AI-generated transcript of Medford, MA City Council - July 19, 2016 (Unofficially provided by MT)

[Fred Dello Russo]: The 26th regular meeting of the Medford City Council will come to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello. Present. Councilor Falco. Present. Councilor Knight. Present. Vice President Langer-Kern. Present. Councilor Marks. Present. Councilor Scarpelli. Present. President Dello Russo.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Present. With seven members present, none absent, please join us in rising to salute the flag. Aye. 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. I hope you'll bear with us. We have some audio problems and feedback tonight with the system. The committee of the whole, Committee of the Whole met tonight at 6 o'clock. The purpose of the Committee of the Whole meeting was to receive the recommendations and discuss the recommendations of the Community Preservation Act Ad Hoc Committee for implementation of that, the parts of that act, and to create an audience for the city of Medford and to have the Community Preservation Committee established. The council reviewed those recommendations from the ad hoc committee, which was chaired by Councilor Knight and voted to accept the recommendations and to have them implemented into an ordinance to be sent by the city solicitor to the council for consideration. So on the motion of Councilor Knight to accept that paper. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? That paper is accepted. 16-586 offered by Vice President Lungo-Koehn be resolved that the city solicitor provide a written opinion of how the board of appeals was granting use variances, considering that the city council revoked the use variance in 1998 after initiative petition in November of 1987. be it further resolved that an opinion be issued with regards to how this affects the most recent use variance issued from the development on Middlesex Ave. Madam Vice President.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. I do have some questions with regards to the use variance issue. This resolution should read 1988, not 1998. In 1987, an initiative petition was placed on the ballot in which the people voted to get rid of the use variance, at which time the city council, Medford City Council, voted in 1988 to eliminate the use variance. I know that is in our ordinance right now, and I know there's obviously that issue that we're bringing an appeal for the Locust Street development, but I also question the use of areas that was issued for Middlesex Ave in December of 2014. I know that that was brought to court, I believe, by abutters, and it was back before the Board of Appeals to—it was sent back, remanded to the Board of Appeals, which they met on that issue a couple weeks ago. So my question—I'd like to just amend this paper, and in addition to asking the solicitor these questions, also ask how the building department can issue a use variance for this Middlesex Ave property, when in fact we don't even, you know, they're not allowed by our city ordinance and by council vote of 1987.

[Fred Dello Russo]: On that motion as amended by Vice President Lungo-Koehn. All those in favor? All those opposed? Carries. 16-587. offered by Vice President Lago-Curran, be it resolved that the city administration provide an update to the Medford City Council with regard to why Wright's Pond had an unexpected closure last week and what is being done to make sure that the pond remains open for the rest of the summer. Madam Vice President.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. I received complaints that Wright's Pond was closed last week. I also received additional complaints that I believe two or three days ago the pond was cut-offs, stating reasons that it was to capacity. So I just would like to get an answer of what happened last week. And also, I guess we have an announcement that was on our desk tonight from Amaya Burke announces pawn regulations. I'm not sure if, you know, one of us wants to read it, but it looks like they're going to, just to summarize, it looks like we may not have enough lifeguards and they're going to start rotating people in and out of the water. that they're not going to stop people from coming into the pond unless the parking lot is full. Otherwise, they're going to allow people with passes in, and they're going to rotate them out of the water. But from what I understand, a couple days ago, people were quite upset they were being turned away. They buy their pass for the summer, which is only about eight weeks, and then they were being turned away and not allowed to come into the pond. I don't know if it was rumor or not, but somebody mentioned that the day passers were even allowed to go in, and then people who had bought the pass for the full summer weren't allowed. So I just want to make sure. Obviously, something might have happened with regards to not having enough lifeguards and planning back a couple months ago. Sounds like this is something that should be planned on or about February of the year, because you do want to make sure that we have enough lifeguards to obviously allow anybody that has a pass to come to the pond for each and every day. So I just hope that next year we can plan a little better, get a few extra lifeguards, and hopefully we are turning anybody away for the rest of the summer.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. On the motion of Vice President Lungo-Koehn, for approval, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries, 16-588, offered by Vice President Lungo-Koehn. Be it resolved that the Office of Community Development update the Medford City Council with regard to the speed bump that was supposed to be installed on South Street, be it further resolved that the Medford City Council be provided a list of any locations that will have speed bumps installed within the next six months. Madam Vice President.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. This more or less has to do with raised speed bumps. I know that there's a few councilors, especially Council Marks, who brought this issue up many times, and I know there's a few raised speed bumps that were supposed to be installed and never were. And I know we talked about this probably a month or two ago. But there's also a speed bump that was supposed to be implemented, a raised speed bump for the Memorial Park, all the people that are using Memorial Park and parking on South Street. And there was supposed to be a raised speed bump on South and Winthrop on or about. I remember specifically talking to the OCD director about this probably a year and a half, two years ago. So I just wanted to get an update with regards to where we are with that speed bump. Not only do we have an issue with everybody parking on South Street and going to Memorial Park and the safety, we also have the no trucking on Harvard, which is now bringing the trucks down South Street, starting to get complaints with heavy trucking going down South Street, getting onto the highway. So I think a raised speed crosswalk raised speed bumps are what is needed on South Street, and I hope that we can get that implemented, especially since that was in the works over a year ago. So I'd like to move approval.

