President Bears in proposing this resolution. I also want to thank Director Alicia Hunt, her staff, and the Community Development Board for all of the really difficult work that they do to review complex projects like Tufts' proposed high-rise residential building on Boston Avenue. And to the Mayor's credit, she has met with the community members and has written a letter on our behalf, and we appreciate that as well. In my professional life, I've worked on many large development projects, often on university campuses, and I have never experienced a community engagement process that has been as disingenuous and disappointing as what we've experienced on this project. I want to be clear, the only reason that this neighborhood knows about this project is because we, the neighbors, have socialized it. We've gotten the word out. You should see the map that shows the distribution of CDB hearing announcements. It's pathetic. It goes all the way to Main Street, and it excludes my house, which is literally in the shadow of this building. So first and foremost, the process has to change. It has to be better. And that can start in a lot of places. I appreciate that there's an opportunity to speak about it. tonight. Tufts continues to say that they respect their neighbors and care about the community's concerns, but this is a misrepresentation. We have made repeated calls to make changes to this building design and not a single thing about the building design has changed. What has changed is the addition of street trees to the plan only after neighbors called for those trees, not on Tufts' behalf. They did it because we put pressure on them to do it. And that should be a baseline criteria for a project of this scale. In 2024, are we really having to fight for street trees and for better sidewalks? That's ridiculous. Hopefully, you've seen and read the numerous letters from residents, including the letter that garnered over 50 signatures in opposition specifically to the height of the proposed building. We have continually stated our support for development on this site and our support for increasing student housing on campus. We would all agree, and we do agree, that improving housing availability and affordability in our city is a critical goal. But as Councilors have said tonight, that's not guaranteed, that's not promised, especially if Tufts doesn't change their policy about housing juniors and seniors on campus. It's wishful thinking. We also see a pattern of Tufts buying residential and commercial properties in our neighborhood. What happens when more rental units can't be rented and become available for sale? What's gonna happen then? However, the direct impacts of this massive and out-of-scale building are real and tangible. Blocked sun exposure for multiple months out of the year, increased nighttime light and noise pollution, and the exacerbation of safety issues on this already underperforming street. These will be lifelong impacts to residents' finances, property values, health, safety, and privacy, and a $500,000 payoff is not going to solve them.
[Collins]: Thank you, Jeremy. We appreciate your comments today.
[Martin]: After all of that, you'll cut me off now, okay.
[Collins]: Well, I would encourage you to vote yes. You can finish your sentence. It sounded like you were at the end.
[Martin]: No, I'll just say that until they come to the table with real options, real improvements, we need the city to continue to support us using every tool possible. This resolution is a great way of doing that, and I ask that you vote yes without delay. Thanks.
[Collins]: We'll go next to James on Zoom. Name and address for the record. I'm gonna also have three minutes. Go for it.
[Encolada]: Thank you. My name is James Encolada. I live at 135 Brigette Ave. A lot of what I wanna say really has already been said, but there are some other things I wanted to add to it as well. I'm almost insulted when I hear Tufts University, especially at last night's meeting, that this building will be a benefit to the community. I wanna say, I wanted to tell you what some of the benefits that I'm going to get from this building as well as my neighbors. First of all is that this building is gonna block the sun for probably over, for about 60 homes in the neighborhood for two to three hours a day, every day for the rest of our lives. Some of us with solar panels and things like that, they're gonna be losing energy. A Tufts representative last night said to, I believe it was Jeremy last night at the meeting, oh, well, it's only gonna block the sun for a couple of hours a day. It's not that big of a deal. Well, to Jeremy, it is a big deal. And to everyone else who has solar panels, that is a big deal. And it's frustrating when you're met with that brick wall of a response. and we don't feel like we're hurting. The next thing I'm gonna bring up is what I call an invasion of privacy. For the rest of my life, I'm gonna go out into my backyard and look up and see 600 students staring down into my property. I'm sure this building is gonna have cameras all over it, surveillance cameras. Every building built now is gonna And so now I'm under 24 hours surveillance, both by students and cameras. Who wants to live like that? That's not a good quality of life for your neighbors. The next thing I'm gonna say is the light pollution. They're stealing the sun from us during the day, and then they're gonna be blasting us with electronic light at night. When does it stop? And of course, now the neighborhood has to sit through another two years of construction. I bought my house in 2015, and the construction hasn't stopped since. From all the Tufts buildings all around us, from the Cummings Center, to the power plant, to the fitness center, to Halligan Hall, it doesn't stop. We are living in a permanent construction zone. At least that's the way I feel.
