[Fred Dello Russo]: Meeting of the Medford City Council will come to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso? Present. Councilor Caraviello? Present. Councilor Knight? Here. Vice President Lundgren? Present. Councilor Marks? Present. Councilor Penta? Present.
[Fred Dello Russo]: President Dello Russo? Present. Six present, one absent, temporarily. Please rise to salute the flag.
[Clerk]: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair recognizes Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to make a motion to take paper 15-460 off the table and refer it to Committee of the Whole.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Camuso to take Chapter 15-460 off the table. All those in favor? All those opposed? Carries. On the motion of Councilor Camuso to send it to the Committee of the Whole. All those in favor? All those opposed? It was sent to the Committee of the Whole. While we're under suspension, Councilor Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If we can take Paper one, under motions, orders, and resolutions, paper 15-497. Out of order, please.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Vice President Logan Kern to take 15-497, out of order. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion carries. Mr. Clerk, please mark Councilor Knight as present. Present. Not as president. Present. 15497, offered by Vice President Lungo-Koehn and Councilor Marks. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council request that the city administration report back to the council with regards to what, if anything, has been done regarding the flight patterns from Logan Airport. Be it further resolved that Massport representative with Medford's appointment to the Massport Community Advisory Board appear before the Medford City Council. Madam Vice President, is any of this related to the buzzing of method we've had from the Blue Angels today.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: No, not today. Thank you. Thank you, President Dello Russo. Um, myself and actually Council Marks put this on the agenda because the entire council, I believe has been getting a number of, um, complaints from residents who are hearing the airplanes coming from Logan airport above their heads, whether their windows are open or not. Um, it's disturbing sleep. It's disturbing quality of life. A lot of it's going on. I hear complaints from West Medford and from the Medford Heights. And we actually have a resident here to speak tonight. So, you know, I would like her to come up and explain what's going on in her neighborhood, which is actually close to my neighborhood. I also wanted to bring it up because it is hard to get answers from Massport. It's hard to know exactly what our administration is doing with regards to these complaints. I think the people need answers, and I think we need, whether it's a number of studies that can be done, analysis, analyzing the situation to make sure that we try to get some resolve for our residents. I know Somerville brought up the issue recently. Actually, May 7th is the article that I read from Somerville, actually forwarded to me by somebody else who was complaining in the West Medford area. So the Board of Aldermen's sought answers to aircraft noise issues. They actually are researching flight patterns, or asking that it be researched, flight patterns and the number of residents affected be analyzed and be compared with other runways and communities. I read it further. I did some research online. I know that an article was in the Medford Patch last year, 2014, at which time Massport stated they were going to do a one-year study. So I'd like to, you know, further amend my resolve and ask that we get any results from that Massport study. I don't know if Council Member Marks has anything else to add, but it seems like the flight patterns have doubled, and there's also an issue with the lane, the certain, it's hard to understand, but the lane that was opened, which is, Logan's runway 33 left, or R33L. It's the airport's last major runway to receive RNAV, and planes that take off are using this new runway to fly over areas such as East Boston, Chelsea, Everett, Cambridge, Somerville, and Medford. So that opened June 2013, and I think that's the beginning of when the complaints started here. Last year, around this time, is when we started to get the complaints. They kind of die off. When all the windows close, people start going inside their homes. So for November, December, they start dying off. And now, all of a sudden, we're getting the complaints again. And we're getting people who can't enjoy their backyards. Or they can't even watch TV with their windows open, because these flights are happening every two minutes. At least you're seeing your plane fly over. So I would like to join in on what the city of Somerville is trying to do. And there's no reason why Medford can't analyze and strategize and draft their own recommendations to mass board or ask for answers so that we can, you know, figure out if there's a way that we can lessen the inconvenience to our residents.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. Thank you. A madam vice president, council Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank council Longo current for, uh, her resolution and, uh, her comments she just made. This has been an ongoing issue for a number of years in the community. I know there's been several resolutions before this council asking the administration to look into why the increase of air traffic over our community, what can be done on behalf of the many residents and the many different neighborhoods. You would think that it only impacts certain areas of the city, but the complaints I'm receiving go from South Method to North Method to Wellington to West Method. It really covers the entire city, and the disturbance is citywide. I had the opportunity to go on to the Massport website, and they list noise disturbance by community for each year. And this year, which is year to date, January to April, there was 71 complaints from Method residents and 29 callers. that called up. So the numbers, you know, I think speak volume to having someone go find the number to call, first of all, because it's such a concern and impacting their daily life that we really, as a community, need to act upon this, Mr. President. I also took the liberty, because the Community Advisory Committee which is a committee that was created some years back. It's not under the auspice of Massport, but it's a separate body comprised of a resident from each of the impacted areas in a certain radius from Logan Airport. And our representative that was appointed by the mayor, she's been on a number of years. Her name is Yelena, and I'll spell the last name. It's S-H-U-L-K-I-N-A. I think it's Shokina. And she is the Medford CAC, Community Advisory Committee member. And I'd like to give out her email address, Mr. President, because I think residents that have concerns should know who they can talk to, who is the representative from our community that is representing every resident in this community when these board meetings take place. And they're the ones that have impact, that sit down with Massport and sit down with the FAA and are able to affect change on flight patents, on noise from planes, and a host of issues. And her email address is lzlatsman at yahoo.com. And if you don't have access to email, a phone number is 781. 395-1471. And again, Yelena is our community person on the community advisory committee. And I think it's only appropriate that residents that have concern, I think it was a couple of years ago, Mr. President, I offered a resolution requesting that Yelena appear before the council and update us on anything that was taking place within the advisory board. And I didn't get any response, nor did Jelena ever appear before this council. The president of CAC, the Community Advisory Committee, is a woman by the name of Ms. Sandra Kuntz, K-U-N-Z. And she's the president of this, I believe, 30-member board that makes recommendations. And her email address is skunz at verizon.net. And she's the president of the board. and I guess was instrumental in putting together the Citizen Advisory Board back some years ago because of the issues she had in her home community. Just to touch upon what Councilor Lungo-Koehn mentioned about what's taking place with the Boston Logan Airport noise study. They refer to it as BLANS, B-L-A-N-S. And it was supposedly a three-phase approach to addressing some of the concerns that have been mentioned by area communities. And if I could, off the website, it says this is the largest FAA-funded noise study in the nation. The total dollar value for the study is approximately $8.3 million. 80%, 6.6 million, is funded by airport improvement program grants. And then the remaining is 1.7 million which is funded by Massport. And the first phase of the project was culminated in October 2007 with an environmental report done and given to FAA with recommendations. The second phase was called the Boston Logan Airport Noise Study. It began in 2007 and was completed in December 2012 with final results documented. And I think that's what Councilor Lungo-Koehn just mentioned, that she'd like to get a copy. And I went on the website. I couldn't find it. I couldn't find it anywhere, the final recommendations. And I'd also like to make as part of the report, Mr. President, that we can find out what input our community representative had or what offerings our community representative had, if any, towards this particular report. And the third phase, which began in July 2013, will identify and evaluate potential runway use measures to be included in a runway use program to replace the preferential runway advisory system. The vote CAC took was in 2012, and this was to abate runway noise. So I think if we can get some feedback from the advisory committee member, It would be very helpful. We've also, I believe a couple years back, asked representatives from Massport to appear before the council, maybe because we're not in the immediate vicinity, like Revere and Winthrop. They pay no attention to us. But this is an issue that this council has been behind from day one. And I'd like to see the administration take a more active role in this issue, because it does impact. I know in Wellington, when I'm standing in my driveway, and I can read the numbers on the bottom of the belly of the airplane, you know they're low. You have good eyes. No, these planes are low. It's not my eyes. They're low. And, you know, when your home shakes, when they go over, you tend to say to yourself, what are the requirements that would put us in an issue where maybe we could get some mitigation? What do you need? When my home shakes, is that enough? You know, I'm not sure. I was told that they have noise detectors throughout our community and that we don't reach the FAA requirements to have mitigation. Maybe those standards could be lowered. Maybe it's about time we look at other areas that are being impacted and see where these particular devices are located. But in my opinion, Mr. President, something needs to be done.
[Fred Dello Russo]: And I know Massport did a mitigation project several years ago, maybe within the past four years, of window replacement in Chelsea and East Boston.
[Michael Marks]: Right. And, you know, we may not be at that level, but we were close to a level where, um, I was told also that they were looking at other routes to go over the mystic and, and, and take the planes in a different area rather than over our neighborhoods. And, um, I, I believe that that was taking place, but, uh, I haven't seen much in regards to that because I still on Sunday mornings, you can, you can almost set your watch by it. You know, when they're coming overhead at six 30 in the morning, you know, it's going to last three hours. Then certain nights you'll hear him, uh, you know, at six, seven o'clock at night. So, um, it's like I said, it's throughout the community. And again, I want to thank, uh, council a lungo for bringing this up and the residents. I know there's a resident that wants to speak. The number of residents that have been sending emails to this council and to this administration, uh, to help, uh, resolve this important quality of life issue, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. So on the motion of Councilors Lungo and Marks as amended by both Councilors Lungo and Marks, Madam Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Briefly, if we could, if we could actually ask the Medford's rep to come again, I know maybe send her an email or a letter in the mail. I think that's probably, getting somebody from the board, we're going to learn a lot more that way than trying to do our research and ask the administration. So if we could ask again, that would be helpful. And I know back in 2013, Logan Airport adopted a straight line way of approaching the airport, which they used to do a roundabout way, which is one of the reasons why planes are flying lower. The Federal Aviation Administration, which uses radar approach points, allow planes to fly within the last two years shorter distances, which reduce fuel usage and carbon emissions. So there is a reason why. Planes are definitely flying low. There is a reason why we're getting these complaints. And therefore, there's a reason for the study and the money being spent to make sure the decibels are within normal ranges. Because if you're researching online, too, a lot of things that I found today and yesterday that were popping up were health risks. detrimental effects that this noise level can have on a human being. So I would like to obviously get that report on that one-year study and definitely see if we can get any report on any other studies that are having to do with any of the noise levels. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you, Madam Vice President. Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. Madam Vice President, Councilor Marks, thank you very much for your remarks on this topic as well. I think it's all well and good that we can bring a member of the CAC in here to discuss the flight patents, but Massport also has an Office of Community Relations, and they also have an Office of Government Affairs. And I'd like to amend the resolution to ask that Jose Maceo, who would be the Community Relations Director, and Nancy Donahue, the Assistant Director of Government Affairs, also be invited to our meeting to discuss the flight patents, Mr. President. I think it would be very productive to have all parties involved.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The President. Absolutely. Vice President Lombo-Kern and Councilor Marks, as amended by both, and Councilor Knight. Sir, you wish to speak on this matter. Please state your name and address for the record. Good evening.