[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval, I'd like to ask President Longo to concur, and all those, Councilor Marks.

[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I think what Councilor Longo is referring to is raised crosswalks and not the speed bumps. Speed bumps are a little different. Raised crosswalks. Raised crosswalks. The pilot program and this council voted several times to get an update on Central Ave and Harvard when the raised crosswalk was going to be put in under the pilot program that then Mayor McGlynn implemented. The one on Winthrop street has been in place now for probably close to two years and it's doing its job over there. And I would agree with council Longo. The whole idea with this pilot program that was initiated two years ago was to see where else in the community we can use these raised crosswalks as a traffic calming approach. And now it's over two years and we only have a third of what we were promised in raised crosswalks. And there are other areas like Salt Street and other areas throughout the community that have been asking why aren't we seeing more of these throughout the community? So I would ask that we get a response back. This is at least the third time that I've personally requested a response on the two initial ones on the pilot program. that still have not been installed, Mr. President. So, I thank my colleague for bringing this up tonight.

[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval by Vice President Lungo-Koehn, seconded by Councilor Marks. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion carries. I recognize Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Caraviello requests for a suspension of the rules.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President.

[Fred Dello Russo]: All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion is recommended to take papers pertaining to the licensing subcommittee.

[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. President, if we could take paper 16-598,

[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, 16-598, petition for Carmen Vitschler's license by John and Alara Rebello, 64 Hemmingway, number 18, Boston, Massachusetts, 2115, for Boston Wings, LLC, doing business as a wing staff at number 1185, 678 Felsway in Medford. Chair recognizes the Councilor. Are the petitioners present? Please present yourself to the podium and state your name and address for the record.

[SPEAKER_01]: Laura Rebello with Wingstop, 678 Belsway, Medford, 02155.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Welcome.

[SPEAKER_01]: Thank you. And this is Andrea, our general manager.

[Richard Caraviello]: How do you do, Andrea? Welcome. Thank you. Councilor. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I have reviewed the papers and they appear to be in order. If the young ladies would like to tell us a little bit about their business.

[SPEAKER_01]: Wingstop is a national company. There's 900 across the south and the west, and we purchased the area inside the 128 loop, and Medford is our first location. We're very excited to be in Felsway Plaza. We feature buffalo wings, have 11 flavors, and we'll be open from 11 a.m. to midnight every day. We have seating for 45, and look forward to working with the city of Medford and having you all. visit our restaurant. Andrew is from Medford. Would you like to?

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I, uh, uh, motion for approval. The paper is in order.

[Fred Dello Russo]: All right. Uh, you have to realize that you'll have to permission through the city clerk's office for a special permit state open till midnight, normal operating hours of restaurants in the city of Medford are seven to 10, Mr. Clark, seven to 11. So for that extra hour for operation, uh, through the city clerk's office, you'll file for petition, uh, and come back before us for that extra hour of operation.

[SPEAKER_01]: Okay. All right. Thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Congratulations.

[SPEAKER_01]: Thank you. Congratulations.

[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the motion of approval by Councilor Caraviello chair recognizes Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Uh, Mr. President, I actually pushed the button just to, um, raise the issue about the special permit, but you took care of that.

