[Bears]: I'm turning on the microphones, guys. Oh, I can't do them all at once. We did get a request that people try to speak into their microphones during roll call votes. So for that purpose, we will have the microphones available to everybody for at least the first roll call. Second regular meeting Medford City Council January 28 2025 Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Collins, present Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming, present Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President Bears, present.
[Bears]: Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. The records of the meeting of January 14th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Callahan. Councilor Callahan, how did you find those records?
[Callahan]: Oh, I found them in order pending, tiny, tiny corrections that I sent to the clerk.
[Bears]: All right, and you received that? Got it. Great.
[Hurtubise]: I got it, I made them already.
[Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Callahan to approve the records as amended, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committees. 24510 offered by Council President Bears. This was on the school's HVAC Committee of the Whole. We voted on the loan order at the regular meeting following that. Is there a motion to approve? On the motion to approve by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-033 offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permanent Committee, January 15th, 2025. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears this was a meeting of the planning and permitting committee to have our first look at the neighborhood residential topic it will be continued at our next planning and permitting committee meeting which is tomorrow and for future meeting dates after that motion to approve on the motion of Vice President Collins to approve seconded by Councilor Callahan all those in favor.
[Bears]: Opposed motion passes to 5014. Offered by President Bears, Committee of the Whole, January 21st, 2025. This was our review of the CPC recommendations, Community Preservation Committee recommendations, which are on the agenda for tonight. Is there a motion to approve? On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24492 and 24493, offered by Councilor Callahan, Public Works and Facilities Committee, January 21st, 2025. report to follow. Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Thank you. At the Public Works Committee, we had Commissioner Tim McGivern and our engineer Omar Tella to give us an update on the roads, both their conditions, as well as how they are going to be spending the new $500,000 per year from the overrides. And we also discussed the potential of having volunteer residents helping to plant city trees.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. On the motion of Councilor Callahan to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-468 offered by Councilor Tseng. This is Governance Committee, January 22nd, 2025. Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Thank you. The Governance Committee met to start our substantive review of the Charter Study Committee and the Mayor's Charter Recommendations We discussed mostly the legislative branch and we had a lengthy discussion about different types of electoral systems slash representation systems. We also voted to move discussion of compensation to the last substantive meeting, I believe, which is scheduled for February 19th. and we also voted to refer the edits that we made at that meeting to a larger committee, the whole meeting so that all councilors could vote and so that we can continue discussing ideas that we have.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I'll motion of Councilor Tseng to approve seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. We do have one celebratory resolution by Councilor Tseng under suspension. Would you like to move to take that? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to take paper 25021 seconded by saying that by Councilor Leming all those in favor. Opposed motion passes 25021 offered by Councilor Tseng, be it resolved that the Medford City Council celebrate Lunar New Year and wish our Asian residents a happy and prosperous new year. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council invite residents to Medford's Lunar New Year celebration on Saturday, February 1, from 10am to 1pm at the Medford Senior Center.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Lunar New Year is the most important festival for many Asian communities, including our Chinese, Taiwanese, Tibetan, Korean, and Vietnamese communities here in Medford. And of course, our Asian American community here is large and vibrant. I wanted to take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy and prosperous new year. In my family's language, xin nian kuai le. I also wanted to let our residents know about the city's Lunar New Year celebration this Saturday from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Senior Center. We had our first Lunar New Year celebration last year with line dancers, with food, with performances from residents and students. And it was really, really exciting and can't wait to redo it again this year.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion on the resolution? Seeing none, Councilor, Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I just wanted to thank Councilor Tseng for putting this forward and join with him in wishing all of our residents a very happy Lunar New Year. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Yes, on behalf of the Council, we wish you a happy Lunar New Year. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Motions, orders and resolutions 25-011 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Whereas we have received multiple phone calls and emails with the misunderstanding and confusion and fear of tax increases in their recent tax bill. And whereas the city did not educate or prepare residents in the overwhelming tax bill that administration set up immediate listening and education sessions for our residents. And whereas the need to support our most vulnerable members of the community, seniors, veterans, and disabled needing financial support that the city council request a more robust exemption option. And whereas the increased taxes have negatively affected homeowners. We as the city council be in the process of a homeowner exemption process. And whereas the increasing in our home assessments has surprisingly added to our residents tax bill, we share the abatement process with all residents that need to be educated in this process. And whereas our business community has been negatively affected by the tax increase, we asked the city to find financial relief and creative options that might be possible through grants and fees to alleviate financial hardships. Be it resolved that the city council discuss the concern, overwhelming concerns to our residents dealing with the recent tax bills. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Council President. You know, sometimes time heals all wounds, and I think having these two weeks really allowed our residents to reach out to our assessor and then really grasp the understanding of what's been happening. So I know that, Councilor Bealz, you've done a great job really educating a lot of people that have contacted me in the breakdown of what the what the tax implication looked like and making sure they understand the numbers are correct. I think the biggest concern was the knowledge of not understanding the impact of the, you don't want to say, you know, retro, you don't want to use the word retro, but it started back as of July 1. So when people saw their taxes in such a huge increase, they saw the quarters that started from July 1 and then their updated assessments. So I think that's what really played a huge impact. And I think that, unfortunately, it's I see a lot of very dejected residents, especially senior citizens and homeowners and renters that I've talked to because they've had great relationships with their homeowners and their landlords, and they realize this implication now is going to come down, and everybody's going to feel some pain with this. And like I've said from the get-go, I wasn't against the process if we need an override. I think it was educating and informing our residents to Let them know, have them be prepared for this. And when you're talking about a senior citizen on Lawrence Road, a young lady who called me and said that, George, my tax bill this month is $2,800, and living on a fixed income, she doesn't know how. she's going to be able to pay $2,800. Doesn't, when I tell you fair, and that's just been a common, common cry. And I think that, you know, I, I appreciate the assessor's office cause they've been super attentive to anybody who's we've shared and they've called, but I think we need to find other avenues as a council to really, um, really educate our residents, especially the most vulnerable and understanding where maybe it's not one offs, but maybe the man's communication team with the finance director with the city assessor that they can truly understand the different options and what's coming down the line in their next tax bill. Something simple as understanding what an abatement is. And I had a great conversation with the former president of the Massachusetts Association. He was great in understanding the process with the abatement and making sure our residents understand that there is an application process But understanding it's not an automatic free savings or support. It has to I think our residents have to understand that. You have to go prepared when you go to the assessor, making sure that you bring comparable numbers that you see in homes that are sold in your area, and making sure they're apples to apples, meaning they are relatively the same age of a home, making sure that they're aligned with, when you say three bedrooms, two baths. So it's a true balance. preparation for that assessment. So I know that, uh, talk to the city assessor that's on the assessor's page for the abatement. But I think that we have, especially with our senior homeowners and disabled and our veterans, I think that what I would request is really, um, with this whole process and is, is really put together as for a, uh, subcommittee and planning permitted. I know it's super busy, but trying to find a way that we have a meeting to bring people in and maybe work with the mayor to set up a listening session that residents can come here maybe Wednesday night or Friday mornings and just have someone explain to them so they can understand and prepare. I think that, I know we've already talked, I've talked to many residents and said that this council is going to be proactive starting in the budget season looking at homeowner exemption this year, something we've never done in the past. And something that the former president of the cess association says, you know, that was in the past, that was voodoo. You just didn't do it. And he said, where you are right now, especially in the situation, he thinks that it's something that we should be looking at very strongly. And as he broke down a lot of the numbers for me, I would concur. I think that looking at other exemptions and asking our state delegation to see how we can maybe look at any other forms of exemptions for our seniors, whether it be through the state or other supports federally that can help with this, I think it's important. And then again, We're seeing so much with our business community. I know that they've been getting their butts kicked, something that I'll talk about with the next resolution I put forth with parking. You're seeing so many things put on now. The business community, there has to be something so they're prepared as well. I've talked to one business owner who has been committed to the city of Medford for over 40 years, and he's been a very good landlord to many businesses in the city of Medford. he finds himself prepared for the fact that he has six years left on a lease for six of his businesses. And he's seen an increase of over $20,000 to $40,000. And these are the things that he's He's wealthy in the sense compared to you or I probably, but someone who stayed in the city and just didn't sell these buildings to big developers and didn't move away, but stayed true to the small businesses in Medford. Those are the businesses that we really want to try to protect. It's not the Starbucks of the world. It's not the Coca-Cola's or the Budweiser's of the world. These are our mom and pop stores that we wanna talk about really supporting and keeping those businesses open in Medford. So again, so with all these, I think it would be beneficial for us as a council to really call for a subcommittee for planning permitting committee that could talk with, maybe bring in the mayor's team with administration, the city assessor, the finance director and ask how we can at least find a path that we can educate and help us in sharing any way we can support our most vulnerable in any avenue we can take financially, whether it be, like I said, a more robust exemption for our seniors or you know, understanding and completing the abatement process to help save some money there. And again, the abatement process, because I've talked to some seniors, and like, if I get it, then they don't have to pay taxes. And it's like, no, no, that's not it. It's understanding the abatement. And I tried to explain to them, if your home is valued, is assessed at $1 million, possibly with the abatement, it might be assessed at $800,000 if it's accepted. depending on what you see with neighboring comps. So that was something that was very interesting. And, you know, like I said, for me, one of the Councilors stood strong against the override for these facts alone. I think this is where now you're seeing the impact, just like we're seeing the impact on our federal government, we're seeing in most major communities in this country that people aren't prepared. And I think that we weren't prepared for the solar ride. We really didn't prepare our most vulnerable. And if we can do something to recover that, I would hope this council would support me in that. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And I will go in a minute to my fellow councilors. And I just wanted to thank you for a lot of what you just talked about. And mentioning some of the work that I've been doing. And I want to also lift up the assessor's office under assessor Costigan and our assistant assessor. I've been working with them before. And after the override on updating information, trying to get more information out, we got those valuations out. I agree, we can always do more. And I do wanna say that I have connected, thanks to a resident who sent over some FAQs from some other communities that were very helpful. I know that the assessor's office is working with the communications team to significantly improve some of the information on the assessing department website. That's making it a little more bite-sized and accessible. And I think also just on the abatements, and I'll look this up as other councilors speak. I just want to note that I believe you have to have your application for abatement in by Friday. I think it's technically February 1st, which is the deadline. So I will confirm that as other councilors speak, but definitely the information page and just a friendly amendment. I think maybe the administration finance committee might be the place to, if that's fine.
[Scarpelli]: Whatever you feel. Great. Yeah, whatever you feel more.
[Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. I will go to Councilor Leming, Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Callahan for brief comments. Councilor Leming.