[Michael Ruggiero]: I do. My name is Michael Ruggiero. I live on 18 Pembroke Street. As Councilor Lombo-Kern mentioned, With the installation of the virtual runway 33L, when there is a northwest heading wind in Logan, we can receive up to two flights every minute. The flights are heaviest often at night when there is a northwest wind into Boston. There's a number of different groups that are involved. One of the information that I'm reading right now, just to give people a heads up that are listening at home, If you go to bostonwestfairskies.com, there's a number of listing of information about the flight paths. As a father of a nine-month-old baby, I can tell you it can be pretty extreme living. And we live at the convergence. Medford is the convergence of five different paths. So it's not that there are just so many more people flying into Boston. It's that the people that are flying to Boston are going on fewer and fewer paths, and they're all converging on to Medford. So, thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, and I can certainly understand the frustrations. My home is right underneath one of the paths, and it seems like every weekend it's coming from the Winchester line right over the large Memorial Hospital into Logan. And it is... It's louder some days than others. When the bigger planes, the 747s, are either taking off or landing, it's a lot louder than some of the smaller A320s and some of them double-engine planes. I certainly agree with the resolve in looking in to see if there's some mitigation money out there. But I also am very cognizant of the fact that Massport's first and most top priority is for the safety of the flights in and out of Logan Airport. And I'm sure they'll work with us any way they can. But this is a catch-22, this situation. For the same reason people are paying a large amount of money for their homes here in our community, it's because of its proximity to Boston, to the airport, to the financial district, and everything else. So it's sort of a catch-22, shall we say. I know Councilor Marks championed this issue many years ago. He was on the front page of the Boston Herald. I think it was the Herald, was it, Councilor? With this very particular matter. And as I said in my conversations with Massport officials at the time, and that was about three or four years ago, I believe, more than that, as Councilor Mark says, they understand the frustrations. And if we do meet a threshold in certain areas of the community, then there is sometimes funding out there to do mitigation within the homes. I know Winthrop receives a lot of money for the homes right in Winthrop, East Boston. But like I said, unfortunately, I don't want to underestimate the severity of the noise, believe me, because I understand it wholeheartedly. I have a five-year-old, but I also am very cognizant of the fact that It is seven miles from Boston, and this is one thing that we have to expect. Maybe not with the volume, but Boston, it's an international airport. It's not like Lawrence or Hyannis Airport where you get flights every so often. We're an international airport. You look at these planes, and they are low. You can read them, Lufthansa, Alitalia, and things of that nature. So I'm more concerned about the safety. Like I said, quite frankly, right after September 11th in the year 2001, there was an airline accident that happened right in New York. And it wasn't terrorist, it was mechanical failure or something of that nature. But it was, it landed under mechanical distress or whatever it was, in a very populated area that was homes and things of that nature. So as I understand it, and the other thing is too, As the gentleman that comes up here weekly with his little tablet looking up web pages said so eloquently, he alluded to the fact of the winds. The planes have to take off into the wind in order to get off the ground. So with that being said, a lot of the takeoffs are predicated upon the wind and the weather and all that too. But I certainly do agree with the studies. that Council Marks brought up years ago, and Council Lungo-Koehn again this evening. So I do support this. But I just, as I stated, I'm not going to repeat the wheel. And I've heard that many people in the community this weekend at the coffee shop stated, because they read the council agenda. And they were a little bit like, hey, when I moved to Medford from Salem Mass, I knew I was paying $575,000 for my home to get closer to Boston. And this was one of the setbacks. But I certainly understand all the frustrations out there.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Karafiello. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, now that the nice weather's out and everyone's out and the yards and the windows are open, you're hearing the noise a lot more than you did over the winter. You know, I don't know how many people know, but over the next two to three years, there's going to be 11 more international airlines flying into Logan Airport. And they're flying in with those bigger planes. So the problem is only going to get worse. It's not going to get better. So I think it's time that we do get get the study out there and get somebody in there. As I said, the problem is just going to continue to grow.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Ma'am, please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_15]: Ann Donati, 29 Gaston Street, D-O-N-A-T-I. OK. So last summer, I thought all the airplane noise was in my head, that I was just imagining all the noise. And then I saw the front page of the transcript, residents hear the roar. I read that. And then I saw a few news segments on Channel 5 and some of the news stations about the airplane noise. So I said, it's not in my head. So I started to file complaints with Massport. And then they send you these little notices which basically are useless and say, yes, you are affected by the noise, which I don't think is very helpful, as opposed to saying, we'll try to do this, we'll try to do that. So anyway, when it started up this, the beginning of May, that's when I started emailing the city council, filing more complaints with Massport, and I've been keeping a log of all the noise, and it started on April 30th, and it's 10 p.m. to midnight. It's 5.30 a.m. May 19th, it was 12.30 a.m. to 1.30 a.m. This noise has to stop, especially at these hours. I mean, people have to get up to go to work, and I cannot have these jetliners literally right over my house, This is how close they are. They are right over my house at all these hours at night. And it's, it's, I feel like the bomb's going to drop. This is a night picture, but it's, I'm beside myself. I have new windows in my house. I would like to have my windows open. I understand that, you know, um, When we had winter storms, you know, they used to come fly over the houses, you know, to avoid the ocean. I understand all that, but this on a regular basis has to stop. It's insane. And I don't know what else to do, but I'm glad that everybody is you know, paying attention to it, trying to nip it in the bud. But I don't think the resolution to give people new windows is going to help because, like you said, it's just going to get worse. So we need to nip this in the bud. And if anybody wants to hear, I have recordings of these jetliners over our houses. One of my neighbors is here. It's just crazy. And like you said, you hear it too. And you can read the names of the planes. It's just crazy. So I'm very upset. And I've been a resident. in Medford since 1998, and again, I'm used to the plane noise, but last summer and this summer, it's, I can't live like this. And if I ever put my house on the market because of this noise, and a prospective buyer wanted to come in and look at it, and this noise is going over, they'd run like the wind. Who would want to move here? So, that's, I'm very nervous, but thanks for listening.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much for coming.
[SPEAKER_15]: Nobody wants to hear my recordings, but all right, I'll do one. OK. May 7. That was at the beginning of May. And this is a cheapie. This is not a, that's yes. Oh, let's see. I have a whole bunch of them. This one I think was during, what did it say? April 30th. This was 10 PM to midnight. I have a whole slew of them. And again, this is a cheapie, but I think, did you hear it a little bit? Um, you know, all right, I'll do one more and then I'll let my neighbor speak. This one is the one at 1230. Tuesday, 1230 AM, May 19.
[SPEAKER_14]: And this is at 1230 AM. It's insane. Sorry. I don't know how else to describe this.
[SPEAKER_15]: So thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much for coming.
[SPEAKER_15]: And you all have my email, so please feel free to contact me if you need me to support our cause.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_02]: Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record. Chris. I'm at 35 Gaston street. Thank you. Um, I've, I've been, uh, I was born in this city and I've been a resident for 43 years and I bought my house based on the quiet of the neighborhood. I mean, I could, I could literally throw a rock from my backyard to the house I grew up in. You know, that's where I wanted to raise my children and because it was a nice place to live. You know, I mean, I just, it's, now I can't sleep at night, you know, and it's ridiculous, you know. And I don't know why they can't, at nighttime at least, come out, come over the ocean. Nobody's living out there, you know. For real, I mean, I pay more and more taxes, and my quality of life is going down and down and down. You know? I mean, I can't even sit out in the backyard and have a conversation with my brothers and sisters with one of these things coming over. You know? It's just ridiculous. I mean, I don't know what you guys can do. if anything, but any help you can give us would be very much appreciated, very, very much appreciated, because this is really, really getting tough. So I thank you all.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you for coming down tonight. So on the motion of Vice President Lungo-Koehn and Councilor Marks, as amended by the same and Councilor Knight. All those in favor? A roll call vote has been requested. Mr. Clerk, could you please call the roll?
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso? Yes. Councilor Caraviello? Councilor Knight? Yes. Vice-President Lungo-Koehn? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Penta? Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: President Dello Russo. Yes. And the vote is seven in the affirmative, none negative. The motion is passed and so ordered. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: While we're still on the suspension of the rules, can we take 15.495 please?
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Penta to take paper out of order, 15.495. All those in favor? All those opposed? Carries. 15.495 offered by Councilor Penta. Be it resolved that the problem of a Medford businesswoman be addressed, Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, members of the Council, there is a lady out in the audience. I believe she's going to address the Council. It's another ongoing saga of what Republic, the parking company, has been doing in the city, the consternation it's been causing to business merchants within the community, and the fact that, if you can come up, the fact that this business is, and she'll be able to tell you herself, it's becoming less and less, it's almost to the point it's going to put her out of business. But I'll let her speak for herself.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Q7cD9OP2TNA_SPEAKER_00]: I think you all know why I'm here. This is just 337 people that do not want the kiosk in the square, or any part of Medford, for that fact. I see people out there every day. They don't even know what to do. The sunshine, and they can't see what to do there. And they're standing out there. It's very frustrating. And of course, I'm working three days a week now. It's down to that. And I don't feel like I'm going to be staying in business much longer. And I'm not the only one. Everybody I spoke to in Medford Square, they're all unhappy, very unhappy. So I think there should have been another way. Why didn't they put cops on the beach? And for the ones that are there all day and park their cars to go into Boston, those are the ones they should have went after. Now I hear this, oh, there's plenty of parking. You know why? They're boycotting. Everybody's boycotting. They don't want to pay. It's the principle of it. And I don't blame them. What have you got in Medford Square? Salons and restaurants. What else are they going to come for? I'm afraid Medford Square is just going to die right out. That's all I have to say, but this is just 337 people and it's still going in my shot. Okay.
[Fred Dello Russo]: We want to add that to the record. If you would give that to the city messenger and he'll present to the clerk to be affixed to the permanent record of the city of Medford. Did Councilor Panto want to address? Councilor Penta's going to have the floor.
[Robert Penta]: Chris, could you come to that? How long have you been doing business in Medford Square?
[Q7cD9OP2TNA_SPEAKER_00]: 30 years. 30 years. And I still want to continue working, because I love it.
[Robert Penta]: And I thank you for coming forward and presenting the signatures of individuals. And one of the complaints that you just talked about is something that Councilor Caraviello mentioned way back when, that nobody can read the screen. It's the blur of the sun. whatever it might be. Again, this past week, over and beyond your situation, two more people, one in particular, and I have pictures right here. They still have kiosks in High Street in front of residential homes that were supposed to have been taken out months ago. The snow has been gone for a long period of time. They're still there, and people crazily are trying to put money into a machine in front of a two-filming house that they shouldn't have to. And then at the same time, co-worker, a co-business friend of yours in the West Method area, a girl had to get off the chair with her rollers in her hair to go and put money in the meter. And she couldn't even put the money in the same meter. She had to find another spot. That's how crazy this whole system is. You know, I think it's Mr. Ruggieri, he's still out there. He's been very helpful on this, on dissecting and getting into the contract, as well as myself. I believe that there's approximately nine infractions that they have committed. And of course, the city has enacted upon it. Why, I don't know. But all I can tell you is this. As a candidate for mayor, that's going to be the first thing I am going to address. Those kiosks and the damage that it's doing here to the merchants and the entire city of Medford. So I thank you for bringing that forward. I think it'll be much appreciated.
[Q7cD9OP2TNA_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President. woman's gone through extensive lengths to get these signatures and to take them and place them on file with the city clerk might not be the best approach. I think maybe we should send these signatures over to the traffic commission to let the traffic commission know how much opposition there is out there in the community with the governing board.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the motion of Councilor Knight, can we take that as a resolution that this petition be forwarded to the Medford Traffic Commission. So, on the motion of Council and I, all those in favor?
[Adam Knight]: What was the original motion? There was no motion.
[Robert Penta]: It was just discussed.