[Fred Dello Russo]: So I rest very good on the most Councilor Marks. Uh, we've got two more. So all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries, 16-599. Petition for taxi operator license by Killett-Pierre at number 165 Belrock Street in Everett, Mass, driving for on-call taxi, doing business as MetroCab, 407 Rear, Mystic Avenue, Medford. Is the petitioner present? Mr. Pierre?

[Richard Caraviello]: Chair recognizes Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President. And you're driving for on-call taxi, metric cab? Please state your name and address for the record.

[SPEAKER_26]: My name? Yes. Yes, my name is Calik Pierre.

[Fred Dello Russo]: And your address?

[SPEAKER_26]: 165 Bear Walk Street, Everett.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Mr. President, you'll be driving for metric taxi? Yes. Okay, and that's the only taxi company you're going to be driving for in Medford? Yes. And you understand that this is only for pickups in Medford? Yes. Mr. President, these papers appear to be in order. Motion for approval.

[Michael Marks]: On the motion for approval by Councilor Caraviello, Chair recognizes Councilor Marks, who will- Mr. President, please record me in opposition based on my opposition to the current taxi ordinances that exist and the need for revamping.

[Fred Dello Russo]: So noted, Councilor. On the motion for approval, all those in favour? All those opposed? With Councilor Marks in opposition, the motion passes. 16-600, Rudwan Hamdi. Are you here, Mr. Hamdi? Yes, please come to the podium. 16-600, petition for tax-free operator license by Mr. Rudwan Hamdi of 158 Pearl Avenue, Revere. 02151, driving for mass cab located at 121 rear, mystic avenue in medford. All papers are on file. Please state your name and address for the record, sir. Welcome. Good evening, sir. My name is Hamdi Radwan.

[Richard Caraviello]: My address is 158 pole avenue, river mass, 02151.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you.

[Richard Caraviello]: Chair recognizes Councilor Caraviello. Mr. President, I have reviewed the gentleman's papers. They appear to be in order. And motion for approval.

[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval, with Councilor Marks in opposition. All those in favor? All those opposed? Councilor Marks, the ayes have it. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Congratulations. Drive safely. While we're on to suspension, Chair recognizes Councilor Marks.

[Michael Marks]: Your reason for... I want to commend and congratulate a city employee, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor. We just recently had a retirement in the city clerk's office. And, uh, many of us counsel work very closely with the city clerk's staff and Rosemary DePaulus who served with distinction for 22 years and the city clerk's office just retired. And, uh, Rosemary is always a smiling face and a very welcoming person. And, uh, she served with, as I mentioned, distinction for 22 years. She's going to be solely missed in that office. And I want to thank her for her years of service. and wish her well as a grandmother, a mother, a wife, and all the other hats she wears in addition to being a faithful employee of this community. So I want to thank her for years of service, Mr. President.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Rosemary, and thank you, Councilor Marks, for that. On the motion of Councilor Marks for approval, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Happy retirement. On the motion of Vice President Lungo-Koehn to return to the regular order of business. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion passes. 16-589 offered by Vice President Lungo-Koehn. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council request that the Mass Water Resource Authority take samples of our water in multiple locations like they did in August of 2015 to check for current lead levels. Chair recognizes Madam Vice President.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And thank you, President Dello Russo. During our budget hearings, we requested the lead levels that were last tested by the MWRA, and we were given the breakdown, which levels, the collection date was from August, the last week in August of 2015 on about 15 different, in 15 different areas. So I'm just asking, I know that recently the city hall water was tested and there were high levels of lead. So if we could get a new lead level testing in 2016, it would be greatly appreciated. We just want to make sure we're continuing to monitor and figure out ways that we can reduce the levels of lead in the city, obviously, for the benefit of the people that live here and work here. So I just ask that we request that the MWRA do another test, whether that be in August again or sometime within the next couple months, so that we can keep on top of it.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. On the motion of Vice President Lago-Curran, Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Yes, Mr. President. I move to amend the paper to request recommendations relative to remediation if, in fact, these lead tests do come back positive from the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. As amended by Councilor Knight. On the motion for approval by Vice President Lago-Curran, as seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Aye. As amended. All those opposed? Ayes have it. 16-590 offered by Vice President Lugler-Kern. City of Medford call for state primary September 8, 2016. Be it ordered that the city clerk be, and he is hereby authorized and directed, to notify and warn such of the inhabitants of the City of Medford as were qualified by law to vote for candidates at the state primary on Thursday, September 8, 2016, to assemble at the polling places in their respective wards and precincts, then and there to give in their votes for U.S. Representative in 5th District, Governor's Counsel in the 6th District, State Senator of the General Court, 2nd Middlesex District, State Representative in General Court, 23rd 34th and 35th Middlesex District, Sheriff Middlesex County, and such other vacancies as may exist or occur, and the polls of said state primary shall open at 7 a.m. and remain open until 8 p.m.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to waive the rest of the reading for a summary of the location.