[Collins]: You got 20 seconds, James.
[Encolada]: Very frustrating. And I'm going to say that the last thing I'm going to say is don't be fooled by Tufts. They're not, the rental, taking students out of the rental population is not really going to change anything. They're just going to increase their student population in the years to come. And we're going to be right back to where we started, except we're going to have to live in the shadow of this building, literally for the rest of our lives. Thank you.
[Collins]: Thank you for your comments, James. We'll go next to Laurel name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Ruma]: Thanks, everyone. Laurel Ruma 149 Burgett Avenue. So let me just clear up some misunderstanding the city councilors have. This isn't the 12th hour. This is the 90th day this plan has been submitted. We found out about this plan September 28th and have been moving every single day, going to meetings, writing letters, like non-stop. This is not the 12th hour. This is Tufts spending 90 days to push this through. And in 90 days, they're gonna break ground. What business in this city has ever been able to build two 10-story buildings in 90 days? It's absurd. Tufts does not feel like a bully. Tufts is a bully. I'm Cassandra here telling you, for all these years, with the Green Line extension, If you want value-engineered architecture, which is what we have at the bottom of this hill, because we are the back end of Tufts campus, that part of campus Tufts does not care about, this is what we have. We have a cogeneration plant, we have the parking garage, and now we'll have the two dorm buildings dumping out. We already have a 10-story building at Cummings Building. We are one of the seven houses that are in shadow because of the building. And guess what? At the end of Burgett, because the shadows affect from Charnwood to Burgett, Brookings, Hume, Sunset, 67 houses. We get shadows from those two 10-story buildings, which I refuse to call dorms because they're apartment buildings, rented at market rates for 12-month leases to a company that is not a non-profit, right? Their partner is a for-profit company. So what we're talking about here is Tufts has offered zero concessions, zero. As Jeremy said, street trees don't count because they have to get approval from the MBTA. Try doing that. Listen, some of you may remember I spent 12 years working with the MBTA just to get the green light here. There's no street trees. They took all the trees intentionally, right? This is not the bare minimum. This is how bad it is. We're not exaggerating the seriousness of the situation. The city has opportunities. The city can work. to our benefit, it just takes a lot of energy and money for the city to do that. And I understand why the city would not want to do that, but I have to tell you, zero concessions, zero. The $500,000 fund they're proposing does not exist. And how are they possibly going to distribute $500,000 to residents? That's completely unfair. Anyway, it's just, I would please read our letters. Like we are not hysterical here. This is another bad deal. Three 10-story buildings on one block. It's not fair to everyone.