[Adam Knight]: The signatures, right, yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On that, all those in favor? Roll call has been requested by Councilor Penta.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Vice President Lungo-Koehn?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Marks?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Penta? President Del Russo?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. A vote of seven, the affirmative, none negative. The motion carries. The motion of Councilor Camuso to resort back to the regular order of business. All those in favor? All those opposed? 15-488, location of poles, attachments of fixtures in underground conduits. Medford, Massachusetts City Clerk's Office. You are hereby notified that, by order of the Medford City Council, a public hearing will be given at the Howard F. Walton Memorial Auditorium, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts, at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, May 26, 2015, on a petition by National Grid of North Andover, Massachusetts, and Verizon New England for permission to locate poles, wires, and fixtures, including the necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures along and across the following public way. Riverside Ave, National Grid to relocate one jail pole. National Grid proposes to relocate pole 1649 Riverside Avenue, 20 feet plus or minus northwest of existing location and install a 10 feet plus or minus of two to four primary inch primary duct across public property onto 491 Riverside Avenue property for new service. Wherefore it prays that after due notice and hearing as provided by law, it be given permission to excavate the public highways and to run and maintain underground electrical conduits together with such sustaining and protecting fixtures as it may find necessary for the transmission of electricity. Set underground conduits to be located substantially in accordance with the plan filed herewith marked National Grid, Riverside Ave, Medford, Massachusetts, number 18349215, April 15th, 2015. Approved, City Engineer. Upon review of this petition, this work of moving the existing pole and underground conduit can proceed forthwith, provided the following requirements are met. No city owned or private utilities or other structures are adversely impacted. National Grid shall ensure that all sewer, water and drain lines are marked prior to any excavation. Any disturbed concrete sidewalk panels shall be replaced in kind. Asphalt must be replaced by asphalt. Before beginning work, the contractor shall notify DigSafe and shall obtain applicable permits from the engineering division. National grid contractors shall utilize City of Medford regulations and standards as well as for removing all debris related to its work. Approved, Superintendent of Wires. Call 781-393-2425 for any accommodations, et cetera. Sincerely, Edward P. Finn, City Clerk. I declare the public hearing open and open it up to all those in favor. All those in favor, make yourself present and known. Sir, state your name and address for the record. Tim Liefert, 170 Medford Street, Malden, Massachusetts, National Grid Electric. Thank you. You're in favor of this. Very good. Anybody else in favor? All those in favor, please present themselves to the podium. Hearing and seeing none else, I declare this portion of the meeting closed. All those in opposition, anybody in opposition to this presented to us, please make yourself known before the podium. Hearing and seeing none, we declare the public hearing closed and we open up the floor to recommendation. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: On the last paragraph, where the word utilize is, strike the word utilize and change it adhere to all. That makes it mandatory that they have to conform to all our city and metro regulations. Utilize is subjective.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the motion of Council Penta, that the word utilize be stricken and the words adhere to all. That is second to the last second line above approved by the superintendent of wires and the sentence that national grid contractor shall utilize. We are now going to amend that according to Councilor Penta to say national grid contractor shall adhere to all city of Medford regulations and standards as well as it seems as though something's missing from there. for removing all debris related to its work. City engineers report. Very good. So on that motion by Councilor Penter, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Congratulations, Mr. Grid. Thank you. Before we take motions, orders, and resolutions, I've been asked to make the following announcement from the Medford Police Department. A memorial mass for the deceased members of the Medford Police Department will be offered on Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 9 o'clock in the Immaculate Conception Church. That's Friday, May 29th, at 9 a.m. in the Immaculate Conception Church, 60 Pleasant Street, Route 60, at the Malden-Medford line. This mass is offered in memoriam of deceased former members of the Medford Police Department. They include Robert B. Corrado, Kenneth J. Hickey, Adrian L. Jean, Peter W. McGaffigan, Jr., Christopher E. Sano, Thomas J. Walsh, and Sheila Ritchie, former traffic supervisor. The Right Reverend Robert Casey, chaplain, to the Metro Police Department will be the principal celebrant, and current celebrants will include Father Francis Garrity, retired chaplain, and Deacon Mark Rumley of Immaculate Conception Parish. Families and friends, public and public, are cordially invited to join. Motions, orders, and resolutions 15-493, offered by Councilor Caraviello, be it resolved that the Medford City Council discuss the poor conditions of the bathrooms at Medford Public Library. Please have the mayor's office provide a detailed explanation of where the previously allocated funds were spent. Councilor Caffiello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Last year, Councilor Marks brought this forward. We had a lengthy discussion over fixing the bathrooms, and if I'm not mistaken, $10,000 was allocated to fix the bathrooms, and all we ever got was a couple of faucets changed over there. Over the weekend, I was home doing some yard work and I was home doing some yard work and outside and a neighbor came by and says, I went to the library last week with my grandson. He said, the library was so bad, the bathroom was so bad, he says, I wouldn't let him go to the bathroom in there. He said, what happened to the money that you guys allocated for the repairing of it? So at this point, Mr. President, I'd like to have the mayor's office provide an explanation of where the $10,000 that we authorized for the bathrooms have gone. And this guy was a plumber. He said, if you want, he says, I'll do the work in there. Some licensed plumber. He says, just buy the stock. He says, I'm sure we can get other volunteers to do the work. But at this point, the library is going down and down every year. There's less funds being allocated to it. You know, at least we could have some clean, decent bathroom facilities for the children to use there, because with the new children's librarian, you're seeing an upturn in kids going there. And if they've gone in the bathrooms there, they have their councilmarches ready when they're deplorable. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. So on the motion of Councilor Caraviello, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. I do believe this council has on multiple occasions requested the capital needs of all the buildings that are underneath the control and jurisdiction of the city government, but also specifically the library. And I think that this information will be very helpful, Mr. President, as we begin our preparations for the budget debates. Presently, if you take a look at the Medford transcript, you'll see a great article by Mr. Ruppenthal that speaks about the funding shortages at the library. and the risk that the city has been in, in losing its certification from the state. So it looks right now that, you know, based upon the figures that I read, we're about a quarter of a million dollars short in fully funding the library to make ourselves in a position where we would not require a state waiver and enable the ability to maintain certification, Mr. President. So I think there's a lot of stuff that's going on at the library right now that really needs to be looked at, or else we're going to be in a position where we might actually lose this asset The building is in rough shape. I know over the winter there was a significant amount of snow buildup that resulted in some leaks and some ice dams that have damaged some books in the children's section. We have the issue with the bathroom as well. And then, you know, the discussions that we've had in the past about expanding and making a media center on the second floor of the library and building up the library. So I think now is an important time to take a look at what's going on there in terms of the capital side of things, Mr. President, and as we begin our debates for the budget, determine whether or not the library is being funded at a level that's appropriate. Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: One of the issues that are equally of a concerning matter is the fact that the locality of the Method Public Library is the only public library in the city. Many, many years ago, you had community-based area libraries. The high school library is closed on the weekends and nighttime. So the only library that you really have left is the Method Public Library. And for years, they had cut back hours on their employees, which cut back the hours of operations, if I think a few folks remember. Some of the days and the hours at night and on the weekends were cut back. One of the things I forgot to mention when the last lady was up here speaking, I did get a complaint from a lady who went to the Method Public Library to return a book, to run in and to run out. And she got a $25 ticket to bring her book. And this takes us right back to what you had addressed a long time ago, Councilor Marks. I mean, where is this? 30-minute, supposedly, free time you have when you pull up and getting ready to use these meters and what have you. I don't know what's taking the Traffic Commission so long. But again, it was just as bad as putting it in front of the church when they first started this thing and they had to take them out. Why would you put something in front of a public library, an educational building, a community building? It just doesn't make any sense. But on the topic itself, it just makes-. Point of information, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: The library has a parking lot. directly adjacent to the building, and I drive through that street quite frequently, and it butts it directly, there's always available spots in there. Just a point of information. Thank you, Councilor.
[Robert Penta]: The fact of the matter is this lady just pulled up in the front of the house to go in and just drop off a book, and she didn't need to get a $25 certificate, I mean, ticket. And if we all remember a few months ago, when there was a funeral going on at St. Joseph's Church, quite a few people got tickets there, and they had to be retaken back. So again, it's just part of the whole program that really needs to be revisited, if not completely dumped.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor, Madam Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. I just want to go on the record in support of Councilor Caraviello's resolve, along with your amendment, to get a list, a breakdown of what was spent on the bathrooms last year. I think that's something we don't know, and I think that's something we all would challenge, that $10,000 was actually put into the bathrooms. It's upsetting because it's a public building where your children are going to, you know, read and take out books from the library. They should at least be able to have a place to go to the bathroom. I think it correlates with a resolution you had on the agenda last week or the week before, councillor Penta, with regards to jobs just being $90,000 jobs being created and people getting raises of $20,000. We heard recently of a 5% raise you know, took place, and it just makes you stop and think, like, maybe we should take care and maintain the buildings we have before we go hire additional personnel to work in them. We, in the council, fight year after year, project after project, for maintenance accounts, maintenance fees, and we, Councilor Marks, you know, fought hard, you know, with our help, obviously, to get $10,000 for the bathrooms to be replaced, and we spoke about it last year, There are people that would volunteer. So I mean, it is upsetting. It's hard to handle how the city is operated and how the city spends money. Because something like that, whether or not to do the library over, obviously, is a huge decision. And the police department has to come into account. But to get facilities and to be able to fight for $10,000, and then nothing changed, nothing happened, it's almost like, what are we doing week after week? you know, voice in our opinions. We talked about the library bathroom six times, seven times, and that's just completely unfortunate. And I, you know, that's one of the many things, obviously, that upset me with regards to how money's spent. But I would, I agree, we need, I would love to see an accounting and where the money went.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Madam Vice President. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Caraviello for offering this resolve tonight and my colleagues for their comments. You know, the article I read in the paper, you know, mentioned the library director, Brian Boutelier. And I remember the last several budgets when we sat in, like we do with all the department heads, and when we asked the question of the director of the library, what are your needs for the library, he said, at this time, I don't have any. pointed to the question about the restrooms. And I likened them to prison bathrooms. And he said he doesn't see anything wrong with the bathrooms at the public library. And I think that's part of the problem we're seeing is the attitude, to be quite honest with you, from the director himself on the condition of the building and the inability to stand up on behalf of the library, which is his job. fight for what's needed within that library. We were told last week they're down a children's position. We were told they're down a reference librarian. Councilor Knight just mentioned about the fact that we may lose certification. We're about a quarter of a million dollars away from certification. The last, the Mass Board of Library Commissioners, Mr. President, without their certification, We could lose network subscriptions, database, and interlibrary loans. We could lose the ability for Method residents to use their Minuteman card and go to any other library in the Minuteman network. I hear a lot of people say, well, I go to Lexington or I go to Arlington. And the fact that we may be on an island because we refuse to put in the necessary funds to fund our library. I would say you go to that library at any given time, Mr. President, you'll see people in all the different sections. The library is highly utilized. And even based on the current offerings it has, it's still an attraction in this community. And yes, things are changing and things are going more electronic and so forth. I understand that. There's ways, like the town of Watertown, who just built a library a few years ago, state of the art library, is attracting people back to the library, different offerings back in the library. We have a community room in the library, in my opinion, that's underutilized and could be a much larger asset. Councilor Caraviello mentioned on many occasions about adding a second floor onto the library. and creating some type of community room or function room up there. And, you know, there's a host of things we can do with this library. But one thing we can no longer do is to underfund the library, keep on getting a waiver from the state. Now, from what I was told by a state representative, that waiver is supposed to be a one-time thing. Okay, Method, you couldn't reach the funding this year for whatever circumstance. Here's a waiver. We'll keep you in the network. We'll keep the funding coming. But here's your waiver." But to get a waiver year after year after year is an injustice, Mr. President. And the state legislature should have never allowed that within their legislation, to allow a community to use that as a crutch to say, you know what, we're no longer going to fund our library and we don't care because we got a waiver from the state saying we can do so. That wasn't the intent of the legislature. the legislation that was filed by the legislature. And Method, from what I read in the article, was one of just a few communities that has received a waiver, or multiple waivers, in the last several years. So, you know, we're falling short of the mark here, and it's quite disturbing, because I wish I could tell residents, you know what? We're not putting the money into the library, but we're putting it into our police station. That's not the case, Mr. President. We're not putting the money into the library. We're putting it into City Hall. Go into any one of these restrooms up here. They're in deplorable condition. There's yellow crime tape around the urinals that you can't use. The sinks don't work, Mr. President. It's a disgrace. The hand sanitizers, the minute they put the hand sanitizer dispensers around the building, within three weeks, they were gone. There was nothing left in them, and they haven't been replaced, Mr. President. It's just, you know, it's amazing. So, I wish I could tell people we're taking our money and utilizing it somewhere else, but that's not the case. And the taxes, as people mentioned, keep on going up. The buildings, the infrastructure is crumbling, and we really have very little to show. And I agree with Councilor Caraviello that, you know, I think we did receive an itemized listing a while back. Because what originally happened was this whole council voted unanimously for $10,000 in the budget. And the administration was kind enough to put it in there. The air conditioning went within the public library. And they used the $10,000 towards the air conditioning. Now, I'm not going to dispute that if they thought that was more of a priority than fixing the restrooms. They did find more funding in the budget to do the restrooms. Now, Mr. President, I'm not going to want to speak out, but let me tell you, Mr. President, I don't know if anyone watched the movie, The Jerk, with Steve Mott. It's a movie from years ago. He ran into millions of dollars, the jerk, and he lived in a little shack. And with that millions of dollars, you know what he did? He built a bigger shack. And that's what we did in the library bathrooms. We went from a deplorable bathroom with deplorable tiles and fixtures and everything else to now a deplorable bathroom with a new sink, the same old tiles, dirty tiles, the same old crummy doors. The same old prison style, Mr. President. And that's going to be the showcase. When people from other communities come to our library, they walk in the restroom, they must be saying, where am I? My at Cedar Junction? Where am I? What's going on, Mr. President? You know, I just don't know what's happening, Mr. President. Again, in this year's budget, I hope we all sit down when we have our deliberations and when the director comes before us and say, you know what, I'm fine. Everything's running fine in here. I have half the staff, but you know, we make ends meet. My budget for maintenance has gone down, but we make ends meet. And we should all in one voice say, Mr. Boutelier, you're not making ends meet. Your library is falling apart. Open your eyes, Mr. Boutelier. Open your eyes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: If I could, just from the chair, in defense of someone who's not here to speak for himself, my experience with the librarian is that he's very much concerned. Medford's at a crossroads now that we have the opportunity to elect new leadership, and we'll do that, and I think we'll see some adjustments.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just if I could, a department head is not here just to collect a $110,000 salary. A department head is there to do the people's business and to make sure whatever they're in charge of is kept up, Mr. President, and that they're the biggest advocate, the biggest advocate, and not playing second fiddle, saying, well, politically, I don't want to say anything because I don't want to jeopardize my job. That is not what a department head should be, Mr. President. And I don't think I'm throwing anyone under the bus, Mr. President, because I feel strongly meeting with this particular department head over the last several years and hearing his answers year after year after year to our questions that everything is fine. So I, I, I, I don't feel like I'm speaking out of turn here and I look forward to this budget session, Mr. President. And maybe we'll get a different outcome from the department head.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilmates. Councilor Carfiello. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, you know, if you go on the state website, There's been a grant system there for rebuilding of the libraries and renovating the libraries for the last two to three years. And I called up and asked, and we've never applied for the funds. So there was funds out there available, but if you don't ask, you can never get them. We finally hired a top flight children's librarian. And the kids are starting to go back there, and we have nothing to offer them when they go back there. We need to update that. I mean, again, even some minor improvements would be helpful. On the last two budgets, I asked the librarian, I said, where do you see the library in five years? And didn't get an answer on either time. No, there's no five-year plan. That's why we're not getting any money, because we don't have a plan. People aren't going to just throw money at you anymore. Those days are over. You have to get out there. You've got to do some work. You've got to be creative. You've got to go out there and find your money. And there's been money out there available. It's kind of dried up now, but you let it sit there for three or four years, and you never went after it. So again, I agree with Councilor Marks. I mean, this year when the budget time comes, and he says everything is hunky-dory. I think we all better sit there and question him a lot harder than we did last time.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. So on the motion of Councilor Caraviello, as amended. Sir, please state your name and address for the record.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: Good evening, Anthony D'Antonio, 12 Yale Street, Medford. Through the chair for Councilor Caraviello, February 11th, 2014, we issued a check for $9,694 for fixtures. And who do we buy these from, Liberace? I mean, really? What do we have? It's a disgrace. I agree with you. I was there. I saw it. The library is a disgrace. I have a suggestion, though, because not all is lost. In the budget, when you go and look at the budget this year, we have two assistant superintendents making $112,000 each. I would like to see you just justify one assistant superintendent, let alone two. Let's take that money and reallocate it somewhere. We've got to get some people in there that know what to do with the numbers, because this city needs to get back up on top. Tired of watching it go one rung below, another rung, another rung. So do the best you can on that, please. I appreciate it. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. So on the motion of Councilor Caraviello, as amended, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. When I made my public service announcement earlier in the meeting, I may have misspoken. So on Friday, May 29th at 9 a.m. at the Immaculate Conception Church, the Medford Police Memorial Mass will be offered. Thank you. 15-494 offered by Councilor Penta. Be it resolved that the lack of important information not provided to this council regarding the Craddock Bridge be discussed. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, but more importantly, anybody who might be watching in Medford Square business folks, The situation regarding the Karatek Bridge is just an ongoing tale. So I think it's time to maybe have a little bit of a history lesson here as it relates to how did we get to the position we're in right now. We can go back to 2002, 02-2002-526, offered by Council Longo, be it resolved that the Karatek Bridge be discussed in regards to public safety. And there was a whole host of amendments as it related to that. Now that was in 2002, 13 years ago. The first response from the state came back in 2006. They first sent a note back that basically says that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be taking a look and to review it. Then we go to 2011. From 2006 to 2011, there was absolutely nothing that took place that revolved around that particular bridge. At that point in time in 2011, they said the cost of the bridge was going to be $2.5 million. Then in August of 2012, it jumped to $8.5 million. And then in April of 2013, it jumped up to $12.7 million. And at that meeting on April 13th, on April, excuse me, of 2013, I had asked the question as it relates to mitigation for our downtown Medford business folks. The council voted seven to nothing on that. As a matter of fact, we got a letter of support from the Medford Chamber of Commerce on that particular issue. Sent the letter to the mayor and to the state, and to this date, still, absolutely nothing has come back. From April, we sent it again in May of 2013. June of 2013, the cost then went down to $10.7 million. And now, again, on February of 2014, the question of mitigation came up. It was presented, and we still have no answer to that. All we know right now that we're getting a bridge that's supposedly going to be starting at this point in time, sometime this summer. And what doesn't make sense now, they're saying that on November 4th of 2018, the bridge will be completed. But during the summer of 2018, the bridge will be open for use. So how can you have something not completed and open for use or be completed in November of 2018? And that cost now is projected at $10.78 million for this particular bridge. We've seen all kinds of correspondence from representatives in our city who are saying this is a wonderful thing, dating back to 2006, to 2012, to 2013. We've received press releases from the mayor, from the senator in this community, that this bridge is such a wonderful thing. You know, they built the tunnel from France to England, which was, I believe, 21 miles in less than nine years. And we have a bridge here starting in 2015 to be included by 2018, that's three years, to go 121 feet. Think about it, 121 feet when you built the tunnel, which was 21 miles, and it was underwater. This whole thing, as far as I'm concerned, is the biggest slap in the face to the Medford business community. And the sad part about it, one of the gentlemen who's in charge of this project lives in the city of Medford. Now, Councilor Dello Russo, I'm calling you on the carpet tonight because you indicated that you'd never received the letter dated February 24th, of which your name is on here. Every single one of our reps, our senators, our state, Paul Geer, Cassandra upstairs in the engineer's office. And I accepted you for your comment saying that you couldn't find it in your file. But it was convenient for you last week to get Eversource here just like that, when the conditions of the streets might be taking place. But at the same time, this council has been asking, asking for you to go forward and call for this meeting. And there is no meeting here. But there are public notices out there, and there are stanchions out there indicating that the bridge is going to start this summer. So what clout you have, I don't know. What clout this city has, I don't know. But the more important part of where the clout all lies is this city council should be holding somebody to be accountable for the mitigation process that needs to take place on this, because businesses are going to be hurt, and some people might even go out of business. It's absolutely unfair that this project is going to start in the summer of 2015 and not be completed until November of 2018.