[Fred Dello Russo]: The summary that our primary is on September 8th. Ward 1, Precinct 1, Andrews School. Ward 1, Precinct 2, Firefighters Club. Ward 2, Precinct 1, St. Francis Parish Center. Ward 2, Precinct 2, Roberts Elementary. Ward 3, Precinct 1, Lawrence Memorial Hospital. Ward 3, Precinct 2, Temple Shalom. 4-1, Tufts University, Gantra Center Rear. 4-2, Walking Court, Auburn and North Street at the Fondacaro Center. 5-1 Columbus Elementary, 5-2 Columbus Elementary, 6-1 West Metro Fire Station, 6-2 The Brooks School, Ward 7, Precinct 1, Middlesex Valley Towers North Building, Ward 7, Precinct 2, McGlynn Public School, 8-1 at the Senior Center at 101 Riverside Ave, and 8-2 Veterans of Foreign War Hall 11, 1114 Mystic Avenue. On motion for approval, that the paper be accepted. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. 16-591, offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate Jack Dempsey on being named the Boston Globe 2016 High School Girls Softball Coach of the Year. be it further resolved that in recognition of this momentous achievement, he'd be invited to a future council meeting for the presentation of a council commendation. Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. And thank you to Jack Dempsey for his leadership and his work with the Medford High School girls softball team. Jack's dedication and hard work has certainly paid off. He had a very memorable, momentous season this year, Mr. President. They went deep into the playoffs and were contenders for the state title, however, things didn't pan out as well as we would have liked to see. The girls on the softball team certainly had a tremendous year, and I think Mr. Dempsey had a lot to do with that, Mr. President. He's been a dedicated public servant in our school system for a very long time, and he's also been a dedicated coach, mentor, and role model to the student athletes in Medford High School. And I'd like to congratulate him on this achievement. This is something that doesn't happen to coaches every day. It doesn't happen to coaches every year. It certainly is something that doesn't happen to coaches in their career. So with that being said, I think this is something that's worthy of recognition from the Medford City Council. And I'd like to thank Mr. Dempsey once again for all he does for our community.

[Fred Dello Russo]: The motion is approved by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scott Belli. All those in favor? All those opposed? Carries 16-592 offered by Councilor Knight. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate Ashley Eisner, on being named a Boston Globe 2016 High School Girls Softball All-Scholastic. Be it further resolved that in recognition of this momentous achievement, she be invited to a future council meeting for the presentation of a council commendation. Councilor?

[Adam Knight]: Yes, Mr. President. I think this item and the prior item go hand in hand. As many of you know, my father was a coach for a long time and he said it's easy to win games when you have great players. And he had a great player on his team. Ashley Eisner has done amazing things over her tenure as a Medford Mustang softball pitcher. And being named to the Boston Globe 2016 high school girls softball all scholastic team was really the capstone. She's going to go on and continue her career at the next level. And I wish her all the best of luck. But I'd like to thank her for her work here and her dedication as a Lady Mustang. The amount of success and attention that she's brought to the program is really unprecedented, Mr. President. The youth softball program is off the charts right now, and I think a lot of it has to do with the success of some of the older players that have gone through the program. So with that being said, congratulations to Ashley Eisner on being named an All-Scholastic. This too is an achievement that doesn't happen every day. It's not something that This is really a capstone to a great career, Mr. President, and I'm really just very, very happy for her and her family to see the fruits of her labor pay off.