[Leming]: I'll try to be brief as possible. No, no, I'm just putting in the chat right here a zoom chat spreadsheet that was literally I just copied and pasted it from the from something that the assessor gave me. So if folks are see their property tax bills and they're a bit confused about this, then this is a read-only spreadsheet. But if you go to File, Download, then you'll be able to download the spreadsheet and input your FY 25 and 24 assessed home values into under the green column and that should give a breakdown of the of your third and fourth quarter payments as well as the impact from the override and I hope that that can clarify. any confusion that residents might have had when they got their tax bills in January. But at the end of the day, if you add up the Q1 to Q4 tax bills, then it should just add up to that $8.80 per $1,000 of assessed property value instead of 837. But you do have to add up all of them in aggregate. So yeah, I just wanted to share that resource for folks. I put it out over my own mailing list, and I'm just hoping it could be out there for people to look over and mess with to understand the numbers. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming, and yes, thank you for putting that together. I did just want to also thank the Assessor's Office. I've been able to set up meetings with residents with the Assessors as well, and those have been helpful. And the abatement deadline is Monday, February 3rd. If you're mailing it in, it has to be postmarked by USPS by February 3rd, or otherwise received by the Assessor's Office for 30 p.m. on Monday, February 3rd. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, and I appreciate this conversation. I think that a lot of... I'm really glad to see the progress that we've made over the past couple of weeks in seeing the assessor's office do such good work in sharing information about potential abatement programs with any and all residents who need it. I know this is an incredibly busy time of year for the assessor's office, but this is a really critical function of their work as well to connect with residents. who need assistance. And when it comes to the questions that have been coming in from the community, you know, when a person says, hey, I don't understand this. I'm confused. I need more information. That's not a political question. That's just a really human question. And so I'm really grateful for the assessor's office for making so much time and freeing up so much energy to field those questions as they come in. I'm grateful to my fellow Councilors for helping direct people to the resources that they really need at this time. Of course, I think that, you know, this change in our property tax structure was needed, and the process to make sure that everybody understands what comes next is vitally important, and we can't afford to have that be any less robust than it absolutely can be. The same goes for you know, all of these parts that make up our ecosystem of how we deal with property tax bills in the city, whether that's our exemptions, our abatement programs, and then the communications that come, you know, before and after all of this, making sure that people know what their options are, and how to understand and take steps on their property tax bills, regardless of the year, because abatements and exemptions are something that people need year in and year out, whether there's an override or whether there isn't one. just due to the economy that we're in and the nature of rapidly escalating, you know, assessed home values in Medford before or after the override. So I really am glad for the opportunity to focus on that and thank the assessor's office and talk about what the city council can continue to do to make sure that we are supporting city staff in connecting residents with resources. and making sure that all of that information about what to do gets out to the people who it's intended to connect with. I also think that this is the right time to start talking about a residential exemption. This is really complicated. A residential exemption would not benefit all residents. It would not even benefit all homeowners. But I do think that we have a responsibility to discuss it and to discuss it seriously. I think that's something that we should start to do in committee at the whole or the administration and finance committee as well. So all that being said, I'm grateful to the councilor for bringing this forward. I think that there's a lot of really, really important and timely topics here. And I would like to put forward a lightly amended version of the paper that I'd be comfortable voting yes on tonight. So I put this forward as a friendly amendment or as a B paper, if the councilor is more amenable. That would be, whereas the city of Medford has expanded all tax exemptions for members of vulnerable communities, including our senior, disabled, and veteran neighbors to the maximum extent allowed under state law. And whereas in the past, state and federal grants have been utilized in the city of Medford to support our local businesses, such as the 2024 Massachusetts vacant storefront program and the 2022 small business facade improvement grant program. Whereas implementing a residential exemption would decrease the tax burden for some residential property owners, be it resolved that the City Council continue to work with the Assessor's Office and the Mayor's Communications Office in sharing information about debatement processes with any and all residents who could benefit. Be it resolved that the City Council craft a Home Rule petition to ask the state to allow us to further expand our tax exemption options for these rural-local groups so that we may offer even greater tax exemption programs than what we are currently allowed to offer. be it further resolved that the City Council meet in the Administration and Finance Committee to discuss a potential residential exemption, and be it further resolved that the City Administration continue to prioritize and pursue any and all state, federal, and private grant opportunities targeted at assisting our business opportunity.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins for that amendment. We can get back to that. I will go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: Thank you, I just very briefly wanted to. mentioned. Okay, I just very briefly wanted to mention that I will be as a function of the Resident Services Committee. We hold listening sessions around the city for various reasons. This one will be at the Medford Senior Center on Thursday. It would be a great opportunity if anybody has any other follow-up questions, wants to be directly connected to the Assessor's Office. I can also bring some materials to clear some things up if people have questions about their own situations, but we can continue this conversation there on Thursday at noon. I and maybe Councilor Leming will be there as well for a listening session. So that would be a great opportunity to talk about this as well. But I thank Councilor Scarpelli for bringing this up. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Callahan. And yeah, sorry about the levels. I think we're all at school committee levels. So you're louder than John. Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Thank you. Um, I do want to thank Councilor Scarpelli for bringing forward a number of ideas that I think are really pertinent to what's happening right now. I know it's quite difficult to get information out to people. And, you know, I do hope that we can do a better job. of informing people on a topic that is as important as these overrides and the way that it's going to affect their taxes. There are a number of things in here. I just wanna state where I am on these various different things. The listening and education sessions, I think are fantastic idea. I'm always a fan. I would love to be at them and help as much as I am able to. I believe as I think Vice President Collins mentioned that we have maxed out our ability to the statewide exemptions for our seniors, veterans, disabled, and other communities. I believe that we are already at the max, but I think asking our state representatives what else, what more we can do is a great idea. I'm personally in favor of the homeowner exemption. I know that not everyone on the council is, or at least I don't want to guarantee that everyone on the council is, I think looking into that and beginning that discussion now so that we are in time to be able to make that decision later in the year is a great idea. Absolutely getting information about the abatement process as quickly as possible in every means possible would be fantastic. Any grants and fees that can be used. You know, I certainly am in favor of. So, that is where I said I am in favor of both this proposal as well as the proposal so I will vote for both.
[Bears]: Thank you. Yes, and it's a right now it's an amendment may not be a paper will get their Councilor Tseng, Thank you.
[Tseng]: If we go line by line, I more or less agree with Councilor Callahan was with one one or two asterisks. I do worry that the current language on the floor right now is over politicizing a vote that Many, most of the city took part in. Most of the registered voters of the city took part in and I know that people have their views on that debate. But I want to make sure that what we are passing tonight, it doesn't go against the democratic will of those voters. I think it's important to note that we did do a lot of outreach and there's always room for improvement. But in in this case, I do think and you know, we've debated this as a city council over and over again. And I don't think it's that useful for us to relitigate this issue right now. But it is, you know, it's important to acknowledge that we have come a very long way when it comes to communications in the city. And there is much more work that we are doing, and a lot of the avenues that we have set up are potential avenues, for example, like the listing sessions, are potential avenues for us to take advantage of and improve in the future as well. We do need to serve all of our residents, and I do think it'll be important to hold meetings to improve our communications and to explain really complicated concepts. But at the same time, I'm very grateful to Vice President Collins for presenting a proposed amended language that really gets at the heart of I think the more nonpartisan things about this resolution at the same, so carrying out those effects and at the same time using language that I think can unite and be amenable to a large section of the city.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. And I just wanted to add my two cents, I think moving forward, the residential exemption, which we've discussed in the past is a really good step. And I also just wanna note that I think I agree with pretty much everything that everybody said here, and that while it can be true that we've come a decent way on trying to get information out, and certainly there's more accessible information that there has been before, that also when unforced errors happen, that doesn't breed confidence, especially among people who are concerned. And I think that we could have gone a long way here if a letter had gone out in water and sewer bills and tax bills and a link to resources that do exist that are on the website. And that didn't happen. And so like, I share the opinions of both of my colleagues to my right, that things are better than they have been before. but they're not good enough, and we could have done better and can continue to do better. So I will recognize Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, President Villescaz. It's sad that it seems like everything Councilor Scarpelli is gonna put forth has a negative connotation. So I'm a little disappointed in my colleague that, again, this has nothing, this is what it is. And by Councilor Tseng bringing forth the process of this being some sort of political, whatever, whatever comment you made. This is the biggest issue you want to talk about. You want to talk about unifying. You're just not listening to the community. This resolution was put forth because the community feels that the city administration didn't do enough work to educate our most vulnerable. And it's funny how you just want to spin it back. So that's dividing just, just so you know, this is what the community keeps calling me. and saying, why does it always have to be opposite? Why can't you just understand that what I put out here is very simple. It's very precise in understanding that this is what the community has called, this is what they wanted me to express, that they weren't informed. And to sit there that this is a divide, of course it's a divide. We haven't done anything lately that hasn't had an issue with communication, lack of communication, lack of transparency. That's been across the board. Have you been involved in the last five meetings? Everything that we've gotten with the mayor sitting here talking to us and trying to throw smoke screens at us. to last week's meeting with charter review to tonight to the to the override, like I said, and not again, the override questions biggest thing was transparency and educating our community. So to turn this around again to be you know let's let's make a political again we just made a political Justin and tell you what. keep doing what you're doing because that's what's dividing this community because it's a lack of communication. People feel that this council just isn't listening and all if all you did tonight was just went through the vote and we took two votes and we voted yes we would have had something positive going on tonight but instead we got to come back to this and say that that this was meant in some sort of political negative way. Listen to what the city is saying, not your city, the complete community. They're saying we're not listening to them. Thank you, President Pierce.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. We keep having the same argument over and over again. And I think it's because some people in the city feel one way and some people in the city feel the other. And so, some people feel how you've represented Councilor Scarpelli, and I've heard from some of them, and some people feel how you feel, Councilor Tseng, and I've heard from them, and some people feel how some of my other councilors are represented tonight. There's a diversity of opinion in this community, and, you know, we can do our best to make the decisions that we feel represents the best interest of the city, and listen to folks, but we're not always gonna agree with everybody. In any case, you know, I can understand how everyone here feels that some of the language they didn't agree with, and some of the comments they didn't agree with, right? That's how we're all feeling, I think, right now. That's the work. So we have proposals before us. I appreciate what everyone has said. We do have a proposed amendment by Vice President Collins. Councilor Scarpelli, do you accept the amendment? That's a B paper, okay. So we'll take a B paper from Vice President Collins and then the A paper from Councilor Scarpelli. On the B paper by Vice President Collins, is there any further discussion? Council Vice President Collins. Great, I mean, we're gonna go to public participation next. So we'll go to public participation on this paper, the B paper and the A paper. We'll start at the podium. We do have a hand raised on Zoom. Everyone will have three minutes. So I'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Giurleo]: Good evening. Nick Giurleo, 40 Robinson Road. I'm going to just speak briefly tonight in favor of the A paper. And I think the simple reason is that, really, this is something that we should be discussing, right? Medford, in its entire history, never approved a Prop 2.5 override before. So really, regardless where you fall on the issue, it is an unprecedented time. for all of us. And as Councilor Scarpelli represented, you know, there seems to be some legitimate concerns across the city among residents as to, you know, what will the impact of this be. And the reality is taxes have gone up for everyone. And there is a huge cost of living crisis in the country. So it's really going to be harder now for members of our community to make ends meet. This council talks often about affordability and how they're concerned about affordability, so let's do it. Let's talk about affordability. And we really do have to continue to think of the impact, especially on the most vulnerable of the community, like the elderly, veterans, people who are suffering from disabilities. They face unique challenges. They deserve to be heard. So I really wouldn't see any kind of legitimate reason to have to go with the B paper here. I think the A paper is innocuous enough. I don't think it's political. I think it can be approved on its own. And just generally, you know, as for unhappiness over, I would say, the outcome of the election, while I personally think it's justified, I mean, I agree that really this was a decision of the voters. So, you know, if you're not happy with the outcome, express that unhappiness at the ballot box in November. It seems like we have a pretty significant difference of opinion here as to how are we going to meet city funding needs. So if you don't like the fact that these overrides passed, show up in November and vote out of office to people who supported them. Express that unhappiness. That's kind of how democracy works. So that's what I'll be doing, and I would encourage everyone else to do. That's all I have to say. Thank you for listening.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Julio. I do encourage people also to express their happiness, but thank you for your comment. I'm trying to bring a little levity. We keep having big arguments here. I'm going to go to the Zoom. We have Matthew Page Lieberman on Zoom. Matthew, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: Yeah, Matthew Page Lieberman, 15 Canal Street. I just want to really thank Councilor Scarpelli for bringing this forward. Last year, I appeared before the Council and I said that we, I was with an organization, I said we would be advocating for this at the state level. Unfortunately, it's a housing advocacy organization in the city. The leaders decided to place the organization on a temporary or indefinite hiatus. It is, so there was kind of, that became limited as far as that advocacy would be involved. I do know, I think Councilor Bears, previously you had said that the council would like to pursue stuff at the state level. and to kind of explore any ways to kind of expand those exemptions. A couple Fridays back was the first early deadline for submitting bills. And I was looking at these, you know, the bills to expand the exemptions. And I wanted to recommend something to you all. Unfortunately, there are quite a few of them. And I felt like this would be a process, you know, the Councilors would kind of have to evaluate them on their merit. But unfortunately, you know, with the state legislature, a lot of times people just go to the motions, they continue to introduce bills each session, and they don't really do anything to lobby for them. And they never really have any constituencies to back them. It would be nice if the council were to kind of consider them or see what the community is pushing for. But given these kinds of limitations and the likelihood that nothing really passes through the legislature unless leadership supports it, I think that what Councilor Collins is suggesting is really, really valuable alternatives. Therefore, I support both the motion that Councilor Scarpelli has put forward and the solutions that Councilor Collins has introduced. Thank you so much for everybody advocating for this.