[Collins]: Thank you so much for your comments. We're going to go next to Lori on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Krieger]: Hi there. I'm Lori Krieger, 124 Brookings Street. I get to go to bed to that building that exists there now with all the lights on. Thank you for doing this. Thank you, Zach and everyone for being here. Everyone that's spoken so far has just told the truth, and we really need your help. Each time we've met, Tufts presents the same structure without mitigation of any kind. Our biggest concern as a neighborhood is the bulk and height of the building is out of scale with any other buildings on the campus or in the immediate area to an extreme level. While Tufts has a significant amount of property upon which they could build multiple dorms that would accommodate the same number of students and retain the character of the neighborhood, Tufts is choosing to act as a bully without regard or concern to the negative impact they would inflict on its neighbors. They have grown so attached to this project they refuse to come to the table to negotiate or provide mitigation of any kind. Rather than being a pillar of the community, Tufts is choosing to assault the community with its will valuing only itself. The intention of the Dover Amendment was to protect nonprofits from discrimination. Somehow this has become so turned around that Tufts as a nonprofit is using it to discriminate against us and render us impotent to protect our lives and homes. The inversion is cruel and inhumane and it needs to end here. We all want housing for Tufts students on the Tufts campus and we've demonstrated there are many locations on the body of the campus to do that. There is no essential need for Tufts to build 210 story buildings that cause detriment to their neighbors. It's simply that people who work at Tufts refuse to entertain other solutions. The Community Development Board is able to limit the building's bulk and height, and we recommend that they do such. Please let the city protect the citizens from being harmed by callous behavior. It's appropriate to mitigate height, noise, and light related to the proposed buildings. And it's appropriate to keep the height and scale such that we retain the current amount of sun we have all year. Some body needs to take a protective stance toward the people who live here. I'm a butter and will live in the shadow of these buildings should they be allowed to go forward without constraint. We've been meeting with Tufts regularly since they invited the public to be present at their meetings. We've brought up issues regarding heights, loss of sunlight, increased noise, ambient light, et cetera. Tufts hasn't changed the proposal to meet any of the community requests, not any, or our needs. They have demonstrated they do not value us as a community or a partner. They're not acting in good faith with those who would be significantly impacted by these buildings. Thank you for drafting this resolution. We support it. Thank you so much.
[Collins]: Thank you for your comments. Go next to Lisa on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[DiMatteo]: Hi, my name is Lisa DiMatteo. My address is 138 Brookings Street. And to be specific, that's the very end of Brookings Street that faces, well, it used to face a bank, a small bank of forest that is no longer there due to the MBTA project and the removal of all of the trees. So now I face the backside of Tufts campus and Tufts is proposing that I'll now face 300 windows and 700 residents in a brick building that will remove any visible sky from my view. All of the neighbors that have spoken up tonight have said it better than I could possibly say it at 1230 in the morning. We're not hysterical, we're just tired. This has been 90 days of insanity. And I really don't know what else I can add except to say that Underline that Tufts hasn't provided anything that they will have you believe that they are providing. Nothing. And there's no way for any of us who are going to be life alteringly impacted to receive any mitigation, including the rumored mitigation. And that's all it is, is rumors. So whatever this resolution is about, I just really hope that it could act in support of the residents because Tufts expansion into the neighborhood that has a particular character will not stop. It will not stop. Thank you for listening. Thank you so much.
[Collins]: We'll go next to, one second. We'll go next to Janie. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Tallarita]: Thank you. It's Janie Tallarita, 68 Charnwood Road. And I, there's nothing I can add that my friends and neighbors haven't already said, but I wanted to speak in support of this resolution. And so that you all understand how important this is and that the imbalance of power between Tufts and Medford is so significant. I'm one of the lucky ones. My house is just outside the shadow. But as it is, I've had to move bedrooms because of the lights from the existing buildings shining in. I've had to move to where I had some tree cover. I've had to plant trees. That's all fine. Not really. Um, I really just want, I care about this community. I care about my neighbors. I care about this community. And so it's important to me that we don't have two gargantuan 10 story buildings that are so completely out of scale. Um, architecture is really important in a, in a community. It's an, this is, this is the built environment is what we look at, what we exist in, what we see. Love the idea of students being on campus and the vibrancy that they bring to a neighborhood. Love the idea of, you know, ground floor bringing businesses in. We can do it with six stories. We can do it without having to have 10 stories. We can do it, Tufts can do it by utilizing all the other properties that they've bought and left empty, like the hillside hardware. You know, if we want to increase housing, let's get Tufts building and they're using the property that they already have and let us have our sunlight. Let us have our, let us have our community as it should be. So I think that's it. Thanks.
[Collins]: Thank you so much for your comments. I see, Elizabeth, your hand up again. Is this a hand from before, or do you want to speak for an additional minute?
[Bayle]: I didn't mean to put my hand down. I'm sorry. It's Janie still on.
[Collins]: OK, great. I'll give you one additional minute. Go for it. I'm sorry, did you say that you did mean to put your hand down or you'd like to speak again on this topic?