[Fred Dello Russo]: A motion for approval by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Falco. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. 16-593 offered by Councilor Knight. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council hereby congratulate Marion King-Morata on her recent retirement from the Medford Public Schools. Be it further resolved that Mrs. Marauder be invited to a future council meeting for presentation of an official council commendation recognizing her service to the community. Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. I think when we all think back to our times as students in elementary school or grade school or middle school and high school, you remember some teachers that had an impact on your life. And I first met Miss King at the time when I was a student in seventh grade. And we were at the Brooks Hobbs Elementary School, and Ms. King was my math teacher. And I just really think back to all that she did to help me achieve and succeed and to challenge me, Mr. President. And when I think back on those teachers that really helped make me the person that I am today, she's one of those that come to mind, along with people like Jack McDevitt and John McAdam and Buddy Kelly and Steve Maskell. But Ms. Murata was certainly one of the first people I met as a teacher that really inspired me to do more. And I can't thank her enough for her service to the community here, to the students in Medford, and to her dedication going above and beyond the call of duty. And I think that she warrants a little bit of recognition based upon her many, many years of service, Mr. President. And I'd ask my council colleagues to support this measure.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Her mother was the secretary at the Kennedy Elementary School when I was a kid. And those beautiful blue eyes of hers, the way she looked at you, you felt like a million bucks and you could do anything. And she was a wonderful woman. And Marianne's the same way. We're grateful to her. So on the motion for approval by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? All those opposed? Carries. Offered by Councilor Knight, 16-594 be it resolved Let the Medford City Council hereby recognize and thank Cosmo Volpe on his service to the City of Medford as City Council appointee to the Hormel Commission. Be it further resolved that Mr. Volpe be invited to a future council meeting for the presentation of a council commendation. Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, as I look at the agenda, I see Councilor Marks has a similar resolution congratulating Mr. Volpe. And I defer to Councilor Marks as the senior member. Thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: 16-596 offered by Councilor Marks, be it resolved that the long-time Home Health Commissioner, Cosmo Volpe, be recognized for his many years of committed service to the city of Medford. Councilor Marks, I apologize for me missing that Councilor.

[Michael Marks]: I just want to clarify, I am the senior member in terms of length, not age. I just want to make that known. I want to thank Mr. Volpe, Cosmo Volpe, who served again with distinction for a number of years. I remember when he first got on the O'Hare-Mell Commission back some years ago, and we all remember how that field was. It was really a mud pit. And when the City of Medford took over that field, Cosmo said his one wish was to create a state-of-the-art field for our students. And his vision came true. And I want to thank him for his diligence on that particular issue. for the yeoman's work that has been done by not only Cosmo but the Hormel Commission itself to bring that park up to a nationally recognized park. And it's sought after and has a waiting list of different organizations throughout Massachusetts that are looking to rent that particular field because of its condition and the work that's being done. There's also been a number of projects to improve the infrastructure in regards to the lockers that are underneath. Most people see the stadium and the surface and the seats, and you don't realize there's a whole network underneath of locker rooms. And there's been a lot of work and a lot still needs to be done in improving the locker room area. But I want to thank Cosmo Volpe for his many years of service. And I agree with Councilor Knight that It would only be appropriate that he come up and receive a council accommodation.

[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight? I don't think anybody could put it better than that, Mr. President. Mr. Volpe has been a dedicated and committed member of the commission. He's kept this council and members of the council informed of the goings on just as required by his appointment. And I think we can all see the transformation of Mr. Volpe's vision, and that of Mr. Buckley, actually, who he worked alongside with as members of the Whole Milk Commission to bring us to where we are today. So I'd like to thank him for his service. Cosmo's been around a long time, and I hope he enjoys his retirement.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. So on the motion of Councilor Knight for approval of 16-594, all those in favor? All those opposed? And on the motion of Councilor Marks for the approval of 16-596, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motions carry. 16-595, offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the Medford City Council extend its deep and sincere condolences to the family of retired Medford firefighter Alan Jenkins on his recent passing. Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. I think it's safe to say that the Jenkins family is legendary in the city of Medford, especially in the Barry Park area. Alan served with distinction as a member of the Medford Fire Department. And he recently passed away due to some complications from, I believe, exposure to cancer, Mr. President. And as we spoke with the chief of police — I mean, the chief of fire during our budget debates, he said that one of the leading killers of firefighters and retired firefighters is actual exposure to cancer after retirement. So, I commend the fire chief for his initiative to begin to try to study that a little bit harder and put some safeguards in place. However, that does nothing to help the Jenkins family, Mr. President. And the Jenkins family is going to sorely miss Alan. I know I am. I know many of the members down at the Medford Firefighters Club will as well. And I'd just really like to extend my condolences to his family on his recent passing, because he was a great guy, and it will be sadly missed.