[Bears]: Thank you for your time and your comment. Any further comment on this paper in person or on Zoom? Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Castagnetti]: Thank you, Councilor Beres, Andrew Castagnetti, Cushman Street, East Medford. The shock and awe, the bills have already arrived. I paid mine today, there was some irate, taxpayers at the assessor's office, and the poor girl was catching heck. However, the only solution that I can see to give relief is what I've been pushing for the last 19 years, and that is the owner-occupied, it's not just residential, it's the owner-occupied residential tax exemption. The Mass General Law is MGL Chapter 59, Section 5C. Please, someone, look it up, read it. They've been doing it in Boston, Everett, Malden, Chelsea, Cambridge. And some of all the average homeowner who lived in their house saved three grand, $3,000. In Everett, I believe they saved $2,400. We're not saving zero. We're not saving nothing at all. And it's been in business, this proclamation that we can do. And the state house gave us this option. Imagine the state senators felt that they had to help the homeowners who've carried the weight for decades. So, Councilor Bearsley, as you had said, one of my previous 19 occasions that you would start this process in May or June because it takes time to figure it out and hire more assessors. And I recommend you do it at the full 35 percent exemption. I am tired. Good night.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Cassinetti. Go to Ellen on Zoom. Ellen, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Epstein]: I'm unmuted, but I can't seem to start my video. My name's Ellen Epstein. I live at 15 Grove Street. And I just want to go on record as saying that I think that this council listens very carefully. To everyone in Medford, I've watched and been present at meeting after meeting. I think the majority of the Councilors listened patiently and carefully and really consider all viewpoints. So I just wanted to express another point of view in terms of people not feeling listened to. I feel very listened to by this council. Thank you very much.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment on these papers. Seeing none, I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Leming]: Yeah, so just looking at the original text, and I just peeked at the B paper, I'm more inclined to support the text of the B paper. With the original text of this resolution, I have mixed feelings about it. Whereas the city did not educate or prepare our residents in their overwhelming tax bill, I do agree that better communication could have been done prior to the release of the third quarter tax bill just to explain to everybody what was happening. So I can get behind that. But the line here, whereas the increased taxes have negatively affected our homeowners, things like that. I worked with a lot of parents who are homeowners who worked very hard to see these passed. I was on Monday night in a meeting with some of the school committee of Melrose who just tried to have an override and it failed. And they had to lay off 17 teachers because of that. And in Medford, we didn't have to do that because of those parents who worked so hard to see these overrides passed. So I don't think it negatively affected homeowners because A lot of those homeowners had kids, and their kids are benefiting by teachers not being laid off. And the homeowners are going to benefit with extra staff in the DBW to repair a road. So again, I definitely think that there could have been more education around the calculation of the tax bills earlier on. and obviously any tax increase will have its upsides and downsides, but I don't see a need to budget inch when I say that we absolutely needed the override and it is doing a lot of good. We had a school committee meeting that involved a budget that was not depressing for the first time in ever. People actually got what they wanted because we actually had extra money to invest in our schools. So the overrides were a good thing. That's all I have to say.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Again, Mr. President, where, as we have received, I have received multiple phone calls, emails with misunderstanding and confusion from fear of the tax increase from recent tax bills. So some of those people were parents as well with kids in school. Some of those people were senior citizens. Some of those people were renters that were gonna be affected. So what I stated in my resolution is exactly what the residents shared with me to share as a resolution on the council floor. If this council wants to go through again and not listen to what they're saying, because of course this override is gonna help financially help the schools? Of course it would. Nobody said it wouldn't. The question we were saying throughout this process is slow the process down so we can educate people on the outcome and how it affects everybody. So sure, $7.5 million is going to help. Of course it's going to help. And just a little tidbit, in the Melrose situation, they were promised support for the school department, the first two overrides they had, and the first two overrides that were passed, the Melrose public school systems failed miserably. So the third time, the citizens finally rose up and said, no way, not again, because they just didn't prove it. So every side has a story. But again, Mr. President, we'll go through the vote again. By the will of the people, by the will of this council, we'll vote yay and nay, and we'll move on. That's all. But again, just another example by the comments of my fellow councilors, that they're just not listening to the other side that feel like they're being heard here. Because you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're saying, yes, they need support. Yes, we didn't educate them. But yes, but you're too harsh on this resolution. This is their resolution. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Bears]: On the motion, B paper, Vice President Khan, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. On the A paper of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. Anyone else just me and Councilor Callahan on that one? All those opposed? I think I'm going to have to have a roll call on that.
[Hurtubise]: roll call on the paper. Council Callahan. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng. President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes, three in the permanent form the negative emotion fails. two four two five zero one two offered by Councilor Scarpelli a resolution requesting an update on the parking department be it resolved that the Medford City Council get an update on the status of the parking department be it further resolved that the council meet a new parking director at an upcoming meeting be it further resolved the council receive an update on the South Medford G parking program be it further resolved that because multiple residents have expressed displeasure with the appeals process the council request a meeting with the administration to research a more equitable and fair process Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you Mr. President again this is uh that was brought up by the residents of South Medford. I think that they're seeing such a negative impact in their day-to-day living conditions because of some of these processes. And I know that we have a new director of parking, and it would behoove this council, I think, to maybe sit with them move this to a planning and permitting committee that has the traffic protocol under there so we can maybe talk and look at and understand the G-Zone parking program, the pilot program. I think that with that process and the appeals process that's in place right now here in Medford, we're finding that residents are very, very frustrated. And I think that We need to have an avenue for our residents to express themselves. And what we're seeing right now is the mayor is using traffic and parking as another revenue source. And again, that's on the back of our residents. And it's just not fair. You're seeing time and time again, Mr. President, that with increased fees, increased fines, no appeals process. I've talked to a few neighboring communities, talked to their commissioners, their traffic and parking directors, and I gave them scenarios. One scenario was a senior citizen who parked behind Colleen's and unfortunately, she left her handicapped placard on her dashboard. She didn't hang it on the rear view mirror. When she came out, she received a ticket, I believe it was 1201. She got in her car, she drove to the parking department at 1210 and said, this is the situation. I'm handicapped, this is my placard. Unfortunately, I didn't hang it. And they said, you can appeal it. So they were generous enough to help her appeal it out front, to walk through the appeal. By the time she got home, she was notified that the appeal didn't go through, and she'd have to pay the ticket. She called City Hall, and I believe at the time, the Chief of Staff was overseeing the process, and her words directly were, there's no gray area here. It's either yes or no, and that's it. neighboring communities, you've talked to their commissioners. Unfortunately, there are gray areas and there are options. So the next option on the appeal would have to go to the courts and on $150 ticket, this resident would then have to pay $250 to then appeal this at the next level so someone can listen to her. And again, one of the most vulnerable members of our community not being heard. And, um, That followed up with many residents of South Medford calling me and saying, George, listen, I drive my car on the weekends. And sometimes I have to take it out if I need it for work. But then when I come home, I realize that the G-Zone is now permitted to people that aren't residents of Medford because they bought a pass. And they're seeing the anger and the frustration. We're talking about situations with the business community. residents we're talking about supporting our businesses right our local businesses well now let's say you own a real estate company you in medford square you now pay for that pass which is 150 or 125 you pay for that in the past that was good throughout the city now you have to now buy another pass fee to get permitted and then if you have to show a house let's say in west medford so there's so many inequities here and it seems like We want to save small businesses. We want to support our business community. But in the same breath, we're putting in these hurdles and roadblocks and hurting what we're looking for. We have to remember, when the Traffic and Parking Department was implemented, it was made to really support the business community and keeping non-residents from parking, especially on the one-on-one route or the bus route that goes to the express bus, and parking there all day in front of a business, and then these outsiders take a spot for the whole entire day. Now in South Metro, from what I'm being told from the neighbors, there are cars that people don't live in the city. They get parking, they walk to the green line, they're gone all day, their car's in front of their house, and then they come home, they don't have parking. because we've then, you know, we've sold their spot, we've rented their spot in front of their home. So there's a lot of concerns, you know, there are so many others that come to mind that I think that we really need to sit down with the traffic department and the new director and get some clarity so we can help these residents. I think that, like, again, I think the G zone, it has to be some clarity in where the pilot program's going from here. The appeals process that there has to be something in place that someone in-house walks through, at least looks at an appeal, that it's something that's blatant that could support our resident, especially most vulnerable, that we have that in place. We look at our business community and even invite Chamber of Commerce to that to the meeting if we can, Mr. President, to a subcommittee meeting and get their input to see where we're going. I think that these are very important issues and I hope this council will support me, at least with this one, that we ask to go to a subcommittee meeting in planning and permitting to see what we can do to educate ourselves, help educate the community, and then at the same time add any input that we can that at least the homework that I've done from neighboring communities that were very, very simple, simple ads that really, really could change a lot and really support our community. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli for putting this forward. I think that this is a really important resolution. I think this is another issue where we can do a lot of good by doing a better job at getting to the community the information that is out there. I've also been communicating with residents about the GLX parking zone. I live in that zone. I know I'm not the only councilor who does. I have seen both the pros and the cons firsthand, most especially when I try to park my car after getting home from a city council meeting at 1 a.m. and then circling down the block three to five times and then parking on a cross street, which is now legal to do, which is great, but the circling is not the fun part. Anyway, I've been communicating with residents who have been noticing the types of changes that I have. And it's been helpful for me to the extent of my knowledge, explain the pros and the cons and the why of the new program. But obviously this is something that our parking department should be doing. This is something that our communications department should be doing. And there are a lot of residents who still have questions and still have a hard time finding what the policies are and where they are on the website. Recently, a resident came to me with a parking policy that was indeed on the city website that I had never heard of before. So I think this is a good thing. It would be great for the council to meet the new parking director. I'd be happy to host this in the planning and permitting committee. I'd also be happy for this to be a committee of the whole. But I think that this is a, you know, whichever the council prefers, I'll support. I think this will be a productive conversation. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli for introducing this. I think you'll find that that I support this resolution wholeheartedly. I think that you've brought up really, really important things that, and Councilor Collins has too, that I've been hearing from my neighbors and residents who live in South Bedford and the whole side as well. I live on the border of that zone and like Councilors Collins and Scarpelli, I do see the positives and the negatives. There, you know, a lot of the reasons why this was put into place was to anticipate the arrival of the Green Line extension to make parking enforcement easier because we had a lot of varying rules that made that enforcement very difficult to a lot of the intention behind this policy, I think is good. And we are seeing some of that fruit, but at the same time, a lot of residents are picking up on some negatives about the system and some complaints that I do think we should address and that we should field. With a new parking director in the city, this is a good time for us to all meet together to have this community conversation. But the Green Line Zone, I also find that this resolution is written in a way that is quite neutral as to the contents of the policy itself and does speak to the sentiments of a lot of our residents. So, I'd be happy to support this. Thank you, Councilor Sand, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: I also am in favor of this resolution. I think it's an important discussion to have. I think it would be a great thing to discuss in committee, and I echo what Councilor, or Vice President Collins said about meeting the parking director. I would be very eager to do that. I've also heard a lot of things from residents about the frustration with the parking. So thank you for bringing this forward, Councilor Schiaparelli, and I'm in favor of it. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments from members of the council? Seeing none, I just wanted to say that I also believe that we should have a meeting with the new director. Councilor Leming.