[Paul Camuso]: On my first point is you had Eversource here as a result of Councilor Marks bringing the issue forward. So I applaud you for that. And my second point of information is we did have representatives from the bridge here about a year ago, I believe. Twice in six months. Correct. And at that point they stated that there won't be any mitigation to businesses. even though this council did ask for it, they clearly stated that. So I don't want businesses to think otherwise.
[Robert Penta]: With all due respect to my council colleague, that may be your interpretation, but nothing was ever definitively signed or put in writing. This council asked to have that put in the RFP that went out there. And there are four people, there are four components to the people who are bidding on that bridge, number one. This council asked that they come here and they apprise the city, the council and the business community and the office of community development as it relates to the progress of that bridge. And they never did it. The only meeting that they ever had was, I believe, some three weeks ago at 10 o'clock on a Wednesday morning, for which certain councils couldn't go. A lot of people couldn't go. And it was just their staff meeting, if you want to come and see what it's all about. And then they send you a press release, for which is put in the paper, that basically tells you that this is not going to be completed until 2018. So if you forget all the gibberish he gets around to 2018, and then they acknowledge that the footings of the bridge, which have been there for 100 plus years, all they're going to do is reshore them up. That bridge is not sunk at all. And what they think they're building, the Taj Mahal, I don't know. They don't need to build the Longfellow Bridge like they're building in Washington. This is a very simple bridge of 121 feet. Sure, you want to make it adaptable for people, sidewalks and bikes, go right ahead. But with the art of technology that's out there today, and for them to tell you it's going to take you a well over a year just to figure out what's underneath the bridge and move the lines and this and that, that is absolutely absurd. Absolutely absurd. It's probably the biggest snow job that this council and this city has gotten from the State Department of Public Transportation. And we haven't even gotten to the issue of the bus routes and the changing of the bus routes and what's going to happen after that and once this bridge goes into construction. Mr. President, I'm asking once again, I'm asking you to call the Mass. Department of Transportation, have them come before this council, and have them explain if what Councilor Camuso was saying is correct, that they are not going to give us mitigation. Point of information?
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information, Councilor Camuso. That was the Department of Transportation representatives that were here meeting with this city council. Clearly stated that the state does not pay mitigation on projects, but what they do do is pay for any damages to any public or private entities that are damaged as a result. That's a big difference, mitigation and physical damage.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I'm going to respectfully disagree with my colleague because state agencies and state departments do pay mitigation. And if they're asked to do it, they do do it. The biggest one out there right now is the MWRA. They will give you mitigation before they even start a project because they have to realize the length and the strength of their pipes.
[Paul Camuso]: We can throw out the red herring, say an MWRA or any other agency he wants to. They are not a state agency. The MWRA is a separate and distinct authority. It's an authority like Massport. It's an authority like the MBTA. Their rules, their laws are different. The Department of Transportation clearly stated this to us. They said it right here. If we have to go back, rewind the tape, maybe the council forgot what they said. I'm not responsible for what he remembers, but I'm responsible for what happened here. And that is clearly what was said. The state does not pay mitigation on public projects.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I'm responsible for what I know. And what I know is this, that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts does and can, if the city of Medford is going to be impacted to such a degree and businesses are going to be displaced for a period of time such as that, When you have your own Chamber of Commerce, and when you have an entire city council, and when you've been talking about this since 2013, and went out since 2015, and there is nothing, no acknowledgement, no public hearing, no public meeting, it's a disgrace. And if you think they're doing a good job, taking this bridge over and cutting down the amount of time that it's going to take. It's wrong. It's not right. This is not right. This does not speak well for a governmental project and a governmental agency. And more importantly, how can you go and start with $2 million, go as high as $12 million, bring it back to $10 million? They can't even figure out what the actual cost is going to be. And the total disruption is going to be when they put that ramp in Medford Square, and shutting off one of the ramps coming off Route 93, there's going to be a complete fiasco. We still haven't seen the final product. It still hasn't been presented to the business people, the Chamber of Commerce, or this council. And that, to me, is what this whole system, this whole project is all about. Absolutely no transparency at all.
[Paul Camuso]: Mr. President, Councilor Camuso. Thank you. to say that there was no public meetings, it's fiction. It's fiction, once again. We had a meeting here with the representatives from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. One of them's name was Donald Daly, and I don't remember the other gentleman's name. What was it? Paul King. Paul King. They were here at a 7 PM meeting of the Medford City Council. Twice. Twice. So to sit here and say that there hasn't been public
[Robert Penta]: Point of clarification, Councilor Penta. The meeting took place on the 18th of July, 2013, and it took place at the Century Bank and Trust on Mystic Avenue. The time that came over here, his name was Billy something, he appeared here from Medford and his other person. That's what took place. And that meeting, we were told, as a matter of fact, I have Mr. Davies' private personal number because at that particular night, in that particular meeting, they were trying to shut me off. I'm asking him a very important question as to why this meeting was not being held here in Medford and where is the mitigation as it relates to the concern that we have. If you're not going to give us mitigation, what are you going to give to the business community? Don't tell me you're going to pay for the disruption or the destruction to their product. Of course they would have to do that. That's common sense tells you that. But don't come in here and do a project and totally disrupt the entire community of the downtown area. You have bus routes, you can have people completely confused. Can anyone on this council turn around and explain what's going to go on? Can you tell me where the bus routes are going to go?
[Paul Camuso]: Yes, yes. The bus routes are going to go, the main bus route. I don't know if the councillor took the time to reach out to the correct officials as I did. but the bus route is going to be moved.
[Robert Penta]: Point of clarification. Point of clarification. He wants to make representative to me. My point is they belong before the public. I don't want to do something in the public belongs to hear what's going on. And that's what the council call for. If he wants to go on his own, good luck to him. I want him to come before here. This is a city of Medford project.
[Paul Camuso]: Uh, as I stated, if the Councilor doesn't want to go over and above, as I have over my 16 years of public service, reaching out to the particular people that can make, rather than yelling and screaming in hot air, can actually make the bus stop moved. They are moving it across the river over near the bridge and hopefully it will be a permanent home even after the construction project with a nice greenery and maybe a bus shelter that Councilor Marks brought up before. So I am doing some talks with the appropriate people. That's number one. Number two, I'm going to revert to a conversation I had with the councillor just a week ago, who was adamant about a former member of this council not bringing up the beer and wine.
[Robert Penta]: Point of information, Mr. President. It's got absolutely nothing to do with it. He's talking about apples and oranges. It's got nothing to do with this particular issue.
[Paul Camuso]: It's a pattern of your fictitious mind.
[Robert Penta]: It's your fictitious mic. You're going to call him out of order or not? This has nothing to do with this issue.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Well, there's nothing to do with the issue. You want to shield for her, do it in the public.
[Paul Camuso]: As I started to say, Mr. President, earlier in his dissertation this evening, he said there was no public meetings. In fact, there were two public meetings. This, I mean. And the public meetings were in 2013. This is 2015. and we had one here at the Medford City Council, not in 2013, I will get you the exact date, but it was right here, the gentlemen were here, it was the first meeting, the first item agenda, I believe, and it was a very, very good meeting, and they emphatically stated, I mean, if you wanna make up the rules as you go along, like you've done a long time.
[Robert Penta]: It's right here, Councilor, and it's right here.
[Paul Camuso]: As I said, Mr. President, if he wants to let people believe there's mitigation available and set people up for failure, that's his responsibility.
[Fred Dello Russo]: But I'm not going to sit here.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I just, I believe one councilor is talking about a public meeting and one councilor is talking about a public hearing. There was plenty of meetings, but I don't believe the state has had any public hearings. They haven't declared any meetings. They haven't notified neighbors. They haven't notified businesses of a meeting where citizens and business owners can give their... There was one here today in this building.
[Paul Camuso]: There was one today that he didn't go to.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Oh, I didn't know about that one. What meeting? A year ago, we had public hearings before the city council. I never have known about one where the community has been notified to give their input of this project. I mean, because I agree, three years is going to detrimentally affect our Medford Square businesses to the point where maybe there'll be no mitigation, but there'll be claims in court against the state. I mean, and that's a given if you see a business go out of, go out of business due to loss of income from the project that's going to take place. So I think both councilors are making their points and are right in their own different ways.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you for your point of information.
[Paul Camuso]: So Mr. President, if I just can finish. Councilor Camuso has the floor. And I'll wrap it up. And Councilor Lungo-Koehn is 100% correct. There can be lawsuits, and there probably will be lawsuits. But the fact of the matter is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on this particular matter is the Department of Transportation. does not pay mitigation for two businesses as a result of public works projects. If that was the case when they did the central artery and took down all the green space in there and did the Rose Kennedy Garden, the disruption, Mr. President, the disruption is lousy. And I understand that completely, completely.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Camuso just referred to the Rose Kennedy Garden. The Rose Kennedy Garden was an afterthought. It was going to be a greenway. The Rose Kennedy Garden came in after the fact. That was part of the mitigation and the rehabilitation because of the damage and the construction that took place in the artery.
[Paul Camuso]: And Mr. President, precisely, it was a public works mitigation that went to the city of Boston, not to the businesses that were directly affected in that area, like Faneuil Hall Marketplace and Well, businesses property get taken care of. But like I said, the city, I'm sorry, the state, they said that at this meeting. This isn't fiction. This is factual, what the state said to us. Now if the law changes, I hope it changes. I hope it changes. But like I said, I think our biggest thing right now is doing everything in our power to help the businesses, as I've been doing with other members of this council, talking to the MBTA about moving a bus stop that is gonna be detrimental to the passengers, in the current state of placement of it, as well as for the businesses that are already going to be dealing with. So let's work on the stuff that we do have some input and control over. The DOT is overseeing this project, the Department of Transportation, and City Clerk Finn, at what point have they notified you about the public hearings coming up regarding posting it on the board and everything, or not yet? Can you turn him on?