[Fred Dello Russo]: So please join us in a moment of silence. All rise. 16-597, offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate Hallmark Health on its arrangement with Tufts New England Medical Center that will ensure the Lawrence Memorial Hospital remain vibrant and healthy. Councilor Caraviello.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think it's a couple of weeks ago, it's been in the paper now, that Hallmark Health is on the verge of reaching an agreement with Tufts New England Medical Center, which will hopefully be the boost that it needs to keep it going within the community. I had the opportunity to talk with Alan McDonald the day before it was announced, and he was very excited about the things that are coming forward. And one of the things we talked about was keeping the emergency room open, and the possibility of maybe bringing a children's unit into Medford, because of their affiliation with the Tufts Floating Hospital. So it's a natural fit, you have Tufts University, Tufts-New England Medical Center, I think it'll be a good fit to the community, and I hope the Attorney General sees fit to pass this.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. So on the motion for approval by Councilor Carfiello, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. On the motion of Councilor Knight to suspend. On the motion of Councilor Knight to take paper. Out of order 16601, communications from the mayor. To the president, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. Communications from the mayor, to the president, to members of the city council, from Stephanie M. Burke, mayor. Reappropriation request from Metro Public Library, OPM, and Architect. Dear Mr. President and city councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve an appropriation of $135,000 from certified free cash for the following purpose. Library. Library building renovations, 320-610-5303, 000-0000-896-2117, 000, of $135,000. As you are aware, the city is attempting to apply for funding from the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners which requires that the city hire an OPM, Owners Project Manager, and architect to facilitate the application for grant funding. The estimate is for $35,000 for the OPM and $100,000 for the architect, which is for the services to be rendered through grants submission. Thank you for your consideration on this request. Director of Library Barbara Kerr will be on hand to answer any questions you may have. Chair recognizes Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I'd like to commend the mayor for bringing this paper forward. I know this is probably on the heels of one of Councilor Caraviello's resolutions to petition the State Board of Library Commissioners for some funding to see what type of work we can do to upgrade and renovate our library. This is a paper that I'm wholeheartedly in support of, but whereas it's an appropriation of $135,000, I think it might be nice to have Ms. Kerr come up and give us a little bit of a synopsis to back up this letter a little bit, Mr. President. But ultimately, it sounds like we're making steps in the right direction to fully fund our library and bring it up to a state-of-the-art facility.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Cavillo. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, of full disclosure, I am going to be part of the library building committee. So I want everybody to know that. And again, I congratulate Barbara. This is the first meeting we had. This is a daunting task for the city. We are under a pretty good timeline to get this done. If we miss this funding, the next one doesn't come around until 22. So I think we're going to work hard and fast and hopefully get this done quickly so we can get the funding to put that second floor in the library and get the library refurbished.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you for your positive leadership, Councilor, in this matter. Vice President Longo-Curran.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I would just like to ask some questions after Barbara gives her overview. Good evening.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Welcome. State your name and address for the record, Barbara.

[Barbara Kerr]: I'm Barbara Kerr, 35 Baker Place, Newton, Massachusetts. As you know, we're applying for a construction grant. The Board of Library Commissioners issues them at irregular intervals, so fortunately, we are able to apply for the one. The grant submission is due in January. We are compressing two years' worth of work into about six months, but we are on track. I did a giant space building plan that is currently on file. It's being reviewed at Library Commissioners. And they gave us the okay to move forward to hire the project manager. And the project manager will help us to hire an architect. We also have a building committee that's meeting tomorrow night for the first time. So we are on track. It's an awful lot to do in six months, but I'm very confident. And our response from library commissioners has been terrific. They're very supportive, very up and they're doing everything they can to make sure that we succeed.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Madam vice president.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. So, The application is due in January, you mentioned, and what does the application entail besides a building space plan? What else will the city and yourself have to get together?

[Barbara Kerr]: It'll have the space plan, architectural drawings, schematics, feasibility study, cost estimates, a whole lot of different kinds of reports. hazardous materials, something from the Mass Historical Commission. I don't know all of them offhand, but you end up giving them a very giant, a large binder full of reports. And the project manager and the architect guide you through the report part.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And how much exactly are we requesting?