[Leming]: No, I was just gonna recommend that.
[Bears]: Oh, recommend what? Sorry. Go ahead.
[Leming]: No, I was just gonna recommend to go to admin finance.
[Bears]: I think I'd have to look back at the matrix we made. I could see an argument for all three, but I think actually the transportation duties that we transitioned over, this does make more sense to be in the planning and permitting context. Education and Culture Committee.
[Leming]: I mean, parking is part of the culture here.
[Bears]: Well, you could send it to Committee of the Whole, then we don't have to have an argument. But I just wanted to say that I do think meeting with a new director is a good idea. I think something, if amenable to folks, that I would like to talk about at the meeting is just, in general, how can residents advocate for access permit parking on their street in general? I know there's a lot of concerns residents have around maybe they do want to set it up, maybe they don't want to set it up, and that would be helpful. I do want to just say that on the fees, we do have reports and there have been communications that we've received and that are available to the public from the parking task force that reviewed the parking policies and established the G zone pilot, which then the parking department, I believe moved from pilot to permanent. And that, you know, there were fees in the city that haven't been updated in 45, 50 years. And I think to me, it is important for the city to maintain with the times fees. Also, on the flip side, we haven't done linkage fees in 40 years, right? So it's really a symptom of a larger problem where the city was not keeping track of its different user fees, different programs for a very long time. And now, yes, we see an increase that's coming in. But that's because the task force said, hey, we haven't done this in 50 years. And we're out of scope with comparable communities in a lot of these things. I'm not saying they got everything right. I'm not saying there's not stuff that's open for discussion, but that's just something that I think is valuable. And I know that we, I'm hoping we will finally receive the report from all the other departments about their fees that haven't been updated in a long time and how we're going to address that. I just wanted to note also that while we can have the parking director and talk about this with the parking department, the traffic commission makes these choices. We can make recommendations to the traffic commission, but we cannot overrule the traffic commission. The traffic commission is established by a 1957 special act of the state legislature and is the final decision maker. I don't know what the policies of our current parking director are. I know the past parking director said that they do not serve on the traffic commission and they did not want to because they did not feel that they should be making the rules that they enforce. I don't know if that's a different viewpoint. I know that parking traffic and parking directors and other communities do serve on their traffic commissions. Also, I believe in Somerville a Councilor serves on that commission. So, just throwing it out there. If anyone wants to look up that special act, um, that's what is that almost 70 years since we've updated the structure of the traffic commission. And I have heard from, you know, members of the public that maybe that's worth taking a look at as well. Um, so just wanted to put those, that information out there. I'll go to councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Mr. President, maybe instead of everybody seems to be interested, maybe we do do it. regular scheduled meetings from six to seven. Maybe we ask the traffic commission, any member that would like to join, because I think maybe that might be an option to revisit and update those processes as well. Because I know that Somerville does have one of the councils on the commission, so they're sharing what they're hearing directly. So that'd be important. So that'd be my recommendation if you so see it. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes. 25015 resolution to make city council meetings more business friendly, whereas businesses come before the council to request approval for storefronts, and whereas small business storefronts and our quarter squares and business districts foster a sense of community that residents desire. I'm a little loud here. allow our residents to shop small and local and bring needed revenue to the city and whereas we want business owners to understand believe Medford is friendly to small businesses be resolved that the city council's regular meeting agendas here the petitions from businesses prior to resolutions made by members of the council be it further resolved that rule 19 be amended as follows. The following a petition shall be reserved for only matters requiring council action for law including not limited to special permits grants location sign variances and common picture licenses. only petitions filed meeting this criteria shall be assigned a council paper number such hearings and petitions shall be heard immediately after the reading of council reports and before orders and resolutions and motions sponsored by council members i will entertain this but i want to remind councillors that there isn't the order of business currently does this and the only reason that that isn't happening is because we vote on motions to suspend the order of business and that even if we update the rules a majority vote of this body can suspend the regular order of business and move us beyond this. So I don't personally believe that a rule change is necessary. With that, I don't believe this is out of order, but I just don't believe that any rule change would change the practice and that that is on us as individuals acting collectively to change the practice and just make sure that we do not suspend the rules before taking these. I will go to Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Leming. Sorry. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: Thank you. I am willing to, well, I'm willing to withdraw this if it is unnecessary because the rules do already state that, and we're just routinely suspending our rules and leaving people who are attempting to come in and open businesses in Medford to sit through very long City Council meetings. But the purpose of this resolution is to remind not only the City Council, but also everybody in Medford, everybody in the region that are here is to make sure that we're creating an environment where businesses feel that Medford is a place that is friendly and open and is a place where you can easily and freely come get approved for a storefront to open your business, extend your hours if you would like to, if it's rational and logical, you can have a place that's open for business that makes our community more vibrant, that Um, makes money for you and your family and your community and brings in tax revenue for our city, which then we can use for services for our residents. This is what makes a city operational and what makes it work. So, um That's what we're here to do. And, um. rational way to do business. These are business meetings where people have come and set aside time in their life. It's already the evening. It's already starting in the evening, and it's important for us to keep that in mind. So that's why I wanted to bring this forward, and I appreciate the time. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. One second. There you go.
[Leming]: So to clarify the rule change, it was on the January 14th agenda, which I'm looking at now, the refer to committee for further discussion was put before the hearings section. So I'm not sure if that is necessarily supposed to be that way. But the point is that I think this body needs to start being honest with itself. We do talk a lot. And once we get going, it's kind of hard to stop. And once you start with the refer to committee for further discussion, which I'm sure I did two weeks ago, then that's like really when that meeting goes. So the point of the rule was to make it so that the hearings come directly after the reports of committees. And it's just meant to be one of those automatic, automatic things. And then we get to the refer. So it's a small change. But last time, we did have the folks from the establishment just kind of waiting here until 11 when we could have cleared them really quickly. But we kind of forgot about it and then decided to suspend the rules. And so this is just meant to, the idea behind this is that we usually get through the beginning of the meeting pretty automatically, reports of committees and so on. And then I just would like the hearings to come directly after that, to not become the culture that we suspend rules and start taking things out of order until the hearings are done.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Just a note, Rule 12 is the order of business. It's the roll call, salute the flag, and then there is announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records, and this is intended to serve as a consent agenda analog. Refer to committee for further discussion is in there. because we shouldn't talk about it when it's in that section. So if people do submit something for that section, it's about sending that to the committee for the discussion. So if folks want to discuss it in the regular meeting, they should be clear that should go in motions, orders, and resolutions. And then we can still refer it out, but the intent of that was to clarify when we're having a debate on something significant versus when we are trying to say, we just want to introduce a topic because we can't talk in committee. if a paper is not first introduced in the council, but we want to reserve that discussion for committee. So again, it is more about councilor intent and behavior than it is about the order of business. And then following that consent agenda, we have hearings, presentations of petitions and similar papers, then motions, orders and resolutions, then communications and reports from the mayor, city officers and employees. Um, so if we, uh, you know, if we were to just follow that, um, and the intent behind the agenda and the rules, we would, we would avoid these situations. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I know that, uh, I know that, uh, Councilor Began, um, sent you a message and you forwarded it to me. Yes. And, um, he mentioned that, uh, the town of Beverly has an option that maybe, um, that we could maybe enhance or help streamline the process. So I'm going to meet with him hopefully tomorrow or Thursday to see what suggestions he might have. Because I don't disagree that sometimes the business owners that come here for an approval and they're there with an attorney that they're paying by the hour. I could see that as an issue, but unfortunately with, and I think this is a question for another day of discussion and battling, but sitting in meetings, long meetings until everybody's heard at that podium, that's our job. Whether we like it or not, we're elected, that's part of our job. So even if you don't like to hear what people are saying, because I, too, don't like sometimes what people are saying, but you have to respect the process. And if it's taking us to 1130, so be it. I think that's important that people understand that. I, too, agree that this process is already in place that we have. And I think that having this meeting tomorrow, maybe shed some light. Maybe there's something I can bring back to the council. I'll email you with some suggestions. If we see anything that's fruitful, that would maybe streamline our process that they do in other communities. We'd love to see that if we can help. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And I think, you know, the intent here is I'm interpreting it and I'll let everybody who wants to speak interpret it as well as. let's get the things we know we're all gonna agree on out of the way before we start talking about the things we're not gonna agree on. And that was the intent of forming the consent agenda in the first place in 2022. We don't call it that, but it's that first section announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. Those would be mixed in with motions, orders, and resolutions. You'd have reports and records at the end of the meeting rather than at the beginning of the meeting. So you have these things that were non, essentially non-controversial that were pro forma, just actions that the council needs to take. I mean, we added to that in January of last year, this refer to committee for further discussion, because we had some questions about, are we taking a final action on something? And no, the answer is we're just trying to start the process, the legislative process. So I think I'm interested to hear what you have, Councilor Scarpelli, as the Subcommittee on Licensing, Permitting, and Signs Chair. And I know that in Somerville and some other communities they will have, and I think we're moving in this direction on some things where they do a lot of work in the committee, and then it comes to the regular meeting and it is just kind of signed off on by the larger group and. And then the petitioner doesn't have to be here necessarily. They've been heard, questions have been asked by that subcommittee or committee. And we also could potentially look at, I think, a revision to the order of business to look at moving petitions that have come out of that subcommittee to the more consent agenda could be something that we look at too, even though they are pretty early on. I appreciate the intent of my fellow Councilors and Councilor Scarpelli on this matter and Councilor Leming and Lazzaro and I will go to Councilor Leming.
[Leming]: Well, in that case, it does sound like multiple Councilors have kind of different thoughts on how to address this. So I would motion to, I'm not sure whether to table it or to send this to committee so that it could be worked on a bit further pending Councilor Scarpelli's discussions.
[Bears]: Sounds like we might have a rule amendment. So that would be the governance committee.
[Leming]: Okay, well, governance committee is pretty busy, but we'll find a time.