[Bayle]: I haven't spoken on it.
[Collins]: Oh, I'm sorry. It's really late.
[Bayle]: I thought that I clicked my mouse and my hand went down. I didn't mean to put my hand down, but I haven't spoken yet.
[Collins]: My mistake. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three whole minutes.
[Bayle]: Elizabeth Bayle, 34 Emery Street. I wish you all could have been at the Tufts community meeting last night where I think all the people that spoke tonight were and Tufts had invited people to submit questions when they RSVP to the meeting and didn't address any of those to my knowledge. They certainly didn't address mine, so I read it at the meeting. they're not going to change anything. It's clear. It's so obvious. And as far as communication, I think George Scarpelli said that people have known about this project. I did not know about this project, and I live, you know, like a block from it. I'm not a direct-to-butter, but I care about the I've lived here since 1987, and we were very active on trying to get the green line here. And I care about Medford hillside and the feel of the place. And this is just, you know, plopping a high rise down in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Tufts doesn't want this building in their interior of their campus where they could put it. They've got all those temporary buildings where the tennis courts used to be along Professor's Row. They've got space on Packard Ave and Talbot Ave where they could put dorms. They could put multiple buildings. They don't want a high-rise sticking in the middle of their campus. They're putting it where they don't really have to see it. And they've just been building up this area with the Cummings Center and whatever that building is that has all the utilities and stuff, and buying residences around here and transforming them into university properties, like the building that used to be an artist building. and multiple other, that wasn't a residence obviously, but a lot of the residences, it just takes them off the tax rolls. And I found out about this on October 28th. I didn't even know about the September meeting. And I do try to stay, I get the Tufts newsletter and do try to stay up on what they're doing, but there's no time. There's no time that we've had to understand or make changes in this. I think six stories is even too big for this area. If you look at the sphere, that building on the way to Ball Square on Boston Ave, that's a sort of transit-oriented development, which there isn't much space for around because Tufts owns all of the property. So we can't have real retail or things that would contribute to the community.
[Collins]: I'm going to give you just another moment to finish your thought. Apologies.
[Bayle]: Yeah, I guess I just thank you for doing the resolution and I hope you pass it because we need all the help we can get. We're not getting anywhere and it's going to be a permanent blight on the neighborhood. Thank you.
[Collins]: Thank you so much for your comments. Seeing no additional public comment on zoom or in the chambers. Is there any additional comment by city councilors? I would just say for myself as one Councilor, I am a staunch proponent of Tufts working to take more responsibility for housing the students that it enrolls. And I very much resent this process, which has led so many neighbors and abutters feeling so left out and unconsidered in this process. I think we're all aware that Tufts is a very large, very wealthy institution, and there are many ways to solve this problem of needing to house more students on campus. On the motion of President Bears, seconded by Councilor Callahan, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: President Bears. Councilor Callahan. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Yes. Seven in favor, none opposed. The resolution passes. Thank you so much to all the constituents who wait on us.