[Clerk]: What they tend to do is either fax over a notice or email a notice. So it's sporadic the way some of these notices come in. So I'm not quite sure on the one today. I haven't checked the postings.
[Paul Camuso]: Because this Saturday, too, the bid went out for the Crystal Campbell Peace Garden. The bid went out this Saturday, two days ago.
[Clerk]: So the bids are posted mostly when you have bids. That's posted at procurement. That's a big wall posting things.
[Paul Camuso]: And the DOT does notify? the city though, where it is in the city, correct? Normally. Okay. So, um, so like I said, it just, uh, public meetings are meetings to get the information. Public hearings are more legality. It's a legality in certain instances. You need a public hearing. Correct me if I'm wrong. Clerk Finn, is that correct? Public hearing is a legality. If it, if it calls for you, if it calls for it, but they're not going to have public hearings unless it calls for it. Correct. I mean, there's a difference between public hearing and public meeting. Exactly. And given the public hearings that may be, may be called for this might be because of the, um, the river underneath it and the river being affected by it. And that's a environmental public hearing, things of that nature.
[Clerk]: Is that correct?
[Paul Camuso]: Conservation things. But typically there's not public hearings for doing a bridge over within a community. If it doesn't need. because it doesn't need to be. All right. I just, I think that's important to, um, cause council Lungo-Koehn brought up a very valid point. But, uh, if there is going to be public hearings, number one, they will hold them at an open, open place where people can participate. It will be duly advertised. Uh, and it also will be on the bulletin boards here at city hall, but unless it calls for it, unless it calls for it for a specific legality. And that's because maybe they're building so close to the water and this and that. But they just don't have public hearings, as you said, Mr. Clerk, for the sake of just having public hearings. There's a legal authority behind a public hearing and not so much a public meeting.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Camuso. Councilor Knight has the floor next. You have two points of information. Councilor Panto.
[Robert Penta]: First of all, as it relates to the bus stop, whether it's being moved over the bridge or, as some of us were led to believe, it might be moved to Medford Square, we were supposed to be getting a report back from the T that would indicate where that bus stop was going to be moved. That's number one. The other gentleman who came here that night, his name was Paul King, and he was the project manager. He also indicated, for which they have now changed their times from the days and the night shifts as to when working hours are going to take place, which is a change from what was written on January 21st, 2015, as compared to the most recent one on May 20th of this year. And again, once again, none of the businesses are aware of this. So there is a, and the request by the council was to have them here. You know, I'm not going to get hung up on the legality of a hearing or a meeting. It's a request. And if the request to have a state agency or somebody come here, to explain what their project is about, then they should honor the request, either in writing or what have you. You said, Councilor Dello Russo, when I gave you the letter that you said you couldn't find and you never got, you went to the city clerk. The city clerk supposedly called them up. Never got a response, did you, Mr. Clerk? So that's a great way to have, and he called not once, but he called twice. It's a great way for a state agency to act on behalf of a community that has a major project going through it, And we're worried about allegedly a legality from a hearing to a request to be here. That's absolutely nonsense. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. I have concerns about the bridge. I've raised them last week. I had a resolution asking the harbour master to meet with the project manager to determine what restrictions were going to be on the roadway for boaters up river. I think that, you know, we've all scratched our heads and wondered what's going to happen with the buses. We've all scratched our heads and wondered how this off-ramp is going to work, where cars can take lefts and rights around the backside of Medford Auto to get through Medford Square. With that being said, Mr. President, you know, I wholeheartedly feel as though another meeting would be beneficial to get some of our questions answered. However, it appears to me that the DOT is not willing to have this meeting. So with that being said, I'm wondering if it would be a beneficial exercise for us to maybe put some questions in writing as to what we want answered and send them over to the project manager and have the project manager get back to us. If in fact the project manager doesn't get back to us in a timely fashion, then we can take action. But at this point in time, Mr. President, let's try to get the questions answered so that we can provide the information to those people that are going to be most affected by it. And we can go from there. But I think what we really need to focus on is solutions, Mr. President. And, you know, we need to focus on how we're going to help these businesses through this tough time. It's going to be three years of construction. How we're going to improve traffic flow during this three-year period of time as construction is going on. figure out what best practices work so that when we have another construction project at this scale, we're prepared to deal with it, Mr. President. So, you know, I'd like to see maybe a listing of the questions that we have that we need answered. And if we can get those together maybe as a group in committee of the whole and then vote on it to come out of the committee and then vote on that to have those questions sent to the DOT for an answer, I think that we might be on the right track, Mr. President, to actually getting solutions.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Do we have a motion? On the motion of Councilor Camuso that the representatives of the project present themselves before the city council for a meeting. All those in favor? Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: I should mention a timeframe on that. Um, Maybe before the summer session, but you know, I agree with the comments that were made. I think we all agree that a meeting or a public hearing, whatever it may be, is necessary and would be beneficial. I know what Councilor Knight's going after, but I think you also need, you know, I may have a bunch of questions, but there may be a hundred residents that have different questions. So I think a hearing or a meeting is imperative. I think we need to hear from the community. And from what I remember with the FAST-14 project, which the state was involved with, you're right, the state didn't give us any mitigation, but J.F. White most certainly gave us mitigation money. So whoever the contractor is, is the one that doles out the mitigation. And that's why we've asked, even with Eversource, we've asked the administration to use some leverage in order to get some mitigation. for tearing up all our streets. And we should be asking the same, whoever the contractor is of this credit bridge, for mitigation on what's going to take place, the impact of the business owners, the impact of the drive time in the morning, the commute. There's a host of impacts that are going to take place, Mr. President. So, you know, I hope that they don't turn a cheek at us, Mr. President. And if I'm not mistaken, Myself, Councilor Penta, I think Councilor Caraviello, we attended a meeting that was had right across the street. I don't know if it was about a year ago. I think Councilor Lungo was there too. of the state, and our community development director, Lauren DiLorenzo, I'll never forget this, she stood up and pointed at the developer, I mean the state, and said, we have been left out of this process. You have not given us ample opportunity to speak on this, and that's coming from our own director of office of community development. So you can imagine when a member of the council gets up and says, We'd like to get more information on this. If our own Community Development Office can't get it, then how are we, as council, supposed to get this on behalf of the residents of this community?" And that spoke volumes that morning, Mr. President, when she spoke up, saying that they haven't been involved in the process. Now, that was some time back. I'm not sure if it's changed. But I can only tell you, the only information I get is through just piecemeal and whatever I happen to read in the newspaper, Mr. President. So, that's a sad commentary.
[Fred Dello Russo]: It is Councilor Knight has the floor and then Councilor Camuso.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I know that mitigation is going to be very important to the businesses down in the Medford Square area and whether or not we're able to triumph that is a whole other question. But I think that there are some things that we can control here at the local level in terms of mitigation and maybe that's something that we need to look at. But, you know, one of the first things that pops to mind is the biggest complaint that we're hearing out there right now from shop owners is the kiosks in Medford Square. So maybe if if the state is not willing to help us out with mitigation, then maybe we can go a step further and we as a city can help mitigate by maybe changing the hours of operation of the kiosk or closing the kiosk down for certain days or certain periods of time in that business district while construction is going on to provide some relief to the business owners. I think that the construction alone, well, the traffic patents alone right now in Medford will get people away. With the construction coming in the kiosk, I think this is really going to have a detrimental effect, Mr. President.
[Paul Camuso]: Yes, thank you. And the city administration, up to this point, this has been front and center. This afternoon, I believe, 101.30, there was a meeting with all the department heads, the Department of Transportation, the Chamber of Commerce. And so everyone was at the table. And maybe they're working out specifics right now. And then they'll be bringing it forward at another level. I mean, at another meeting, I do not know. But there is ongoing dialogue. And as Councilor Knight said, there may be something we can do internally, whether it's a tax break. But most of that's not going to help the businesses either, because it's the building owners, the owners of the building, and then it's businesses that are paying rent. But there's stuff that we might be able to do, I'm thinking outside the box, in our community, like Councilor Knight said. But I just, when the word mitigation came up, I heard loud and clear what they said that evening. And I just don't want to mislead businesses in the community that may think they're going to get a big check from the Department of Transportation, as a result of this project. And I just think, I think we have to be fair to them and not give them false hopes that they're going to get a golden bar at the end of this project. When the state clearly said when they were here, they're not in the business of paying mitigation, but they will be willing to work with the city on maybe smaller projects in the immediate area. If they're parking on a park to park their trucks during the thing, they'll do the park over maybe or something like that. similar to the other projects that have taken place here within our community. So, I look forward to the future dialogue on this particular matter, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Again, there are subcontractors, as Councilor Marks has alluded to, that are going to be responsible. The main contractor here, the signer of the contract is the Mass. Department of Transportation. That's the main contractor for the bridge. But you've got Spectra Energy. You've got National Grid. You also even have the city of Medford involved. You have the Massachusetts State Police. You have the State Department of Conservation and Recreation. And there are other little subcontractors involved in here. So I am not going to turn around and say mitigation is not a possibility, when, in fact, it could be a possibility. And as far as the meeting goes today, it's another clear-cut example of this council being shut out on any types of meetings such as that, especially when they had a personal interest in this, especially on behalf of the of the Metro business folks, and we've been discussing this for months upon months upon months, and not to be even notified about a meeting to go to, it's just wrong. And that's where the whole sense of frustration comes about, a complete lack of transparency, and that's how mixed messages get sent around, not only to this building, but to the businesses within this community. Hopefully, pretty soon, there'll be a major change in this community, and this will not go on, this will not be tolerated. Mr. President, can we take? Yeah, okay, go ahead.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'm sorry. 15-496, petition by Gene Martin, 10 Cumming Street, Medford, to address the city council on the police building. Ms. Martin, please state your name and address for the record. Welcome.
[Jeanne Martin]: Gene Martin, 10 Cumming Street, and in spite of your spirited debate. This council in the last two years has actually accomplished something. I was talking to people and they always say, well, what did they accomplish? And I was actually able to tell them something. I told them about the DPW yard. I told them about getting rid of TV3. You've actually made progress. Not only that, in spite of arguing today, This committee has done a lot better in communicating. I know every once in a while you get heated, but it's doing a lot better, and I would ask that you continue to keep the tempers down and the conversation flowing, because you've been doing a great job. Also, when I drive by on Route 16 and I see the Pompeo Garage, it looks fantastic. And you guys made that happen. So in spite of it all, I just wanted to thank you for that. I wish there was a sticker. that I could put on my truck that said, blue lives matter. The police department in this city is often overlooked or taken for granted. We ask them to work in an environment not worthy of the sacrifice they make for us. The policemen and women of Medford commit to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including weekends and holidays. Give that some thought. Like its officers, the police headquarters is a building that is also open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and used even on weekends and holidays. I can lecture you, the public, on how an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure. But unless you, the people, realize your obligation to stand behind the importance of a new building, it will never come to fruition. I can tell you how our police headquarters is the second most important building in this city, second only to City Hall. But if you, the people, do not value the role of the police department, this new structure will not be built. For everyone has their own wish list of projects, be it an art center or a garage, an old house renovation, or a school improvement. While everyone in this city gives lip service and verbalizes the need for a new police station, and thanks the police for being there for them. When push comes to shove, they choose the project that they value more over the need for a new police station. I have no horse in this race. I have no family member or friend on the police department. But I do know that without civil order, your other projects do not have a long shelf life. My fear is that by the time we pay off enough old bonds, in quotes, As has been stated by our politicians and administrators, the cry for new school funding will overshadow the police department once again, as the political will for schools usually do. Seven years is a long time, and a lot of these other new buildings are going to need a lot of major repair, and I fear that to happen. I've not done that. Our police station was built in the early 1960s and is very outdated and has been unable to stand the test of time. I repeat, has been unable to stand the test of time. The role of the police building is not just to house the police and arrestees. It is a place where policy and policing can be discussed by and with the community. It should have a room for that purpose. It should be safe for officers and prisoners. The building needs to be larger for detective work, technology updates, and technology I also include The fire department, which the chief came here, or one of their representatives came here and talked about how they don't have email, that needs to be addressed. These are basic issues that need to be addressed. And when I talk about a police headquarters, I mean a police slash fire headquarters. It needs to have secure witness-proof privacy. In other words, somebody comes in, they witnessed a crime. I want it to be a nice little quiet place for them to meet, to talk to the officers, so that they feel comfortable coming forward. It needs to have evidence-proof lockers. It needs to have firearm safety and accessibility. It needs to be located in a prominent position in the square accessible to all. I personally have decided that I want it right where it is. I like the location. I want it bigger than it is. And if things have to happen, then things have to happen. Because it also deters crime Just as when I see a police officer car and I'm driving down the street, I slow down. If I see the police department, I'm going to say, oh, there, and it's going to remind me. It is also a place where people feel comfortable that they should go to if they're lost, if they need help. It should be visible so that if you want it, you know where it is. Everyone agrees with this assessment from parents to the arts community. The problem is no one wants to pay for it. The political will stops at the funding trough. Allocating the money is where the city stops short of contracting this project out. Why? Because everyone has their agenda, that they value more than the police building, including employees who sometimes would rather see a personal raise in their take-home pay than committing millions to a police building. Everyone has their agenda. Parents want more teachers. Arts Council wants Springstep. Politicians want to be reelected. Everyone has a stake in not committing the millions of dollars required to have a full, real, state-of-the-art police building that the police could work out of, that you, the people, can own and feel proud of. The location of the police station should be right where it is, visible and accessible to everyone. And if that means taking some of the buildings out for eminent domain, so be it. Everyone should know where the station is and it should be built large and welcoming. I repeat, welcoming. It should incorporate the drug education personnel. to the judgment area for parking tickets. It should be viewed as everyone's building. There is no immediate gratification in this buildout. Citizens of Medford, all, have their priorities, and most do not have the police station at the top of their list. Yet this building is open 24 hours a day and used by everyone. If you choose to ignore my advice, don't come crying to me when the police morale is down and time on the call lags. because you didn't care about taking care of them. You want the best police department. You want an engaged citizenry. You want crime and drug issues to be handled. This takes money. Money you will not see the immediate benefits of, but in the long run will pay off. No other building project should even be discussed, i.e., the garage or art centers, until a police building is in the works. And if a small amount of businesses need to be taken by eminent domain, to make enough room for the police structure, that's a hit they will have to take, and we will have to compensate them for. Public safety comes first. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much, Ms. Martin.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President. I think, Gene, you brought up a lot of good points there. And I will say this, this whole council is uniformed with standing behind the police station and warning one. If you can recall, During last year's election, that was number one on everybody's list, including the mayor. What was needed was a police station. And, yeah, okay.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Oh, can, may I respond to that? Councilor will finish his remarks.