[Bears]: I'll go to Councilor Callahan, and then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Callahan]: Thank you. In addition to amending this, I assume it's what you're suggesting that we amended to send it to a governance committee. I wonder if we could also do a friendly amendment to just add in language saying we urge our fellow councilors to not place other items of discussion before these hearings from business leaders. Business people. because a lot of the problem it sounds like is that we just, you know, we take things out of order and then we end up accidentally pushing these things until 11 o'clock at night when really let's not do that.
[Bears]: I will say I am urging that. I do personally feel that's probably more the role of the chair than the rules, but that's just my opinion. Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Leming.
[Lazzaro]: I would absolutely agree with that and partly that's the intention of this resolution is to kind of remind us that we don't always have to, and we also don't always have to say yes when somebody wants to suspend the rules any number of people want to suspend the rules and we do it frequently right sometimes sometimes for good reason we need to pull something out because it's ready for a third reading that needs to happen at whatever time but For my piece, I can say that sometimes I'm not quite sure what's happening. Like, I'm not quite paying, I'm like, what number is, like, I may need sometimes to ask for a pause. I may need to say, are we sure? I might wanna vote no on this suspension of the rules for this moment, because I happen to know That in this case, when the establishment, the business owner of the establishment was here I had been speaking with her before, because we knew somebody in common we were talking. I knew that she was here and then I happened to notice that she was still here and I was like she is still here she was there until 11pm with her lawyer waiting all night. If I had been paying closer attention, if I had been on top of things the way I should have been, I would have said, you know what, actually I vote no on suspending the rules and let's take that first. And I think that the larger implication here and the thing that I really wanna make sure I'm stating clearly is that when you put out a message to When you give the impression to a group of people in the business community that when you need a liquor license, it might take you five hours of sitting in a room, where if you do it in another town, it won't happen that way, then it doesn't, it has nothing to do with being a city Councilor who has to stay here for five hours. That's not the issue. We will be here regardless. It's a matter of making sure that people who are business owners who want to do business in our city, which we want to encourage, do not feel that it's an imposition for them to do that. We want to encourage them to be able to do that. So that's my intention. I do think that it's possible that this paper will not turn out to be appropriate because of the way that it's written and the way that the rules are, but I'm comfortable with it going to governance and us talking it over there and maybe making amendments in committee. but I appreciate you all entertaining it and discussing it here.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming.
[Leming]: Yes, and just to just be clear. So I do understand the intention behind the referred to committee for further discussion. I've just found that when Councilors get to talking about their own resolutions, they do kind of tend to go off. So uh, you know, talk a little bit more than maybe is intended. And so the intention is just to get the hearings out of the way before that process starts. But if, uh, but either way, I would motion to refer this to governance.
[Bears]: The motion to refer this paper to the governance committee, seconded by Councilor Callahan. We'll go to public participation. We'll start at the podium, name and address for the record. And you have three minutes.
[Fiore]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just would like to say that I very strongly support this resolution or any other way to streamline bureaucracy of the city council and in general to make the life of business people, overall residents, as easy as possible. I will have to say that I was very pleasantly surprised to find a pro-business resolution in the agenda, come up by surprise. And then I thought, and I remember that this is an election year. So I would like to remind everyone that the private business sector is the very engine of economic prosperity. Business people are social benefactors. In order to succeed, business people must offer a better product at a better price, thereby contributing to general well-being. If they don't, they simply go bankrupt. This city council, most members of the city council supported a policy last year that is bad for business. And that policy is increasing commercial taxes. Increasing business taxes is indeed bad for business. When you increase taxes on businesses, you're essentially taking more of the resources out of their hands. This leaves them with less capital to invest in growth, innovation, and maybe most important for our community, job creation. Moreover, businesses don't really pay taxes. They just pass them on. They pass them on to consumers through higher prices, to employees through lower wages, or to shareholders through smaller dividends. The burden is distributed based on businesses' capacity to flourish that suffers the immediate strain. It's also key to consider the broader economic environment. Higher business taxes can deter new investments, discourage risk-taking, and ultimately lead to slower economic growth. It's a kind of intervention that can disrupt the free market's natural ability to allocate resources efficiently. I think all of us in Medford should place the least possible burden on businesses, encouraging them to thrive and contribute to economic growth, which in turn can expand the tax base naturally. And I finally would like to conclude with a quote from Thomas Sowell, economist Thomas Sowell, that says, quote, in politics, the goal is not truth, but votes. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
[Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We'll go to Zoom, back to Paige Lieberman. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: Yeah, it's Matthew Paisley on 15 Canal Street. I really appreciate that this has been brought forward. It's a little bit tangential. For people who do not know, tomorrow is the hearing for the Small Business Administrator. Our ranking, the ranking member of that committee in the Senate is our Senator Ed Markey. I reached out to him to advocate for tomorrow because, you know, the federal government is taking some pretty drastic measures on their questions about grants and loans. I was able to discover, at least today, that a particular loan that SBA provides, 7A, will be maintained. That's good news. As far as the meeting lengths, there was talk about this at the governance meeting last week, and there's this talk again. Sometimes it seems like there's not much clarity. I know that the majority of the Councilors are aware of rule. For how long Councilors can speak. And, you know, there's a question of there's a will there obviously are things that can be done right now to have more efficient meetings. I support the streamlining and through the years I've felt streamlining for businesses through the years, it seemed kind of strange to me. that run-of-the-mill small business owners need to appear before a deliberative body to get permission just to open up. It seems like, yeah, that should be definitely streamlined unless you're proposing doing something extremely unethical and bizarre. I really hope that that's successful at the streamlining, and I hope that councillors can continue to consider options beyond that, how to make opening a business as easy as possible. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you for your comment. On the motion to refer to Governance Committee by Councilor Leming seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. 25-016 offered by President Bears, be it resolved by the Menford City Council that the City Council President, City Council Vice President, and City Clerk conduct a process to recruit a new City Messenger and make a recommendation of a candidate for City Messenger for a final vote by the City Council. I think this is a relatively self-explanatory resolution. Happy to answer any questions if anyone has any. On the motion approved by Councilor Tseng, I will go to Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Thank you. I absolutely so appreciated our former messenger, Lera Lepore, who's a wonderful person. I do hope that we can update the messenger role a little bit given know, the digital age and that we may not need the exact services that were in his job description before. I will say that if the city is going to hire a staff person for the city council, if the city council has a staff person, I would hope that some of their time might be dedicated to constituent services, which I think in, you know, most cities that is one of the first staff that is hired for a city council. in, you know, there are certain cities, Cambridge and other cities, where every city councilor has a staff person who basically does constituent services. I think constituent services are incredibly important to the number of emails that we receive with people who have questions, you know, that really are questions for the administration of us, you know, sending them to the right administrative person in the, you know, in City Hall. And I'm hoping that either the messenger position can be one that can do a little bit of that kind of work and less driving around to deliver us. As much as I enjoyed having the paper copies of the agendas delivered to my door, I hope that maybe some of that time can be used for constituent services and that we can just kind of look at that role and update it for the 21st century. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. And this is our first appointment of a city messenger in at least for four decades, I would say close to maybe three.
[Hurtubise]: I think I think our dear friend Larry served as a city messenger for 37 years, 37 years.
[Bears]: So, um, yeah. And, um, if folks haven't seen it, uh, there is a little Larry, um, memorial in the clerk's office. Um, I got Larry's corner going Larry's corner, um, over by the bulletin board. Uh, it was touching to see. Um, and we have had some discussions about some of the topics that you've talked about and what the role of messenger can look like. Um, going forward. So we will through the clerk, the vice president, I will keep the council updated on on how we move through that process. If that is sufficient. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilors are to approve all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. 2 5017 review of a meeting law complaint of a meeting law complaint. Acknowledged receipt of open meeting law complaint from Laura Ortiz against the City Council. Did it January 11th 2025 acknowledge and review complaint and discuss response. Votes may be taken. We do have the open meeting law complaint form here. This is from Laura Ortiz of Lowell, Massachusetts, who has made an open meeting law complaint that is in very, very small text, and I will not be reading the whole thing, but it is essentially an argument that the council has violated the open meeting law by independently councilor signing onto a letter. There is I've been working with council and there is a response drafted. This is to the Open Meeting Division at the Office of the Attorney General. It says, just because it's long, I will sit down to make sure I can read the whole thing on my computer. This firm represents the this is from Janelle Austin KP law. It says this firm represents the city of Medford the city council, and the receipt of an open law complaint filed by Miss Laura Ortiz dated January 11 2025 which was received by the council that same day. The complaint alleges that the council violated open meeting while when five members of the council individually signed a digitally circulated letter. concerning recent changes to Massachusetts law. This is essentially the summary on January 20, 2025. That's this meeting, the city council met at a properly posted meeting and open session, which we're doing right now to discuss the complaint. The council has carefully reviewed the allegations contained in the complaint following such discussion has authorized this response on its behalf in accordance with general law chapter 30 a section 23. and 940 of the Massachusetts regulations subsection 29.05 subsection five, which is based on the information provided. The complaint alleges that a quorum deliberated outside of a properly posted meeting as set forth. However, the council respectfully submits that no openly meeting law violation has occurred. specifically while five individual members of the council did voluntarily and separately sign on to the letter in question individually. No deliberation occurred among or between the councillors whatsoever regarding this matter. Specifically, the five individual members of the council who signed on to the letter did so as individuals completely independently from one another in response to a mass circulated correspondence among public officials across the Commonwealth. There was no discussion, coordination, or communications regarding signing this letter between or among a quorum of the council at any time. As a result, the council respectfully submits that no open meeting law violation occurred. All right. There's more in the letter, but it's just a recitation of further facts and documentation outlining that summary. Is there any discussion by members of the council on this matter? Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: I just want to thank the Council President for his collaboration with City's legal support to make sure that we respond to this in the way that we're statutorily obligated to do. Now that this response is being formulated and will be sent in accordance with the rules and regulations, what would an appropriate vote at this meeting be? Would it be to receive and place on file, to authorize the Council President to continue promulgating a response?
[Bears]: The vote would be to acknowledge and review the complaint and accept the response as drafted by Council.
[Collins]: Okay, I would make a motion to accept the response as drafted by Council.
[Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming, is there any further discussion? Seeing none, is there anyone in the chamber on Zoom who would like to speak to the matter?
[Collins]: Council President.
[Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you. I probably should have, just for the purpose of clarity, prefaced my comments. In addition to our next steps, I also just want to purpose this discussion. I think this complaint is flagrantly frivolous. It's something that we have to attend to, we have to respond to in these ways. I'm glad that we're doing that. And I I find it curious that a non-resident of the city is taking it upon themselves to waste elected officials' times because of time spent lobbying for state-level policy that would make sure that fewer people have to sleep on the street in the winter. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins, and I would note that We did receive communication that the person who filed this as a serial filer of complaints against officials across the Commonwealth. And it's just does this all the time and most very often they're frivolous and the determination is that no violation was held. Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: I just wanted to note that that's evidenced by the fact that there's not a lot of research done into the whole process and into the facts of the case. Many of the facts here that are asserted about things I did or did not do or were thinking are not true and never happened.
[Bears]: I'm just impressed that you can read the text that small.
[Tseng]: It's because I'm younger than you guys.