[Bears]: You know, it's funny, the name bears derives from Pierce, and this picks it up as Pierce, which is so interesting. We should talk about that for 15 minutes, I think. All right, last item on the agenda, legally required referral. This is our proposed amendments to the Benford Zoning Ordinance, Salem Street Corridor District for referral to the Community Development Board. Is there a motion to first we need a motion to waive the reading for a brief summary. So moved on that motion by Councilor Collins seconded by Councilor let me Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes. I have a negative motion passes. So this is the proposed Salem Street Corridor Zoning District. This is the product of several meetings of the Planning and Permitting Committee. The memorandum contains the draft text for the following proposed zoning changes. to amend 94 dash 2.1 division into districts to amend 94 dash 3.2 table of use regulations and dimensional standards to end table. of dimensional requirements to amend the definitions and to insert the section 94-9X Salem Street Corridor District. And so that is the summary of this. There's obviously much more detail here in this document of proposed zoning changes. But what I'm going to do for now is I'm just going to outline the process here. So, um, two years ago, uh, the city released a comprehensive plan that comprehensive plan includes a number of recommendations around updates to the city zoning. Uh, last year, the city council received funding and issued an RFP for proposals for zoning consultant. We were able to choose the proposal of Innis associates, which is a group that has a lot of done a lot of great work. They are, um, the proponent primary writers of the regulations for the MBTA Communities Act and also we're our consultant on the comprehensive plan. So they have intimate knowledge of the city's comprehensive plan and its zoning requirements. Since then, the planning and permitting committee has held 16 or 17 meetings this year with Innis Associates regarding a zoning updates project. It's reported out a number of items including this, the Salem Street Corridor District. At this point, this is a vote to refer to the Community Development Board this initial proposal. From this point forward, there will be two public hearings. Community Development Board will open a public hearing, followed by the City Council opening a public hearing, which people can be heard. Community Development Board will review this and make recommendations to the City Council, and the City Council will then consider this, consider those recommendations, consider any other amendments, and then take a final vote on whether to amend the city's zoning ordinance. Similarly, earlier tonight if folks are paying attention or were attending this meeting earlier. We approved the Mystic Avenue corridor district, which followed the same process, and this amendment and other amendments will also have several public meetings, generally at least two of the council before the public hearings, followed by at least two public hearings, and sometimes those public hearings occur over multiple meetings as well. So this proposal will go to the Community Development Board for a public hearing in the new year. Recognizing Councilor Collins and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I want to restate the timeline that you just laid out. Very grateful to city staff, residents, and our zoning consultant that joined us for our two recent meetings on the draft zoning proposal for the Salem Street Corridor District in the Planning and Permitting Committee. And this is really just a midway point in the process. We'll go to the Community Development Board for public hearings. They will promulgate recommendations. We will hear those before the City Council again before we take a vote. So I have a motion to refer this to the Community Development Board. Sorry, motion to refer this to the Community Development Board.
[Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to refer to the Community Development Board, seconded by Councilor Tseng, I will recognize Councilor Skarpuk.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, as we start this process, you know, we're now seeing that we're now delving into more residential neighborhoods. So my request and recommendation would be to hold our next public meeting at the Roberts Elementary School, where it could be a process for all the people that feel that they haven't been heard, or they feel that they haven't been able to come to these meetings, that we put this meeting into their backyard as requested back when we wrote the RFP. Again, I know we've been trying our best to be more transparent and give more people an opportunity to share and be part of the process, but I would truly recommend as a motion that we ask to move one of the final meetings to the neighborhood directly so we can hear from the neighbors in their backyard. So I would make that as a form of motion if I can.
[Bears]: Is that a B paper?
[Scarpelli]: If I can.
[Bears]: Sure. That's a B paper from Councilor Scarpelli to hold a regular meeting or sorry, what meeting?
[Scarpelli]: Whichever, I know that we have, when is that next? Right after CD, if we can, after that, if we can come back and get some input from the neighbors that we can present that the CB, their ideas and their input, and then really get the neighbors' involvement and at least be part of that final solution and the changes that are gonna be made there.
[Bears]: Yeah, sorry, what? i guess the public hearing of the council after the community development board that'd be great i will have to check to see if that's possible with the tv station and hybrid meetings any further comment on the resolution or the b paper i'll go to councillor callahan
[Callahan]: Yeah, I would simply request that we do the same thing we did for the last thing, which is just remove strike table abuse regulations line eight.
[Bears]: Yeah, this is just for referral to Community Development Board. If we want to include as an amendment that there's a recommendation to strike A8. All right. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Oh, sorry, my mic was on before. But just want to note, I support the intent of the B paper. I'm not sure if logistically it'll be possible to have a CDB meeting or a city council regular meeting at the Roberts School, but I think it's in the spirit of making sure that we're continuing to improve our efforts of involving local abutters and neighbors in the process. So if that results in a meeting at the Roberts, we're just continuing to try to do a better and better job each time and inviting the neighbors. I'm more than happy to do that.
[Bears]: Thank you, and I would just note that we're 2,500 feet from the Roberts School right now in this chamber. And I would just also note that the proposal that we accepted didn't include the number of meetings that we're talking about here. So I'll see what we can do around the logistics of it. But Councilor Lazzaro?