[Richard Caraviello]: Absolutely. That was the number one request for everybody, including the mayor. Again, now we're, two years have gone, a new election's coming up, and you're gonna, everyone's gonna ask, what's the number one priority again? And we're all gonna say the police station again. And now we have a chance where there's going to be a new mayor. Let's see where the new mayor stands on, or the new potential mayor stands on this police station project. I mean, the one that's running currently, as said when she was the budget director, that she didn't think it would be possible for seven years. Seven years, so it means we have to wait seven, it's going to take three to build, that's ten years. The city can't wait 10 years to build another police station. I agree with you. I mean, you're right, it's a 24-hour building. It's just as important as city hall is because they don't, this building closes and the holidays and the weekends, they're open. They never stop working. It's not fair to our policemen and the men and women who work in there that they work in those conditions. They're jammed in there. Now they've branched over into the former training facility. That's not used anymore as a training facility. Um, it's high time that, um, uh, let's say that this becomes a main point of the new election coming up over, over how that is going to get built in funded. So yeah, I do agree with that. Uh, it should be, it should be one of the biggest points asked of the new mayor. Thank you.
[Jeanne Martin]: Thank you. Please, uh, with all due respect, The budget director did say it would take seven years, and that's my problem. That's too long.
[Richard Caraviello]: That's absolutely... Or seven before we could even start talking about it.
[Jeanne Martin]: Which is ridiculous. No offense to anybody.
[Richard Caraviello]: So seven and then three years, the bill means ten years.
[Jeanne Martin]: It's ridiculous. It is. I agree with you. It needs to happen and it needs to start now.
[Richard Caraviello]: This whole group of seven, I think, agrees with you there.
[Jeanne Martin]: With all due respect to the administration, it's too late. It has to happen. It has to be now, because in seven years, There's going to be more buildings. There's going to be more holes in this ceiling. There's going to be more issues that are going to come up and schools will come in. And the parents have a very large voice in the city, no offense to the parents, but they have a very large voice. And when the school kids come in and you see the four fourth graders, you're going to cry for them. And they always lose to the, you know, the police always lose out.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information council care.
[Richard Caraviello]: You are correct because you were already starting to see a little bit of a groundswell, but people talking about a new high school. And again, as I'm out around, I hear that, well, how about a new high school? When are we going to build a new high school? So.
[Jeanne Martin]: Absolutely. And I'm in agreement with you. This whole committee said that they want a new police department. Every single one of them said that's at the top of their list. And I commend you for that. But the people, I'm not talking to you so much. I'm talking to those folks out there, because they're the ones that have to put the pressure to get the police station. And they have to realize that there is going to have to be a sacrifice on their part. Because it's not going to happen unless they sacrifice something.
[Richard Caraviello]: Well, if you can recall, at one of the meetings, I was the one that brought up a possibility of a two and a half override, which got shot down in a matter of like three seconds. I mean, I know we've never had one, but maybe that might be the end.
[Jeanne Martin]: It needs to be bonded, and it needs to be bonded now.
[Richard Caraviello]: Maybe that's the avenue that we may have to go.
[Jeanne Martin]: It has to be bonded.
[Richard Caraviello]: But I was told that that will not happen in this administration.
[Jeanne Martin]: With all due respect, if we needed to bond for a new high school, there would be parents right here. And it's not the same as when you see a bunch of police officers. We have 100 police officers in their families. They don't compare in the voice, the political voice, compared to the school department, school committee, and all those parents and all those kids. God bless them. But it will happen, and the police will get pushed to the back of the line once again. So when that happens, don't come crying to me. That's all I'm saying. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight has the floor next. Mr. President, thank you very much. And Ms. Martin, thank you very much for that thorough analysis. One of the things that you said really stuck out to me, and that was the fact that seven years is too long, because in seven years, we're going to look at our school buildings that are going to be deteriorating. And I think that's a major problem. And we have a brand new DPW yacht, just built, just built. The paint's not even dry yet. What's our capital maintenance plan at the DPW yacht? This is our city's number one asset. This is the largest investment we've made in quite some time. What's our plan? What are we going to do to be sure that this stays a state-of-the-art facility so that 10 years down the line, we're not looking to borne money to fix something we've already fixed, Ms. Martin. I think that that's a great assessment, and that leads me into my point. We need to have a capital improvement fund in the city of Medford for our buildings. And without that, we're going to be behind the eight ball all the time. Until we actually take care of the facilities that we own and perpetuate And perpetual maintenance care isn't a bad idea, a perpetual fund. That's something that I support, a capital maintenance and trust fund, where we dedicate a certain portion of our city's budget to a trust fund, just for the purpose of maintaining and upkeeping the current buildings that we have, Mr. President. So, Ms. Martin, I think that that was a very good point that you made, because there are going to be competing interests the more time that goes on if, in fact, we don't have a capital maintenance plan to keep the buildings and the existing assets that we have up to par to be livable, to be workable, to be usable. So thank you very much for taking the time to come up here and provide us with that thoughtful analysis.
[Jeanne Martin]: Thank you. And I do agree also, one second now. I do agree. I'm totally for a 5%, whatever that number is, for a maintenance plan for every single city building. I am totally on board with that before we do anything else.
[Fred Dello Russo]: And I believe that was part of the new school construction that was never followed through on. Councilor Knight, you're all set? Mr. President, I rest.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Penta? Just on that point, I'm glad you just brought that up because I was alluding to that. When we built our new school buildings, they're going on 13 years now, if not more, the 5% on an annual basis was supposed to be each school budget. The state never came in here to monitor that, to see if it was. Now, Councilor Caraviello, in the second year of his term, in year two, brought up a report that had $1,200,000 of repairs for the schools. Isn't that correct, sir? All right. $1,200,000 for schools that were no more, at that point in time, maybe 12 years old, 10, 11, 12 years old. And we're worried about a new police station and making sure that it's going to be rehab. Look up at the ceiling there. You see that ceiling right there? I do. That's been like that. You know how long that's been going on almost three years. And the superintendent of schools is sitting exactly where the gentleman is sitting there when that ceiling came down and he's lucky he didn't get killed. This is what the city's idea of maintenance is right there. Cover the hole up, patch it up, and maybe nothing will be said. You heard it tonight. You heard about the library. You heard about the bathrooms. Okay. You go through the infrastructure of our city. There were just so many things that, for the past many years, have been ignored, completely and totally ignored, whitewashed over. Why? Because you know why? Because in all these bonds that the city has outstanding there, they're all going to be paid on a back end. So it's interest only for the first five or six years. God bless whoever the next mayor is going to be. And I hope I have a chance to do this, because I want to revitalize that whole situation on how this city is going to pay for those bonds in the future. Do you realize on the fifth and the sixth year what the cost is going to be in this particular budget to pay for those bonds? You won't see any new buildings in here. You'll just be paying off for the bonds that you have here right now. So what needs to take place here is a thorough and an exhaustive review of how these buildings are going to be reviewed, how these buildings are going to take place. This past year, the school department budget passed $2 million additional dollars, from last year to this year. God knows what they have in it for this year. Salaries increased, as the councilor to my right, Councilor Lungo-Koehn and current. Some people got $20,000 salary increases, and I believe there was almost $32 million in transfers from last year's budget before the end of the year took place. So how are we talking about that being a legitimate budget when you pass it in the beginning of the year? I don't know. These are all tricks of the trade, apparently, that have been going on for years. But if you have, all of a sudden, $2 million in additional dollars, and you start hiring extra people at $90,000 and $100,000 a year, and you take it away from the classroom, you take it away from the teachers, you take it away from the supplies, and you take it away from the front entrance of that high school, it looks like it's bombed out, like a war zone, because the bricks and everything are shattered. I'm surprised there are enough kids that have not broken their ankles or their legs. Handles are still off the front door to come in. That's wrong. And when a parent goes up there and looks at it and says, is that where I'm going to send my kid? Do I really want my kid to go there? That's why they get forced to go to these private schools, because appearance, as you know, is the name of the game. They spent $500,000 to redo this building over, just this council chamber. I think it cost $497,000 to build the entire building, PWA days. But $500,000 to do this over. That's been like that for three years. And then the molding, if you look at the molding, that's ready to go and that's coming down and nothing's been done, nothing in the budget, no repair work, no nothing. And y'all worried about a police station and they can't even figure out how to do this. The next administration hopefully will be a work in composite between the council and the mayor. And there's going to be a meeting of the minds. And so that way there, when the money is going to be spent, it's going to be spent, and everybody's going to be on board to understand how it's going to be spent, when it's going to be spent, and where it's going to be spent for. That hasn't taken place here in 28 years. But I can assure you, it will take place.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, can we take 15479, please?
[Robert Penta]: we laid on the table last week to this week.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of a council paper to take a couple of Penta to take a paper off the table. All those in favor of those opposed 15 for 79, the future of Lawrence Memorial hospitals to be discussed. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, as a result of unfortunately the merger that did not take place between partners and Lawrence Memorial hospital and the Melrose Wakefield on January 29th of this past year, when Judge Sanders issued her 48-page decision not agreeing to this because she did not believe that what Martha Coakley had put together was going to work in the best interests of the hospitals mentioned in as well as offshore. And then on top of that, Mara Healy, the new attorney general coming in and likewise not only supporting the judge but nixing the whole deal and is willing to go to court I believe we have a council resolution asking her and both parties to be here. I've taken the time to speak to some doctors and some employees up at the Lawrence Memorial Hospital. And since at the present time, the third and the fourth floor of the hospital is not being used to any type of its potential, nevermind its maximum, I'd like to make an offering and throw this back out. And hopefully it gets back to not only the Lawrence Memorial, but to partners because If we take a look at the doctors that are operating here in the city of Medford that are Hallmark Hospital doctors and at the same time private practitioners, and offer them room and space on the third and fourth floor of the hospital, and leaving the first and second floors available for emergency, for prompt care, emergency services, and what's presently in there right now, it would be a way not only to utilize the hospital with a complete medical density of doctors, no matter what their professions might be, and at the same time, make the offering to partners, rather than have the Lawrence be part of a consortium, which included the South Shore, which included Melrose-Wakefield. It could be an independent, isolated medical facility that the partners, Mass General, would be willing to entertain, which would not have to go through any type of a consortium, or review, or to go through 48-page review. People don't realize that the Lawrence Memorial Hospital was in a profit-making position before this whole idea of this merger took place. And for the last few years, a lot of its finances and a lot of its profits have been carried over to the Melrose-Wakefield. And unfortunately for the Lawrence Memorial, they did not receive the same benefits that the Melrose-Wakefield Hospital has received most recently over the past two to three years. And that's maybe because the former president, who's no longer the president, who left the day after the deal didn't go through, did not have the same feeling to the Lawrence Memorial as he had as being president over at the Melrose-Wakefield. But I think this would really bode well for our community. I think it would bode well for our citizens, seniors, mothers with babies, emergency room, prompt care locations, and for any other doctor that might be having a situation where either parking presents itself with a problem, location presents itself with a problem, but if they were all centrally located, because everybody knows where the Lawrence Memorial Hospital is, and if they were centrally located there, and they worked their offices out of that building, and even if they looked at the positioning that the doctors, to some degree, are not part of the nonprofit, and there is a way to legally separate the buildings or the floors or what have you, because anything is possible. So that's why I'm throwing this out there as a possibility to keep as many doctors as we can here, but also the greater possibility to bring Mass General partners here into the city of Medford. They have a great interest in Mr. Cardiology. They think it's a great team of doctors that are there. They were one of the first, if not the first group of doctors that partners, I believe, entertain for the purposes of hopefully being part of this consortium. But again, unfortunately on January 29th when the deal did not go through and Judge Sanders didn't approve it because she felt that for which Martha Coakley had put in her request for the merger that the cost would not be contained, as they said it would be for a six-year period of time. And as a result of that, I believe there were 50 independent doctors and medical professionals and presidents of other hospitals, local area hospitals, who did not want it, did not believe it would serve in the best interest of the community. And I believe that's the reason why. That's what the 48-page decision says. So with that being said, Mr. President, I move, Mr. Clerk, and I don't know if the words are going to be very probably general right now, that the Lawrence Memorial Hospital look at entertaining the utilization of their third and fourth floor locations for the purposes of offering to all Medford doctors an opportunity to house their private practices there in concert with the first and second, with the emergency and prompt care, the other medical facilities that the Lawrence Memorial offers now, and present that to the Partners Mass General Board, our president,
[Fred Dello Russo]: That the, uh, if just for the point of clarity, Councilor, that the, uh, that the hallmark health presented to the partners. Yes.