[Bears]: Yeah. That was my joke. I was making that joke. Please let me make my jokes. Thank you, Councilor Tseng and I appreciate that. On the motion of Vice President Collins is seconded by Councilor Leming to acknowledge the complaint and to adopt the response as drafted by council. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Council Kalyan, Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes, having affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. 25014, we have the Community Preservation Committee appropriation requests. We did hear these and we heard from all the applicants last week. This is from the mayor. Dear President Bears members of the council on behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respectfully request and recommend your honorable body approve the following recommendations of the Community Preservation Committee requesting the appropriation of 526,000 to the Department of Public Works parks division for the place that tennis court resurfacing requesting the appropriation of $322,500 to for the facilities department for the city council chamber windows restoration project. Requesting the appropriation of $100,000 to Action for Boston Community Development for the Medford Movement Rental Assistance Program. Requesting the appropriation of $99,000 to the Unitarian Universalist Church for the Church Exterior Restoration Project. Requesting the appropriation of $400,000 to Shiloh Baptist Church to complete the Shiloh Baptist Church ADA Improvement Project. Requesting the appropriation of $85,000 to the Department of Public Works Segmentary Division for design phase two of the Oak Grove Cemetery Historic Buildings Restoration Project. request the appropriation of $250,000 to the Affordable Housing Trust as initial funding to conduct affordable housing tasks and requesting the appropriation of $98,285 from the CPA Open Space Reserve to the Recreation Department to complete the Condon Shell Field Lighting Project. As we know, public presentations were held Tuesday, January 21st to the Committee of the Whole meeting. The project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund, the recommendation letters are attached and incorporated, and we have manager DuPont and chairperson Cameron in attendance as needed. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. I will go to Vice President Collins, Council Lizard, Councilor Tseng. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, we had a really helpful informative committee of the whole about this a couple weeks ago, or maybe it was just last week. couple weeks ago, just last week. went through all of the projects in detail the funding recommendations, the specifics on the programs will be funded it's always great to see. you know, an unanimous vote by the committee, which I think is almost always the case. I know that there's so much thought and research put into vetting the many programs that compete for this funding, and they all do such incredible work in our community. And I appreciate Manager DuPont and Chair Cameron for making sure that we got a really thorough walk through all of the details at the meeting last week to prepare us for this vote. So I'm happy to make a motion for approval. Thank you.
[Lazzaro]: Thank you. At the committee of the whole I had expressed a slight concern that being a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Medford that it would be a conflict of interest potentially to vote for an appropriation for the facade but I researched it and having not I don't stand to gain anything financially from appropriating these funds myself personally. And Councilor Leming is also a member of that church. Neither of us stand to gain anything because we obviously we don't, we're just members of the church. We don't stand to gain anything financially from approving this appropriation. So I believe it is ethically appropriate for us to vote for this. So we don't need to sever that portion from the whole. Thank you.
[Tseng]: I just wanted to briefly thank the members of the CPC, Manager DuPont and Chair Cameron for their hard work putting together these projects and putting together these meetings. I know it's a lot of work, working through a lot of material. These projects are ones I'm particularly excited about because I believe that they move our city towards a lot of our goals of livability, better parks, moving towards more childcare, moving towards better public facilities moving towards more affordable housing. I think these are goals that everyone behind this rail and most, if not all, residents share.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to approve, seconded by, did you move? You made a motion? I'm sorry. Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan, Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes, having affirmative and negative, the motion passes. 25018 offered by Mayor Buenaventura Kern, Capital Stabilization Fund rescission and appropriation request. Dear President Bears, oh, Gaston, were you wanting to talk on CPC? I'm so sorry. I can come back to you right now if folks are okay with that. Was it about the chambers? The tennis courts. We'll take you. I really apologize. I'm sorry. Gaston, name and address for the record.
[Fiore]: I just got a question. So I missed the Committee of the Whole meeting, but I was just taking a quick look at the agenda for that committee of the whole. And then I'm just slightly concerned that it's over half a million dollars for the tennis courts and I was just wondering whether, you know, Has there been any research? I just saw the cracks in the picture, you know, to maybe resurface it in some other way, like maybe using brick powder or something like that, one. And then two, is there also, can this be also, can we charge a fee to sort of like help? Because, I mean, over $500,000 for this. I understand the regulation. I support all of that. But at the same time, you know, I mean, we have scarce resources, and we got to, you know, if it's not lieutenant courts, this money could go somewhere else. So I was just wondering whether other sources of revenue were evaluated for this project? And if not, or yes, and this is the best thing to do, where there's some action plan to prevent these cracks from developing, maybe changing the surface material or something like that, that makes it more resilient.
[Bears]: I'll be brief and then I'll go to Councilor Callaghan. We did have Commissioner McGivern discuss this and In terms of just repairing the cracks, that was not recommended because it would impact the ability of the service to perform the function that it's functioning. Like, even if you seal the cracks, it might affect how the tennis ball bounces, essentially. And also, he indicated that the cracks are an indication that the underlying base foundation is in question, and that's why they believe they need to replace it. essentially re certain not just put new stuff over but also fix the the base under the surface. But I'll go to Councilor Callahan if you have a more distinct memory than I do.
[Callahan]: Thank you. First, I want to thank you for all of the meetings that you attend. You're one of our most engaged residents here in Bedford. And the fact that you happen not to be at that meeting is completely understandable. And I'm glad that you're here asking this question, because most residents don't, in fact, go and look back at the committee meetings. But they may, in fact, come and look at this meeting. And you asked some questions that I asked. So I specifically asked Commissioner McIvern. I'm sorry, I can go on. No, no, not at all. Again, I think it's important that we do discuss these things here at the official regular City Council meetings. I did ask about resurfacing because I know with roads, you can save a lot of money by doing that kind of repair in between, and so I asked if maybe we would be able to save money in the future by doing these kinds of intermediary repairs. He said, as President Bears noted, that unfortunately, because of the nature of playing tennis, that it might affect the way the ball bounces that might cause people to sprain ankles, that doing those kinds of repairs doesn't actually work on the kind of surface also as noted that the underlying, you know, structure just needs to be repaired at this point. And then importantly, I think also Councilor Scarpelli noted, if I may, to let me know if I'm wrong, that the high school uses this as well. Like it is a very used tennis courts that really, Medford really would suffer if we did without. And so I appreciate your question.
[Fiore]: It's a rental. This is a rental, sorry.
[Scarpelli]: You have to pay, basically. They use it as a rental. Right, goes to the rec department, which then adds so we can provide programming for the youth.
[Bears]: And the rec department is largely fee funded, except for the salaries. It's pretty much... It's self-sustaining.
[Fiore]: Yeah, because I think in general, the fees get you with, you know, exemptions for people that can't afford it. It makes sense. Yeah.
[Bears]: And I think it's, just to further on that, it's kind of one of those situations where the fees do fund something in the city. the capital improvements and not like it's not the fee money goes to the fund to keep the thing maintained, but as the fee money goes to run the program. So in a sense, you know, if you were to shift the money to the other thing, we'd have to pay for something one way or the other, I think, but Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: I was going to say that same thing that the number struck me as well. And I asked a similar question, but I felt that it was a valid thing to spend a lot of money on because it is something that brings revenue into the city on a consistent basis and something that you want your facilities to be good. So people continue to rent them and they're rented. for a fee by many organizations, I mean, year round, and maybe not right now. But that, you know, we want to maintain those facilities so that people want to keep renting them, and then we bring in the revenue for the city. So that felt valid, especially. But thank you for asking.
[Bears]: Thank you, and my apologies for moving through the vote. Thanks. All right, a capital stabilization fund rescission and appropriation request from the mayor dear President Bears members of the council I respect the request and recommend that your honor body rescind the capital stabilization fund appropriation, and the amount of 322,500 for the window restoration in the chambers. That was approved November 12. None of the appropriated funds have been spent yet, and a request to appropriate the CPA funds has been submitted, and we just approved it. And this was, I think, as we discussed last week, the CPA funds were a better use than the stabilization funds because of the restricted purposes of CPA funds versus the general purposes of the stabilization fund. And that Manager DuPont and Director Riggi indicated there'd be potentially a one week delay in the procurement process. So it's not super significant in terms of the timeline. The second request is to appropriate $197,012.95 for facilities which include the following projects. window dressings in the City Hall chambers, emergency boiler repairs in City Hall, flooring replacement in the Veterans Office and Elections Office, City Hall lock changes, replacement of backflow preventers at Engine 3, Fire Engine 3, new shades and blinds, Fire Station Engine 3, bathroom renovations and adjacent repairs at Engine 4, window trims at Engine 4 and window trims at Engine 6. The total is $197,012.95. With the rescission, any appropriation requires two-thirds majority vote, and with the rescission and the appropriation, the balance of the capital stabilization fund would actually increase from $3,405,000 to $3,530,481. That is the proposal before us. And I will go to members of the council if they have any questions. We do have Director Riggi here on Zoom. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Again, last week, we got a quick briefing on why it made sense for these funding sources to be shuffled around, essentially that for a historic restoration project, which is kind of like the more limited that we should use funds that are very, very limited to historic preservation on historic preservation projects, rather than having that dip into the CPC fund, which could be used for other uses that we keep that funding available for other things such as tennis courts that need to be patched up so people can play on them and a lot of other things. So I appreciate the mayor's office for putting together a formal recommendation so that we can make that exchange and keep funding sources available for how they're gonna be most effective. And I would motion to approve pending other comments or questions from my fellow Councilors.
[Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Is there any further questions by members of the council? Excuse me. Seeing none, Director Riggi, would you like to say anything at this time? Just if there's any context you wanna provide? Don't unmute Matt. I clicked Matt.
[Righi]: Thanks, don't unmute, that's really nice.
[Bears]: Thank you, Director Riggi, you have the floor.
[Righi]: Um, no, I appreciate the council support on these projects. Much of the money is going to much needed repairs at our fire stations and city hall that for years did not get repairs. And I am trying to get the backlog of issues in our buildings taken care of. And with your continued support, we can make headway in that and do that.
[Bears]: Thank you, Director Riggi. I appreciate you speaking on this and your work on these projects. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng. President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative and the negative, the motion passes. I apologize to my colleagues, but I need to step out early. Vice President Collins, if you could take the chair. And I appreciate my colleagues for their deference. Thank you.
[Collins]: Just give me a second to get on the Zoom. Thank you. Great. Thank you for your patience. That was onto 25019. offered by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, approval of funding for legal settlement in the amount of $7,500. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that, nope, that was the last one. Sorry. to present bears and honorable members of the city council from Brianna lungo current mayor January 22 2025. The claimants carrot and just that the. For Salati, seat compensation for property damage suffered allegedly as a result of a blocked sewer line on High Street resulting in sewage backflow entering the basement of a home located at 206 High Street. A global settlement has been reached pursuant to which the city will pay $7,500 and the owner slash operator of the nearby Medford Rehabilitation and Nursing Center will pay $7,500. A form settlement agreement and release has been agreed upon and will be executed upon city council approval of the funding of the settlement. Attorney Roger Smirage will be in attendance via Zoom to provide the council with guidance on this matter. Breakdown to amount requested, medical cost, $0, lost wages, $0, property damage, $7,500. Other $0, total settlement, $7,500. So I understand that we have legal counsel on the Zoom tonight. If any, we'll go to the attorney first and then we'll hear comments, questions, or motions from Councilors.
[SPEAKER_10]: Good evening. Good evening, Vice President. And my apologies, my camera is not working. So I'm just going to be audio only tonight. Just I'll be brief. This is a settlement that we negotiated. The mayor's letter indicated in a super backup case. property owners, plaintiffs originally brought suit against the city only. Working with the public works department, we were able to identify the nearby nursing home as a potential source of the backup issue. And without having to incur the expense of extended discovery or litigation, got the nursing home to agree to split proposed settlement 50-50 and negotiated an amount with plaintiff's counsel down from their sought damages of a minimum of $25,000, which amount could have gone up if the case were litigated, to a settlement amount of $15,000 of which the city will only be required to pay $7,500. I'm happy to answer any questions.