[Lazzaro]: I think that would have been a great idea for one of the many planning and permitting committee meetings that we've had already. But I mean, well, it was never a motion. It was never proposed as a motion.
[Bears]: All right, guys, like, let's just close it up here. Literally the proposal that we accepted.
[Lazzaro]: The Community Development Board is not this body.
[Bears]: If I could, thank you. The proposal that we accepted regarding the zoning consultant did not include the meetings that have been discussed. Even though they were in the request for proposal, the proposal that this council, not even this council, the previous council voted to accept, it's just in the proposal. You can't disagree with the document. It's not possible. I went back and read the document. Yes, I did. What do you mean I didn't? What are you talking about? Good Lord. Go. It's just like, if there's no commitment to the truth, I have a duty as the chair to ensure that the members of this body have accurate factual information. It's a fundamental duty of this role. And I will not abrogate it. Public participation. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Rodriguez]: Are you ready?
[Bears]: You have three minutes.
[Rodriguez]: Hi, Cheryl Rodriguez, 281 Park Street. I'm pretty much a direct abutter to this. There were a lot of neighbors that were here and left. This meeting started yesterday, five hours and 46 minutes ago, and they couldn't stay any longer. I really don't think this should be voted to go forward today without their input. Because much like you, the last resolution where you say Tufts is bullying the city, many residents in that neighborhood feel that this committee, the planning committee, is bullying us. This zoning is a 70% reduction in the lot size needed to build an apartment building on Salem Street and the side streets. Somerville is the densest city in our nation with a population density of 19,656.8 people per square mile. That translates to 30.7 people per acre. A side street zoning off of Salem Street that was proposed by your committee will have 87 families per acre. That's the side street. Even a family of two would make the minimum you are proposing six times the density that exists in Somerville, the nation's densest city. The Salem Street zoning of six floors on a 3,000 square foot lot would be 174 families per acre. if we guess at 12 units per building, and 12 times what Somerville has. The MBCA Communities Act that many cities are suing to avoid complying with is only 15 units per acre. The minimum zoning on side streets is six times that much. and about 12 times in the six-story zoning. All these buildings are proposed on lots too small for a single family home to be built on. Don't laugh as you live in West Medford with 6,000 square feet to build a single, and my neighborhood is going to have dozens of units. Please direct her not to make faces at me.
[Bears]: Please be an adult.
[Rodriguez]: The lots are so small that most of these lots will add zero affordable units. 10% of six units is zero. Zero units. It's not a full unit. These will all be luxury priced units. The zoning also allows by special permit pot shops. With all this dense residential housing, you have allowed pot shops on this street. Car ownership in Massachusetts is at 87.9%. In Medford specifically, the average car ownership is two cars per household. We are not near rapid transit. We only have one low-frequency bus that takes you to the T. They will own cars. Reducing or removing parking will lead to hundreds of cars on the street looking for parking. These lots are too small for large amounts of parking. 23.6% of households have school age children. We can't support that amount of children added to our schools. This neighborhood can't handle all the density. This is gross negligence and shows a complete lack of care for quality of life for current and future residents in this area. And a lack of understanding of the fact that residential is a negative return for a municipality And if this goes through, we cannot financially support the density you are proposing.
[Bears]: Thank you. That's three minutes.
[Rodriguez]: One more sentence, please. Sure.
[Bears]: Go ahead.