[Robert Penta]: Yes. For the purposes of presenting to the hallmark help in essence, and they present that to partners mass general for the purposes of being an independent affiliate of the mass general and not part of the original consortium. You have it, Eddie? You may have to go back and watch the video. Oh, there you are.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I think that was one more point of clarification, Councilor, for the point of voting on this resolution. Was anything of what you said done in consultation with an official from Hallmark Health?
[Robert Penta]: Not with Hallmark Health, but speaking with their doctors, nurses, and as well as patients who thought it was a good idea. But doctors and nurses, yes. So that's a negative.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Penta.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Madam Vice President, just point of clarification. Sorry. I want to, there's a third and fourth floor. So to house. Okay. So we're just asking the question, have them discuss it on that motion.
[Robert Penta]: We'll call vote. Mr. President and have that forwarded to the Hallmark board of directors to be forwarded to home, uh, to be forwarded to, uh, partners, mass general.
[Clerk]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Camuso. Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? No. Vice President Lowenkern?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Marksley?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Penta? Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: President Dello Russo? No. On the vote of one absent, two in the negative, four in the affirmative, the motion passes. Papers in the hands of the clerk offered under suspension by President Dello Russo and Councilor Knight. be resolved that the city solicitor advise and render an opinion to the council as to the process and parameters for the council to establish a charter review committee. It's pretty self-explanatory and we can discuss it when we get a response back to us. On the motion, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: On the motion, Councilor Penta. I am absolutely perplexed. You and Councilor Knight are both offering these resolutions, but when this was presented over here for the purposes of possibly entertaining it by Mr. Storella, that both of you were opposed to it, and now all of a sudden you're for it? And the people who had an opportunity to speak on it aren't even here? I respectfully request that I lay on the table, and anyone interested who might be watching can come next week to discuss this. Because I think this is way too important of an issue to not have the public either be advised of it, but I'm just dumbfounded that people who are against it now want to get an opinion, when you didn't want to do it back then.
[Fred Dello Russo]: We're just asking for an opinion, and we can discuss it afterwards.
[Robert Penta]: But you refused the gentleman when he came before, though. So what changed your mind?
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I signed on to this resolution because I want to know what the process is. There are multiple processes. This council can do it. It can be a citizen-driven petition as well. I think it's important for the city clerk to come out and provide us with the perimeters, which venue we can recommend people take, which direction people may want to go or may not want to go. If there aren't enough votes for it here in the council, at least people know what direction to go, Mr. President. So I see no problem bringing the resolution forward. There were citizens that came here and then asked this council to make a decision. At that point in time, I wasn't ready to support that. At this point in time, I am. I've done a little bit of homework. I've done a little bit of research on the matter, Mr. President. So I don't think that it's that outlandish. I don't think it's crazy. I don't think it's insane to bring this conversation topic forward. I don't think it's insane, crazy, or outlandish to ask for the question, to be answered by a clerk, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor Marks. I know Councilor Knight is new to the council, but this question has been brought up on several occasions. And I think some of the surprise is that there's been members of this council adamantly opposed to even looking at the city charter, let alone review it. So I think that's some of the surprise. I know you're relatively new to the council. Myself and other members of the council have supported this type of initiative and type of review. and feel that it should be built into the city charter that calls for a periodical review of the city charter. So I think that's where some of the surprise comes in. And I offered a resolution, I think it was a year and a half, two years ago. And I won't speak out of turn, but the president at the time, Councilor Del Russo, said, He has never had anyone approach him regarding the city charter and didn't see a need to even look at it. And that was, you know, pretty close to a quote that he said. So I think some of us are concerned now because, you know, when the mayor was in office, there wasn't the feeling by some members of the council to review the charter when the mayor was in power. You know, and now all of a sudden the mayor is going by the wayside. And now, all of a sudden, these same members want to take a look at the city charter. So maybe they had an epiphany. Who knows? Maybe you did a good job debating. And good luck to them. But I've always been supportive of a charter review for years. And my record has always been one for looking at the city charter. It's the way the city government operates. Any paper that was developed 28 years ago, like any business plan, you wouldn't be in business too long if you had the business plan from 28 years ago. You have to change with the times. And so I welcome this, and I welcome to see how my colleagues that were once opposed to this move forward with this.
[Adam Knight]: And I, too, think that, you know, figuring out what the process is and figuring out what direction we need to go in if we feel as though there are changes necessary is important. It's important for us to know. It's important for the people to know. I'm on board. And more importantly, I think with the change in administration, there is a certain sense of insecurity or a sense of maybe uncertainty and instability right now. And I think that if we're going to make the change, now's the time to do it. If things are changing, let's really take a long hard look at what's going on. Point of clarification.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of clarification, Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Is the Council's sense saying that there is a — when the — at present administration, there was a security sense here, but now there is a sense of insecurity?
[Adam Knight]: I misspoke. I misspoke. Instability versus insecurity was the term that I meant to use, Councilor. Well, that's even worse. Well, you don't think that there's a sense of instability here in the community of Medford right now with the 28-year mayor that's retiring? There are two good candidates that are going to be in the race over here. And hopefully, maybe the best woman will win. A man will win.
[Robert Penta]: I really think the people of this community are smart enough to understand and to realize that when this issue has been brought up, as it has been brought up, and I really am going to respectfully ask my colleagues to lay it on the table so that way the people who are watching it can come next week and discuss it. And I think, Councilor De La Russa, you owe it to the public to come down from the chair and explain why you're putting this resolution on when you were wholeheartedly against it before. Because this doesn't make any sense. You have to stand behind that for what you're proffering. You just can't turn around and put a resolution on and not tell the people why. This is such a huge, huge issue. You're talking about the community's charter that you were diabolically opposed to before. Now all of a sudden, out of the clear blue sky, and I don't know who put this bug in your ear, to have this resolution come before the council. If you're that much for it, well, then why don't you just have the city solicitor come forward and just tell him, Mr. Solicitor, there seems to be a feeling in the community. Could you just come here and explain it? I don't know. I don't think you thought this up on your own, because that would be just too good to be true. The fact of the matter is, you sat there and you were against it, same as he was, and same as Councilor Camuso.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, most are to withdraw.
[Robert Penta]: God. They moved that the paper lay on the table and allow the people to come next week who have an interest on this particular subject matter. You had an 80-year-old gentleman who was walking the streets. You basically embarrassed him and insulted him at the podium. No. No. He said things were all right the way they were.
[Fred Dello Russo]: To me, that's like saying. I'm not going to have you characterize my words, Councilor. Councilor Knight withdraws his name from the petition.
[Adam Knight]: I thought this was a good thing, Mr. President. I thought this was a good thing. I thought this was something that, you know what I mean? It is a good thing, but I just want to know why.
[Robert Penta]: Why the change?
[Adam Knight]: We can work together. I think that the future is what we should be focused on as opposed to the past.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I think the motion to table should be withdrawn and that we should send it to the solicitor and then we can discuss it when it comes back to us.
[Robert Penta]: Why are you afraid to let people come and talk on it?
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'm not at all. We'll have an answer and we'll discuss it then.
[Robert Penta]: Are you withdrawing your motion today? No, there's people who want to talk. I don't want to talk. You.
[Fred Dello Russo]: You. Is there a motion if it's... You. What are you talking about? It's over the table. What is wrong? Is the motion to table withdrawn, Councilor?
[Robert Penta]: I'm not... No, I'm not withdrawing it because I... The motion is tabled. If I find... Okay, if it's undervalued. The motion is tabled.
[Fred Dello Russo]: We will address the records. But first, I have a update. I'm going to, in one moment. Motion for approval. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion's tabled. The announcement for the budget hearings next week, I had hoped to receive the printed schedule from the mayor's office this evening. We just worked it out with Louise Miller this morning. However, that hasn't come to us yet. The plan is to begin next Tuesday, the 2nd of June at 5.30. In my note taking, I failed to take down which departments we're going to take then. Then Wednesday, the 3rd at 6 p.m. No, I take that back. Then Tuesday, the 9th at 5.30. We're going to have library, health department, and some of the related pieces with that, and bonds and interest. On Wednesday, the 10th at 5.30, I do not have a note on that. On the 16th, Tuesday, 5.30, police and fire. Wednesday the 17th DPW 530 hopefully Thursday the 18th at 6 PM we'll be prepared to take the school department. Uh, then, uh, as it comes out, uh, we'll be able to begin discussion on the council floor, the 23rd. Uh, and if things need to be continued, we have up till the 30th. What's the first dates again, please. I apologize, the first date is Tuesday, June 2nd at 5.30. 9th at 5.30, the 10th at 5.30, 16th, 5.30, 17th, 5.30, 18th, 6 p.m. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Reconsideration on the vote that we just took, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Motion to take, move reconsideration.
[Michael Marks]: That was tabled.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the charter issue.
[Michael Marks]: We have a few residents that would like to speak on it, and then we can make a motion after that.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So motion for reconsideration to reintroduce it back to the floor. All those in favor? Yes. Opposed? Did members of the public wish to speak on that matter?
[Anthony D'Antonio]: Good evening, again. Anthony D'Antonio, 12 Yale Street, Medford. I can't remember how many months ago it was, but I started a committee, just a grassroots committee. And I have 57 members on it right now of people that were very much interested in reviewing the charter. It's very important because it's a very old document. I know that Councilor Penta was on it. At the initial change from plan E to plan A, there were a lot of amendments left out of it. Amendments that hurt the citizens of Medford because they weren't getting fair representation for their tax dollars, among other things. But I do recall when I came before, I had a discussion with Solicitor Rumley, and we had a miscommunication. And I tried to get to him before he went on vacation. He took a long weekend and I came before the council somewhat unprepared, but the emotion that I was trying to get across was to get a feel from the Councilors. Would you be amenable to having a commission set up where I believe each one of your Councilors can pick somebody to go on the, on the committee or the commission. And it was shot down four to three. And I think council Mike, she voted for it. Um, And it's very important. I mean, I know it's an election year and I know, you know, this is the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do 10 years ago, 15 years ago. I mean, charter should review, be reviewed at least a minimum every five years because things change all the time. So I just wanted to get that straight. And there are a lot of people from that committee that I started. There were hundreds that want to see a review of the charter because they don't understand it. They don't understand why what happens here on Tuesday nights happens. Why don't you have authority to do this? Why do we spend this? Why do we need to be some changes? We need to have a balance of power. So there was a boat taken. And as I said, it got stuffed four to three. So anyway, that's all I wanted to say.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Please state your name and address for the record.
[acqgxK4yhEM_SPEAKER_16]: Mario Martin of 18 Benton Road. A review of the chart is absolutely necessary. I think that if you use the analogy of an old, outdated computer, You can start to see that after the computer gets really slow, it's not working, you have to reboot it. You have to add to it. You have to upgrade it and update it. In a fast-evolving, fast-changing society, it's absolutely necessary to change this charter, to see the rules of government, to see how the charter in general can help society. So I think it's absolutely necessary. I think it's time that we start looking at changing the language in it and making sure that we can address issues for the city where this charter isn't really addressing. So that's all. Thank you.
[Michael Ruggiero]: Good evening. Could this state name and address for the record? Michael Agiro. I live on 18 Pembroke Street. I think it's absolutely essential that we review the charter, but we need to do it in a public forum where people have the opportunity to speak about the pros and cons of different systems. It's a little disconcerting to me because I review the agenda every night, and I didn't see this item on the agenda. It kind of surprised me. I'm all for a charter review, but let's do it in a kind of environment that allows for a diversity of voices from the community to participate. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Is there a motion, Councilor Knight? If I could ask the folks involved with this Chatter Review Commission that's been put together, when the next meeting is?
[Michael Ruggiero]: I'm meeting with City Solicitor Romley on Thursday.
[Adam Knight]: No, I'm talking about Mr. D'Antonio, actually, and to the committee that he was speaking about.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: This was Anthony D'Antonio, Yale Street. This was an ad hoc committee. which came about because of the frustration of many citizens. This is not a, uh, you know, you don't have a charter. We just was a group of people.