[Barbara Kerr]: We don't know yet. Oh, for this, it's 135. For the whole building, we're not sure. At the moment, the space plan that I came up with turns us into 51,000 square feet as opposed to 29, and the library commissioner says it's a very ballpark figure of $400 per square foot, so we're looking at 20 million. It's probably not gonna be that much, but it could be. It would be nice if it was, but we won't know definite numbers until the architect is finished.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: But what are we requesting, to redo the entire library?

[Barbara Kerr]: We won't know that either. That's going to depend on feasibility studies and the condition of the existing building. And my suspicion is that they'll keep the shell, but we'll build up and they'll redesign it significantly, because there are a lot of accessibility issues at the moment, because it's built into the side of a hill, basically. But I really don't, the library commissioner said, don't try and design it in your head. Wait until the architect shows you what they're planning to do. And then we'll have a better idea of what the definite cost and the definite project will be.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And if you could just remind myself and the council and the public, I know we talked about it in committee of the whole meeting when we discussed the budget, but with regards to reimbursement and what, what's the percentage of the grant and what will the city have to come up with?

[Barbara Kerr]: They pay for about half. Library Commissioners pays for half. They cover construction costs, they cover floors, ceilings, walls, the finished building, they pay for cabling wires, and they pay for shelving. They don't pay for furniture, they don't pay for equipment, they don't pay for landscaping, and they don't pay for any of the costs involving moving us out of the building because at some point we're going to have to go somewhere else for probably 18 months while they do whatever they're going to do. So it's about half. We're intending to, as soon as we know whether we are on the list for a grant, we're going to mount a capital campaign. We won't know for sure if we're on the list until next June, but my impression is that unless we really mess everything up terribly in the next six months, we'll be fine, somewhere on the list.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So we'll find out if we get the grant sometime June 2017? Yes. And you're saying that we could get up to to 20 million, it could cost it up to 20 million, so that means the city portion would have to be about 10 million? I think so, yes.

[Barbara Kerr]: They also, we aren't necessarily going to be constructing right away either. They put you on a waiting list and then they release the funds. There is an option to go ahead with the construction and be reimbursed as well.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Okay. And what did, do you know what the waiting time is?

[Barbara Kerr]: It's a couple of years, usually. It depends. But I think, what did she say? That within eight years, everybody who was on the list was taken care of. And she said at the last meeting that we would probably be in the middle of the list.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Which is why the next application period isn't until 2020. Yes. OK.

[Barbara Kerr]: They used to release funds every five years, and then they hit the last bunch for 10 because of the economic situation. Yeah. Yeah, it'll be a few years. Thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Madam Vice President. Chair recognizes Councilor Marks.

[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And, um, I'm very pleased to see this moving forward. And I think, uh, it's also important to remember the history on this, that, uh, state law requires municipalities, uh, to put a certain percentage in their budget each year for maintenance and upkeep of public libraries. And there's also a provision within state law that allows for a waiver uh, when communities can't for whatever reason or don't prioritize forever, whatever reason, uh, funding for their library and the city of method put in a waiver for, I believe it was the past six years. Um, and, uh, that was, uh, unfortunate. And it also was unfortunate, Mr. President, because it took us out of the running for any state grants for the past six years. So I am very pleased to see we're moving forward on this now, but I am equally as disappointed in this administration and the past administration on the lack of funds for a public library. And I want to thank Councilor Caraviello because soon after last year, When residents got together, and I believe that's the only reason why it happened, the administration in last year's budget funded it up to the allocation that we needed to be at to be eligible for state funds. We also lost recognition in the Minuteman regional library system. And from what I was told that- We were okay. I was told that our library card didn't work in other libraries because we weren't fully funding.

[Barbara Kerr]: It did. If we hadn't gotten a waiver, we wouldn't have been able to, but we were okay with that.

[Michael Marks]: Well, I heard from, I heard from residents that went out of the network or I should say within the network and we're told that they couldn't use their card and because of the issues that we were having with the funding, but we can discuss that at another time. So I'm pleased that this is, uh, Moving forward, Mr. President, many people in this community, you know, people I've spoken with feel that, yes, in this day and age with technology, there's a move away from books and so forth, but the library is much more of a resource than a paperback book. The library is a gathering place. It's a place where members of this community can meet and associate with each other. It's a place that someday I'd like to see have more particular gatherings and functions. I know you used to have a little kiosk in the front that every so often would be changed with one time you had political buttons from the last 100 years in a case. And I envision that within our library, something that can be used for much more than the purpose of a so-called library that we all have. And that may even involve getting a cup of coffee and a scone or, you know, much more than we currently use the library for now. And I want to thank councilor Caraviello for his insight. Uh, and I hope we do get this fun, uh, funding and move forward on a state of the art library, which all of our residents deserve. Thank you. Councilor. Councilor Falco.