[Rodriguez]: There is no commercial percentage requirements to help make this zoning self-sufficient and is far too dense. Please don't push this forward without the community having a chance to survive. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Vardabedian]: I'm Paulette Vardabedi, 27th Central Lab. I just want to reiterate something that I brought up two or three meetings ago, that this Salem Street corridor is already a huge traffic jam. From Felsway all the way on to the Rotary, it's a traffic jam. I asked, have there been a traffic study done to see if Salem Street can accommodate these extra cars that are 100% going to be adding to both Salem Street and the Felsway. And the response at that time was, oh, they're not going to be a problem because we're on a bus line. They're either going to ride the bus or take their bikes. That is idealism in the utmost. It's not going to happen. There's going to be more cars. My other question at that time, again, two or three meetings ago was, I believe at that meeting, we talked about the three schools in Medford that are already overcapacity. Roberts Junior High, Roberts, whatever it is now, is one of those three overcapacity schools. These students that are going to be in these houses, I mean, they're not going to just be one bedroom that you're going to exclude kids. Where are you going to put these kids if Roberts is already over capacity? So the traffic and the children need to be addressed. if you're going to increase the housing on this stretch. And the other thing as a personal level that I brought up last time is my street, Central Ave, which is parallel one block in from Salem Street, is already affected by cars using it as a cut-through street. So this increased traffic is going to also increase the traffic on Central Avenue, which is a family, a lot of kids, going to change the whole dynamics. So I'm not opposed to having apartments or redeveloping this section. It's old. It needs to be brought up. But it can't just be the spoke of the wheel. The spoke of the wheel could be a great, great idea. But you have to look at the hub of the wheel. The hub of the wheel could be great. But you have to look at what the spokes are doing as well to see what they're impacting. You could have a great idea, but if it doesn't have good impact, it's not a great idea. So just I'm asking you to look into the traffic study, look into the schooling and also the dynamics that this is going to affect the neighboring streets. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further public comment? Seeing none, is there any further discussion on this referral to the Community Development Board? We do have one more public comment on Zoom. I will go to Zoom. Mr. Castagnetti, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please. Trying to unmute you, but we're only, there you go. All right, thank you, please. Yes, we can hear you, please.
[Castagnetti]: Thank you. Andrew Castagnetti, Cushman Street, Method Mass. Just wanted to ask you, where do we stand with my donation to the city about hanging the Christmas lights from the footbridge on Mystic River? Do you know where we stand with that? Was the check accepted?
[Bears]: The donation was accepted. We did accept it. I'm not sure what the next steps are from the administration in terms of lights. If any member of the council would like to volunteer to follow up on that. If not, I will see if I can get a follow-up from the administration and I could try to email it to you, Andy.
[Castagnetti]: I appreciate it. If you can just get the answer because I'm hoping it would be hanging there from the memory of Larry Lepore. our messenger and also before Christmas will be sweet, you know. So anyways, I want to wish you all good holidays and a Merry Christmas, if the shoe fits, and a happy, healthy new year for everyone. Thank you. Good night.
[Bears]: Thank you. And Councilor Lazzaro is going to follow up on that. Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Bears]: James D, I'm just gonna have to ask you to change your last name so I can see it before I recognize you. All right, I'm gonna recognize James, Darren. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Well, that's about how this meeting's gone. I think probably not, but there is public participation. Is there any further public participation? On the motion of the B paper of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: This is the B paper. No. No. Did you vote yes? 4 in the affirmative, 3 in the negative.
[Bears]: Motion passes.
[Hurtubise]: On the main paper, this court please call the roll.
[Bears]: On the main paper by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Sagan to refer to the Community Development Board.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Levin.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, 60 affirmative, 1 negative. This is referred to the Community Development Board. Public participation. We'll take public participation. Is there anyone who'd like to speak in public participation? Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Rodriguez]: Cheryl Rodriguez, 281 Park Street. I just want to say that it's disgusting that you just passed that. You should be considering the neighborhood. You don't care about the neighborhood. You don't care about what your density is going to bring. You think it's funny. You're giggling at people that stay here till one in the morning, and it's not nice. It's disgusting. You're going to destroy the neighborhood, and you don't even care because you don't live there.
[Bears]: Thank you for your comments. Any further comments under public participation? Seeing none, on the motion to adjourn by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming.
[Darren]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: No motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
|
total time: 88.22 minutes total words: 14466  |
total time: 42.78 minutes total words: 7060  |
total time: 18.29 minutes total words: 2849  |
total time: 29.78 minutes total words: 5383  |
|
total time: 10.68 minutes total words: 1407  |
total time: 3.57 minutes total words: 603  |
total time: 13.42 minutes total words: 2302  |
|