[Adam Knight]: I just didn't know if you were meeting again in the near future.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: No, because what I, uh, what's happening now is because it's an election year and a lot of people busy with different things. Um, and I have a couple of other avenues I've been, you know, going down. I'm hoping that the, um, the next administrator, the next mayor in the city of Medford, We'll understand that this needs to be done and we'll go along with that. There's quite an operation to get this thing going. I think to go the signature way is 5,500 signatures. Then there's a process with this, that, and the other, and it takes a while. But as I said, councilors can vote a commission, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, can vote a commission to work on the charter. And it needs a lot of work. There's a lot of weak spots in the charter.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. D'Antoni, we've put some effort in and done some work on this and, you know, having dealt with you, I know that it's going to be good work and it's going to be thorough. Would you be willing to share that information with the council once we get our response back from the solicitor as to what your notes reflect in meeting minutes and stuff like that from the charter?
[Anthony D'Antonio]: Yeah, we have some minutes of what we've done.
[Adam Knight]: If you could share that with us, that might be helpful and start in the conversation.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: Pretty much what we discussed was the need for the change in the charter or the review of the charter. And not so much to besmirch the mayor or anything like that, because it's a very fine line when you're trying to work with somebody who's been mayor for 28 years in a charter that's been in existence from the year before he became mayor. So it's a fine line, because there's a lot of different opinions of everything and everybody out there. And that was difficult, because we shook out the people that just wanted to come in and lambaste the mayor. We didn't do that. So it's important. The goal was to get this city back in the back and I don't think anybody behind this rail, I don't think anybody behind this rail is questioning your motives, sir.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor, you're Madam Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If I can recall too, when it was before the council a number of times in the committee, your committee was started and Mr. Starello was a big advocate. Um, uh, Capucci, was a big advocate. And I think you had a lot of meetings and you did a lot of work. And then the council took that vote of three to four and everything kind of died down after that. So maybe now if we can uniformly say we need to review the charter, we can move, you know, your committee and the city can move forward with, you know, reviewing the charter and seeing, seeing what needs to be changed in the future.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: And as I said, it is a committee ad hoc and not a commission, not a duly registered citizens commission.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Mr. Just a point. Is there a motion on the floor?
[Robert Penta]: Point of clarification to those meetings. Tony, when we were at those meetings, one of the things that were brought up that was pretty much not clear, because a lot of people didn't go back to 30 years. When this whole change of government took place way back when, it wasn't just a one option issue. It was a double option. You could retain the council manager form of government, or you could go forward with the strong AMEA. A lot of people seem to think that that wasn't the way it was. We had 32 meetings, 32 meetings, open to the public, open and notorious. And then we had, I believe there was a Charter Review Committee, and then there became a Charter Commission, was elected citywide throughout the community. And then, I believe it's some year after that, it's a four to five year process. This isn't an overnight thing, and people think it's gonna change overnight. This is open and notorious. There were many, many meetings, And if you digest each and every part of the segments of the charter, that's what this thing was all about, and that's where it was going. The unfortunate part, even though the vote was four to three, the unfortunate part about many good things were starting to come about. And I think all we were looking for, all that I guess you guys were looking for at the time, and I was willing to support, was having each council become involved, what a citizen, what a committee, in going over it. And then when the time came to make a presentation, you make a presentation. That's all that it was. This wasn't trying to upstage anybody. And you're right. This wasn't out there to smash anybody or anything like that. It was run very logically and very, very courteously. People expressed their opinions as what they wanted to see. And again, I just, you know, I still think there are other people out there who would like to come and speak on it. And just all due respect to my colleagues, I just ask that it lay on the table until next week. And at least that way, there are people, if they want to come, they come. At least they had an opportunity to know it's there.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: Through the chair to Councilor Penta, I do know the work that you did on the charter, because I read it and re-read it and read it again. And I do know that they omitted some very important revisions, amendments, clauses in there that sort of shot a whole lot of holes for that charter back then, Plan A. And one of the things people have to know, there were nine members on the commission.
[Robert Penta]: And just like the US Constitution when it was passed, It was very marginal on each one of them. Many of them were 5 to 4, 6 to 3. There weren't many that were really overwhelming. And you're going to probably find this on this particular issue, too. But you know something? This charter to be looked at today is going to be for the benefit of the citizens of tomorrow, for the people who are 20, 30, and 40 years old. I mean, we're at an age right now, you know, we're living within something that's already there. It's been established. But whoever the new council is going to be, your job isn't for today. Your job is where this city is going to be going for tomorrow. It's direction. And how are we going to enhance the vitality and rejuvenate this city to a point that's saying, hey, our government is working with us and it's moving forward with us. And Jeannie, whether it's a brand new police station or not, how we're going to get there, that's what you need to know. How it's going to be financed, that's what you need to know. You just can't say you want something. This is how we're going to do it. And it's going to be collective. And it'll be a cleft of thought process to get to that point, something that's been sort of like missing for a long period of time. And hopefully the new council, whoever those Councilors might be, will realize that you do have an important role to play in this city and you're not going to be ostracized and you should be a game player for the future, just like the mayor is going to be a game player for the future. You know, we're elected to do the people's business. We're not elected here to be for ourselves. There's no personal gain in here for me. I'll speak for myself. I love this city. I've spent a lot of time in this city. I've been elected for a lot of years, and I'm very thankful to the taxpayers for that, and the rate payers, and the citizens. But you know something? This is a new day dawned. We're moving forward. We're going into a new direction, and that's hopefully — I hope the taxpayers buy into that.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: Because it's a great — Mr. McNerney. Collaboration breeds success.
[Robert Penta]: Yes, it's a collaboration.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: You're right.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Councilman. If I could, just briefly, Mr. President, just because we're talking about the charter. I had some paperwork at my desk. It says the two main charter change routes. Option one, electing a home rule charter commission. It says option one is an election of a home rule charter commission, which leads to what is often referred to as a home rule charter. A commission of nine members may be elected to frame a charter or revise its present charter. For a city or a town upon a petition of 15% of the municipality's voters, Chapter 43B of the general laws provides a specific framework, timeline, and set of responsibilities for the charter commission to fulfill. The commission has a maximum of 16 months to produce a preliminary report and a maximum of 18 months to produce a final report. The statute requires that two public hearings be held. Both the preliminary and the final reports must be printed and distributed. Option two is a home rule petition. route, which leads to what is often referred to as a special act charter. Section eight of the home rule petition amendment provides that cities and towns may use a home rule petition to achieve change in the structure. The petition route was the only route available for cities and towns to make structural change prior to the passage of the amendment. Section eight does not provide detailed instructions regarding the preparation of a home rule petition charter. A mayor or board of selectmen may appoint a study committee or such committees may be created by a city council or by a vote of a town meeting. Such actions may set a timeline for such committees to report back to the appointing a body, but there is no statement requirement for a specific timeline. There's also no requirement for printing and distribution of any proposal. There are no public hearing requirements per se, although some study committees do provide a public forum for discussion of its recommendations in a town meeting or city council meetings. which such changes would be considered public meetings. In recent years, however, some study committees have used the CityTown website as publicized their recommendations. And then it goes on to say after completing their work and so forth. Then it also, Mr. President, just if I could, and I assume we're going to get this back from the city solicitor, it says periodic review of a charter by a charter review committee. Once a community has a charter, there's often a provision for the periodic appointment of a charter review committee. The committee undertakes an examination to determine the charter's ongoing utility and accuracy. Such committees do not have the powers, duties, and responsibilities of an elected charter commission. Such committees are formed to review the charter and to make recommendations to its appointing body, example, Selectman City Council, regarding the need for additions, deletions, clarifications, or other amendments that would improve the charter. The term of such an advisory committee is usually one year. Recommendations of the committee may take the form of a proposal, special act, or a proposed charter amendment. But the local legislative body must act upon the recommendations before they take effect. The committee may also find, for example, that the charter's intent is clear, but related bylaws or ordinances may need clarification. The role of such committees can be important in ensuring that the charter is working as intended but the charter review committee has no assigned role in achieving any change beyond recommendation to the appointing body. And if I recall, uh, the discussion we had, um, the periodic review of the city charter by this creation, Mr. President of this charter review committee was the most expedient way of getting a community body to make recommendations to the council and the council having a public hearing and discussing and debating all the issues. And we could discuss this further, but I think that outlines the process that we as a body have. And we do have, you know, this information at our fingertips. And I look forward to more dialogue and discussion on this, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The Vice President.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor, do you happen to have a site on that? For which one? The document you just read off of. Is there a website or some certain?
[Michael Marks]: The first option refers to Chapter 43B of the Mass General Laws. The second one refers to Section 8, which I assume is part of that 43B. It doesn't give a chapter, but it gives a section. And the periodic review is somewhere mixed in there. There's no site to that.
[Adam Knight]: OK.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor.
[Adam Knight]: I appreciate it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: All set, Councilor Marks? Thank you. Yes, thank you. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, um, I'm going to apologize to you because, um, I think we've seen it and heard enough here tonight. I understand when you come out, you know what I'm going to ask you to do if you don't mind, would you just withdraw your motion and put it legitimately on the agenda for next week? And then that way there it's open and notorious and then everybody can discuss it because I think it can accomplish the same thing. And at the same time, it's just such an important issue. to have it come under suspension of the rules. I just think, can I, can I explain why I did what I did?
[Fred Dello Russo]: I put it in so we can get an opinion back from the solicitor. So therefore we could have a point of discussion. That's an authoritative document before us. And I appreciate that never my intention Councilor to, uh, eliminate limit, uh, prevent or obstruct or obscure discussion on this. It was a beginning to get an opinion on how we go about this from the legal advisor to this council so we can begin the next steps.
[Robert Penta]: And I can appreciate that. But at the same time, it's such, it's, it's, it's the thing that makes this city run. It's, it's charter and you know, and if it was on the agenda, there'd be no, I'd have no problem with it. I'm just, you know, it just reflects me back to the four to three vote. You have to understand, You're on one position, and I'm on another. But I think we're on the same page as far as getting an opinion. So that's what I'm saying. If you don't mind withdrawing it and just putting it on the agenda for next week, I would be more than happy with that. That would be OK.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I see no reason why I can't say asking for an opinion and still having a discussion once we get there.
[Robert Penta]: Well, because there are other people who were actively involved that might want to come and speak. And I want them to have an opportunity. Under suspension. Under suspension. It's not on the agenda, you know?
[Fred Dello Russo]: You're still- I understand that. I understand that because it came to mind over the long weekend and I wanted to just get a legal opinion.
[Robert Penta]: But at the same time, but at the same time, Freddy, if I, if I laid it on the table and it wins, it sits there for another week. But if it's on the agenda next week, it doesn't make any difference. At least it's open. People can see it. I'll withdraw it and place it on the agenda. Thank you very much. Thank you. I appreciate that. Motion is withdrawn.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I have a question for you all.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: I don't know if you're aware of this, but I was driving down commercial street the other day and I noticed the catch basin contractor dumping the contents of their truck in one of the bays at the dpw yard where we formally leased the building over there. I don't know if we're still under regulations, the rules and regulations of the lease, have we bought it out? And if so, if that's listed as hazardous material, are we going to be responsible for that? I mean, I don't know what the catch basis is of dirt and rocks and all kinds of garbage. Over the weekend. Okay, good. All right, no, I was just concerned because it's very unsightly. So, okay, thank you. It does smell bad. Do we still, are we still indebted to that?
[Fred Dello Russo]: All right, thank you. The records of the May 19th meeting were passed to Councilor Marks. Councilor, how would you find them? Through the records, Mr. President, I find them to be in order, move approve. On the motion of Councilor Marks for approval of the records, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion, the records are approved. Motion to adjourn.
[Robert Penta]: Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Oh, they remain on the table. One last thing, in all seriousness. I want my council colleagues to call me, because I am really impassioned about this issue regarding achata. So I want to apologize to you, because I just was looking at you as being probably a naysayer back then. And I can understand where you're coming from now. Same thing with Councilor Camuso. He was dead set against it, but that's beside the point. The fact of the matter is, you're the one that's standing up there, so I apologize, but I thank you for withdrawing, and I thank you for putting it on the agenda next week. To me, it's probably the most important thing that makes this city run, it's charter. Thank you, Councilor. You're welcome. Councilor Knight?
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I ask that when we adjourn, we adjourn in the memory of our deceased brothers and sisters from the Medford Police Department, Robert B. Corrado, Kenneth J. Hickey, Adrian L. Jean, Peter W. McGaffigan, Jr., Christopher E. Sano, Thomas J. Walsh, and Sheila Richard.
[Fred Dello Russo]: and they will be remembered at mass when, councillor?
[Adam Knight]: Friday the 29th at 9 a.m. Immaculate Conception Church, Malden.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much. On that motion, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion is, the meeting is adjourned.
|
total time: 18.6 minutes total words: 1318  |
total time: 13.35 minutes total words: 937  |
total time: 8.91 minutes total words: 614  |
total time: 25.71 minutes total words: 770  |
|
total time: 9.32 minutes total words: 1131  |
total time: 1.88 minutes total words: 168  |
total time: 6.35 minutes total words: 670  |
total time: 35.27 minutes total words: 2764  |