[Collins]: Thank you so much attorney for being with us. So I understand that the initial offer was that the city might've been on the hook for 25,000 and this was able to be negotiated down to 7,500 that the city will pay in addition to the 7,500 from the Medford Rehabilitation Center.
[SPEAKER_10]: That is correct.
[Collins]: Great, thank you. On a motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming. All in favor? Oh, sorry. We're going to do a roll call. Mr. Clerk, whenever you're ready.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan? Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Bears is absent. Sorry. 6-0 with one absent.
[Collins]: 6 in favor, one absent. Motion passes. Thank you for being with us, attorney.
[SPEAKER_10]: Thank you.
[Collins]: Have a good evening. 2-5-0-2-0 offered by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, transfer and conveyance of McCormick Avenue parcels. Dear President Bearss and members of the City Council, I respectively request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following transfer and conveyance of city property which will transfer to the mayor, the care, custody and control of two vacant parcels of vacant land on McCormick Avenue that have remained unused since the city acquired said parcels in 1950 pursuant to a tax title taking, and authorize the mayor to convey said parcels in compliance with General Laws Chapter 30B, the Uniform Procurement Act. The city will benefit by putting the unused parcels to productive and tax-producing uses, and further, the city may, subject to appropriation by the City Council, for the purpose of promoting affordable housing or for such other purposes as the City Council determines is in the best interest of the city. A resolution to transfer and authorize the sale of McCormick Avenue parcels. Whereas the city is the owner of two parcels of land located on McCormick Avenue, each containing 3,600 square feet, more or less, identified in the assessors as parcels F13-37 and F13-38, and described in certificate of title number 166463 filed with the Middlesex South Registry District of the Land Court together the city property. Whereas the city property has been vacant and unused since the city acquired the city property in 1950 pursuant to a tax taking and is surplus to the needs of the city. Whereas there is an urgent need to promote and develop affordable housing in the city of Medford and in the region. Whereas the sale of the city property will benefit the city by putting the city property to productive and tax generating uses. And whereas the sale of said sale, the proceeds of said sale may be used by the city for the purpose of promoting affordable housing. Now, therefore, be it that the city council hereby declares that the city property is surplus to the needs of the city and available for disposition. and that the city council hereby transfers the care, custody, and control of the city property from the tax custodian for tax settle purposes to the mayor for general municipal purposes and or for the purpose of disposition on such terms and conditions as is in the best interest of the city, and that the mayor may be authorized to convey the city's right title and interest in said city property provided that said sale is in compliance with the provisions of General Laws Chapter 30B, the Uniform Procurement Act, and to take any and all other action as may be necessary or appropriate to accomplish that disposition and that this resolution shall take effect upon passage. Attorney Everett will be in attendance via Zoom to provide the council with guidance on this matter. Thank you for your kind attention. Sincerely, Brianna Lugar-Curran, Mayor. Maybe I'll first recognize Attorney Everett to give any comments.
[Everett]: Good evening. Um, I'm Attorney Everett.
[Collins]: We're having a hard time hearing you. Is it possible to speak into your microphone on your end?
[Everett]: Okay. Good evening. Can you hear me better?
[Collins]: I can't hear her. We're having a very hard time hearing you in the chambers.
[Everett]: Um, good evening, City Council members. Um, is this any better?
[Collins]: Can you hold on two seconds? I want to see if we can adjust some settings in our council booth. Thank you, please hang with us. Okay, if you could begin again, Attorney Everett, our audio person is going to try to make some adjustments as you're speaking.
[Everett]: Can you hear me now?
[Collins]: Yes, that's better. All right. Go ahead. Thank you so much.
[Everett]: Thank you, Sarah. Good evening. This is Sharon Everett from KP Law. I have been working with the mayor's office to prepare a request for proposals to convey these properties that I believe have been unused for a long time with the hope that the revenues generated from the sale could be used once City Council appropriates the funds for affordable housing purposes. We drafted a request for proposals, which is almost ready to be sent out. And the mayor requests your authorization to convey these parcels once a suitable purchaser has been selected. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
[Collins]: Thank you, Attorney Everett. So the request for proposals is specifically looking for buyers for the properties. Is the intent here to look for purchases for the properties or to, that will then develop it or just to look for suitable purchases for these properties?
[Everett]: The purpose is to solicit the highest bids because we don't see the property, it may not be as developable or useful for multiple affordable units. The hope is to sell it to a single person at the highest price, and then to use those proceeds for affordable housing purposes.
[Scarpelli]: I'll turn it on. I think it's first that the council gives up custody to the mayor. I think that's the first thing. OK, thank you.
[Collins]: Is that correct, Attorney Everett, that this vote is to convey the parcels from their current tax custodianship so that they can be disposed of by the mayor's office?
[Everett]: Right, so when properties held for certain purposes, some specific purposes, and here they're held for tax title purposes, sorry, excuse me, the custody of the property needs to be transferred to the official who will be responsible for the disposition that being the mayor in this case. So the request is for City Council to authorize the transfer to the mayor, and then further to authorize the mayor to dispose of those parcels.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli, go ahead. I apologize. I just, because I'm really confused. I think the way that it's read that the council has the authority right now. So we are the ones that allow that, correct? But we're now getting the authority to do that, right? So I think this is a good, you know, it's a good step, I think, especially when you're looking for funding the Affordable Housing Trust and looking at avenues that we're looking to support, you know, the unhoused and looking for different avenues and then also looking at a housing shortage. If I can, can we amend this, I think, Council Vice President, that it's important that I know that when this started discussions some time ago, one of the biggest concerns, and I've got some phone calls from people on Laforma Gap, mentioned that, is there a way that we can add, the Council can add, giving the mayor the authority, but also making sure that the residents that abut these properties have right of first refusal, because I think that that's what their biggest fear is, is that if a resident that abuts this land right now, if they can take, if they can benefit from that and have control of what goes on next door to them for the house they bought, when this wasn't in effect, I think it's important that this council protects those residents that abut these opportunities that they have the right of first refusal. Does that make sense, Vice President? I think that if council ever can assist us with that, I think it'd be important that For one, I would make that a formal motion that moving forward, I think that this is something I would support, but I think that what was said and what was mentioned in the past, and again, what was reiterated from the residents of McCormick Gap is that they have the right of first refusal, the abutters of that land.
[Everett]: If I may address that. If I could address that, please. Go ahead. So the city is required to comply with the Uniform Procurement Act to convey any property that is worth over $35,000. Now the RFP process means that the city has to open it to everybody who is interested in applying for the property. So it would be inconsistent with the statute that the city is required to comply with to give rights of first refusal to anybody because that would place them on a better position than anybody else who's bidding. And it's just, the purpose is to sell it at the highest value and to use those proceeds. I understand your concerns about the abutters, but 30B does not allow favoritism to be given to anybody. it has to be even playing field among all parties.
[Scarpelli]: Okay. So, so to reiterate legally, we can't ask for that motion obviously now that, uh, and I think this is the biggest fear. I think that what we're seeing is developers are going to jump on that and they're going to, they're going to come in, they're going to swoop in and all of a sudden they're going to change the face of that neighborhood. So unfortunately I, I, without that support, I don't think I can, I can support doing this because again, We're now allowing something that's so good, that can be so beneficial, that I don't think, I don't know if I can support that. So thank you, Council Vice President.
[Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I think that's an important question that you raised. I didn't see who put their hand up. First, I apologize. I'll go to Councilor Leming and then Councilor Callahan and then Councilor Tseng.
[Leming]: So to support this, I've been in, I've had some conversations with the mayor about this particular project, because I've been generally advocating for her to fund an affordable housing nexus study, which would help us to, which would help the city to establish an affordable housing linkage fee program, which would end up getting a lot more money into affordable housing than that initial investment. And my understanding is that the revenues from this sale would be able to fund that. Now, I do share my colleagues' concerns about potentially changing the character of the neighborhood, but I think a lot of that would be addressed with zoning. So developers can't necessarily do whatever they want with it. I do sympathize with the need for right of first refusal, but as the attorney just explained, we can't legally do that. So given the options, I think it would be best to vote in favor of this. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_17]: Councilor Callahan?
[Callahan]: I'm sorry, I don't have a memorized who's microphone or who's. Yes. So as a general rule, I'm often hesitant for the city to sell off its owned property. And this particular proposal I have quite a few questions about, we have a newly formed affordable housing trust, it is looking into community land trusts. It seems like city properties where housing can be built are perfect candidates for community land trust, you know, land. I am like the language in this seems vaguely to point toward the funding probably being used for portable housing but not necessarily it says for general municipal purposes and or for the purpose of disposition on such terms and conditions as in the best interest of the city like these to me what we are doing is handing over to the mayor the ability to sell a city property with no conditions, and I am not comfortable with that, with the way that this is worded. So I would have a lot of questions about how the Affordable Housing Trust fits into this, why there is a rush when the Affordable Housing Trust is probably not really prepared to deal with land right now because they're in the early stages, and we don't yet have a community land trust, why we are now suddenly desperately selling something that has not been used since 1950, So I have quite a few questions, and I don't believe I will be prepared to vote in favor of this tonight.
[Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. I'll go next to Councilor Lazzaro. Did I get it right this time? What number microphone are you? Who's number three?
[Leming]: Oh, I'm on, I guess.
[Collins]: Oh, sorry. Well, we're going to we're going to go to Emily first. I apologize.
[Lazzaro]: Thank you. I don't know why there's an impression that it's urgent. I just, I mean, it's on the agenda today, but I don't think it's necessarily urgent. I just think it's an available parcel of land that we've done nothing with since, or two available parcels of land that we've done nothing with since 1950, and we have an affordable housing trust that's largely unfunded, and we could sell these parcels, we could put that money into a fund that could build affordable housing, so why wouldn't we, especially as housing prices increase? I think this is a good use. If we want to change some of the language to be more specific, I'm comfortable with that. It doesn't seem desperate or urgent to me, so I think it would be fine to hold until the next meeting. If we wanted to clarify some of the language, I would be comfortable with that. verify confirm say for sure this will be in accordance with the law. sold to whoever is going to comply with our specific zoning requirements and not build outside of those requirements, but that whatever proceeds will come out of it will go into the Affordable Housing Trust. If we could write that into this, I think that would be appropriate if it's not clear enough here now, because that would be the only reason that I would approve this as it is. Thank you.
[Collins]: Thank you.
[Leming]: So I'm on the community land trust working group. It's still very early in the process, but there are a number of city-owned parcels that we're currently investigating. This isn't one of them. There are just better options out there for other pieces of land that could be there. I don't wanna like name any particular parcels because we still need to like look into each one particularly like individually but this isn't this is just proposing to use the proceeds of that and one of them is to afford a nexus study which would then be used for for the purposes of actually developing a program that would then fund the affordable housing trust. So it is pretty needed to get that initial capital in order to fund the studies that would then put more money into the Affordable Housing Trust. So I mean, I mean, I think that getting getting this through as soon as like, as soon as possible without any delays would be would be the appropriate move personally just because we have been talking about a nexus study since last year when we were updating the linkage fees and we can't really do any more with the linkage fees until we get that study underway. So I understand that selling off city-owned land is a pretty, can be a pretty sensitive topic, but if this land hasn't been used since 1950, then I really don't see much of a reason to delay much more on this personally.
[Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Thank you. I understand and agree with much of what Councilor Leming said, but I do also agree with Councilor Callahan's concerns about the general practice of selling city land, selling public land, which for a long time we've said is very scarce without knowing what the larger roadmap is. I guess my personal preference would be to table this and to either have a committee of the whole on this or to have more of a lengthier discussion here next meeting with all councilors present. That'd be my personal preference, but I do wanna understand if there, maybe this is something that Attorney Everett could answer. Is there an urgency to this? Are there any deadlines that we are looking to meet? by passing this tonight, and I'm also curious about the number of votes that we need to pass this. Is this a simple majority or two-thirds majority?
[Everett]: This is a two-thirds vote. I'm not aware of any deadlines, but this has been advocated by the mayor's office, and we're trying to get this off the ground. I would like to mention something some of the councilors questioned as to the reason that the funds are not dedicated expressly towards affordable housing. It's not the right time to do that because by law, once you sell city property, it has to go to a separate account called the sale of lots account. And at that time, the funds may be appropriated by city council for affordable housing purposes. So we're not able to dedicate those funds until they come in, they come into the sale of lot accounts, and then, of course, city council can use that for affordable housing purposes if it so wishes.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Um, that I think answers a lot of questions for me. Um, uh, the, it is helpful to know that the city council will have accountability and oversight over, um, how the money in the sale of lots account will be spent. Um, I would like to make a motion to table, but before I formally make that motion, I see that Councilor, um, Lazzaro has her hand up and introducing such a motion would end the debate.
[Lazzaro]: Thank you. If the city council appropriates the funds when the parcels are sold, then I am comfortable voting on this tonight because they legally cannot say this will be used for affordable housing because we say that. So does that, Attorney Everett, does that sound correct to you, the way I phrased that?
[Everett]: That is indeed the law.
[Collins]: Is it, Attorney Everett, if I may piggyback on your question, is it true that if the lots are to be sold for some amount of money, is City Council approval required for any appropriation of that money or just for an appropriation, for example, into the Affordable Housing Trust? Like, will the City Council oversight on how the funds are used in any case or only in certain cases?
[Everett]: In all cases, monies that are derived from the sale of city property go into the sale of lot accounts. The law states that those funds are to be used first to repay any debt that the city may have if it acquired the property. But if there's no debt, as is in this case, then the funds may be appropriated for any purpose for which the city may borrow funds. So which is pretty much it. That's correct.
[Tseng]: I have a procedural question for the attorney. Um, given that we have six Councilors present out of seven, um, is the two thirds vote based on the six Councilors present or the seven sitting members?
[Everett]: It would be the seven.
[Tseng]: So we need more votes.
[Collins]: We'll go next to Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Um, just a hypothetical question. Looking down the line, if, um, this land were not to be sold and were to be, is it possible for the city to transfer ownership of this land to the Affordable Housing Trust or to a community land trust, should we have one?
[Everett]: I believe that the mayor's office reviewed whether it was possible to use this property for affordable housing purposes. And I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that in reviewing that zoning and issues, it was discovered that you could use it maybe for one affordable housing family, one family, whereas the goal is to maximize the revenues and perhaps use it to develop multiple affordable units. So that's, so yes, but to answer your question, yes, the properties could be transferred to the Affordable Housing Trust or to any other city body that you wish.
[Collins]: Thank you. If I may cut in here, I don't want to speculate on the intent of this strategy, nor do I want to put forward the impression that I'm contemplating all of the possible consequences that could come from this. But I think that one of the questions that this council is deliberating on is if two of our options are to explore ways when the properties as they currently are could be transferred in some way to the Affordable Housing Trust or Community Land Trust so that affordable housing may be developed there on those lots? Or should we use the sale of those lots to create funding that theoretically could be used to create more numerous affordable housing units elsewhere in the city? And I think that that is not a frivolous question because I think that a shared goal is to make sure that there's affordable housing available everywhere throughout the city. Of course, some areas of the city we need dense housing, we need a lot of affordable housing, but we need affordable housing in every area of the city. I can't make motions, but I would certainly feel more comfortable voting on this if we met in a community hall. And if we met in a committee of the whole with a representative from the mayor's team, perhaps with members of the Affordable Housing Trust and other city staff to remain to the issue to make sure that we're kind of aware of the whole flowchart of options. from the sale, perhaps with a memo from the mayor's office outlining their intent in pursuing the RFP route that they have been pursuing. Essentially, you know, this is coming to the city council after a lot of thought has already gone into it. I'm sure that that thought has been done in good faith. But this is a big deal. Transferring city property so it can be sold is a big deal. And as one councilor who can't make motions, I would feel more comfortable if we had time to deliberate on it.
[Tseng]: I would motion to table pending a committee of the whole with inviting members of the administration, the Affordable Housing Trust and other stakeholders. Okay. Great.
[Collins]: on the motion to table by Councilor Tseng pending a meeting in a committee of the whole with pertinent members of the Mayor's Administration and representatives from the Affordable Housing Trust, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes and the paper will be tabled and myself and President Bears will work to get that committee of the whole set up with supporting documents and research. Attorney Everett, thank you so much for being on the call with us this evening. We really appreciate it.
[Everett]: Thank you for your time. Good night. Thank you.
[Collins]: We move now to public participation. Any member who wishes to speak can approach the podium. You have to give your name and address for the record, and then you'll have three minutes to address the council. Oh, hang on one sec. There you go. Now your mic is live. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_00]: My name is Mei. I live in Malden, 19 Phillips Street. Hello, everyone. Good evening. My name is Mei. I'm a practitioner of Falun Gong, a Buddhist spiritual practice that is guided under the principles of truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance. By 1999, the Chinese government saw the practice as a threat to its political power. and therefore labeled Falun Gong as an evil cult and started a national campaign against Falun Gong. Since then, the Falun Gong practitioners have been persecuted. The persecution includes detention, brainwashing, labor camps, torture, and even organ harvesting from living practitioners. My family was impacted under this persecution when I was in high school. My mother was arrested and forced to quit her job. And then my family was monitored by the local police. Many of our fellow practitioners were detained, sentenced, and tortured simply because of their faith. We immigrated to the U.S. to escape the persecution in China, and we are now grateful to freely practice our beliefs today. And today I'm very proud to be an American citizen. In my free time, I have become a volunteer to promote sharing performing arts, which was founded by Falun Gong practitioners in 2006 with a mission to revive China's 5000 years divinely inspired traditional culture. Among the Xinyuan artists are some of the practitioners who were persecuted in China. The performance also tries to bring attention to the ongoing persecution of Falun Gong, which is a part of our peaceful efforts to resist the persecution. However, in the last six months, the Chinese Communist regime has escalated tremendously the persecution of Falun Gong and Shen Yun on the U.S. soil with bomb threats and other threats of violence. For example, during Shen Yun's tour last year, bomb threats were made in three different countries in just one week. Also, leading up to the first performance of this year in Georgia, Xie Yun received an email threatening if the theater like Xie Yun performed, the audience would be shot during the show. The email even included a photo of handgun and bullets. When the CCP's attempts to shut down Shen Yun by making threats failed, it pivoted to manipulating public opinion. According to the leaked CCP documents, congressional testimonies from former Chinese diplomats, and third party investigations, the CCP has enacted operations around the world to silence, marginalize, and surprise Falun Gong. Today, the CCP's transnational repression strategies include social media trolling, lawfare, media manipulation, co-opting the government, and impersonating practitioners in order to make false and damaging claims. I'm deeply concerned that the CCP's influence will stretch into communities like ours, where practitioners and their families are not free from intimidation. I urge our local officials, committee leaders, and fellow residents to stand in solidarity with those who are fighting for their right to practice their faith and express their culture freely. We must resist the CCP's efforts to extend this oppressive influence into our lives here in America and work together to safeguard the rights of those who cherish freedom. Today is Lunar New Year's Eve, and I'm fortunate to come back with my parents to eat dumplings. But thousands of practitioners and political prisoners are aparted from their family, and their children have become orphans because of the persecution. So I think my fellow practitioner would like to share her story. Thank you.
[Collins]: Thank you so much for your comments. Great. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes as well.
[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you for being here. Hello, everyone. My name is Ping. I live in Winchester, 14 Park Road. Hi, everyone. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here. I have been a Falun Gong practitioner since I was 12 years old. The practice has taught me how to be a truly good person. In the earlier part of the persecution, my grandpa was arrested and imprisoned for speaking the truth to the government. He was tortured in the prison and passed away shortly after his release. Now, I'd like to share another story with you. It's another Falun Gong practitioner and a singing performer whose family was torn apart due to the persecution. And to use Zoom to share this with you.
[Collins]: Oh, I'm sorry. We don't usually do screen sharing from public presentation.
[SPEAKER_13]: Oh.
[Collins]: But you have two more minutes if you'd like to continue your comments.
[SPEAKER_13]: OK. So. So since 1999, millions of Falun Gong practitioners have been tortured or killed in China by the CCP. Because the CCP don't like any types of religions, they don't allow us to believe in God. So as Ming-Qian mentioned, Now it's deeply troubling and unexpected that the CCP has been employing various forms of transnational tactics to intimidate and silence practitioners here on US soil. These actions are a direct threat to the religious freedom protect in the United States. So, it must not be tolerated. So please be aware of CCP's tactics and stand with us in addressing and countering them. Thank you.
[Collins]: Thank you very much for being with us today. Thank you. Is there anybody else for public participation in the chambers or on Zoom?
[Fiore]: I just think that was a very good reminder for those of us that advocate relentlessly for limited government. I just got a question. Councilor Lazzaro mentioned that on Thursday, there's a meeting at the senior center, but I'm on the webpage of the Met for Events calendar, and I don't see it. So I was wondering where I can find information for that meeting. I only see a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 6.30 p.m. That's the only event listed on Thursday, January 30.
[Collins]: I recognize Councilor Lazzaro, if you want to respond.
[Lazzaro]: The listening session is advertised in the newsletter of the Senior Center, and it'll also be in the newsletter that we're releasing. from the Resident Services Committee. We have a meeting tomorrow to revise that and that will be released after that meeting. But I am not aware of how things go on the events calendar. Pam Kelly is the director of the Senior Center, so she puts it in the, we tell her a month ahead of time, she puts it on the newsletter for the Senior Center, so it's like a paper newsletter. It also gets emailed out if you're on the list.
[Fiore]: Okay, so I just checked the website of the Senior Center. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much.
[Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. In my understanding, I'm not a member of the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, but my understanding is that with the listening sessions, the target audience is the folks who organically gather at the community center where the listening sessions are. So I'm sure that the promotion is focused on those folks who are already going to be there for various purposes so that the frequent attendees, rather than the broader general public, can be met by councilors at these places that they are already going.
[Lazzaro]: Yes, that's correct. The idea is to be in the community in the spaces where people are gathered and to be reaching out to different groups in the community and meeting them where they are. But while I'm here, if I can make a motion to adjourn, I will do so. If there are no other public participation folks.
[Collins]: I see no other candidates for public participation on Zoom or in person. Seeing none, is there a second for the motion to adjourn? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
|
total time: 32.27 minutes total words: 5580  |
total time: 8.02 minutes total words: 1320  |
total time: 20.17 minutes total words: 3573  |
total time: 8.17 minutes total words: 1251  |
|
total time: 25.04 minutes total words: 3898  |
total time: 9.32 minutes total words: 1407  |
total time: 10.77 minutes total words: 1655  |
|