[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I am too also very pleased that we're heading in the right direction with this. It's been a far too long. I'm glad to see that we're moving forward and hopefully this, uh, project will come to fruition. As far as, and I know this is looking kind of further down the road, but you had mentioned that construction could take up to 18 months if things go as planned. Have you given any thought to what would happen to the library during those 18 months and maybe where it would be?

[Barbara Kerr]: Well, if Springstep is still empty, that would be a good place. Usually, probably isn't going to work here. Usually when they move a library out for construction, it's into a school or a depending, I don't know, we're pretty big, so there aren't any school buildings. My friend spent a year and a half in the gym at an elementary school, so I don't know. That is something we're gonna have to look at pretty seriously, because we do have a very substantial collection. We wouldn't take the whole thing with us, but we'd take my staff and a lot of our patrons, and we would need a significant space to operate out of for that period.

[John Falco]: It's just a concern, because I know that there's You have a ton of books, computers, employees, and a lot of people use the library. It's a great resource. It's a great building. It's a great community resource. And that was just my concern, is that 18 months, a year and a half, that's a long time. And I just want to make sure that that service is still there for the residents of this community. I know it will be. but it'll be interesting to hear what the long range plan is.

[Barbara Kerr]: Yeah, we'll have to look into that. Call the building committee as of tomorrow, we'll look into that.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Oh, good. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, councillor. So on the motion for approval by councillor Caraviello, seconded by councillor Knight, I think the citizen behind you, ma'am wishes to speak. Good evening, sir. Please state your name and address for the record. Welcome.

[Joe Viglione]: Thank you. Joe Villione, 59 Garfield Ave, Medford Mass. And I want to thank Barbara Kerr for her excellent work at the library. She's wonderful. She does a great job. As libraries have computers, the educational and archival aspect of Access TV, specifically documenting our history, is a good reason, and we've discussed this before, of taking monies and creating a satellite at the library with this new construction as Arlington Mass now has a satellite across the street from Arlington High School. So their main headquarters is up in the heights at the old library. Coincidentally, it's the old library in Arlington that is the access center. And now they've put a satellite at the high school. We have access going into the high school. Now is the time to look at this construction and say, wow, computers can go into here, tapes history of our sports teams, of the plays at the Chevalier. These can be documented month by month and put into the library. The library and AXS TV are a perfect synergy, exactly what the family that bequeathed the land to the city wanted it for, the documentation of things in an archive. So I think Barbara Kerr is the right person. And I think that this needs to be seriously considered because we have money sitting down there at City Hall, over half a million dollars. Now is the time if we don't get the money as Mr. Marks was talking about, Councilor Marks, maybe Councilor Marks and Breanna Lungo-Koehn can lead the charge and we can do this for the community and archive our sports history right there at the library where it belongs. Thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair recognizes Councilor Knight on the motion of approval by Councilor Caraviello. Move approval, Mr. President. On that motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight?

[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes.

[Clerk]: Vice President Lowell-Kern? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President De La Russa?

[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. With a vote of seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. Sixteen, Councilor? While we're under suspension, can we take 16602, please? 16-602. To the President and members of the Medford City Council, City Hall Medford Mass, re-gift of $10,000 from East Cambridge Savings Bank. Dear Mr. President and members of the Medford City Council, in accordance with provisions of General Law, Chapter 44, Paragraph 53A, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the acceptance of a $10,000 gift from East Cambridge Savings Bank for the purpose of supporting the summer parks program in the city of Medford. This is the sixth consecutive year that East Cambridge Savings Bank has generously donated for this purpose. Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, the summer's almost over. I think we better accept this donation before Parks and Recreation is ended for the season. I certainly commend East Cambridge Savings Bank on their ongoing commitment to the youth of our community in helping subsidize our ability to provide recreational services to the youth of our community, Mr. President. This is something that I've supported in the past and I'll continue to support. I'd like to thank them for the free money and thank you for being a great neighbor, but I think it's certainly a great gesture and I support it wholeheartedly and I move for approval and ask my colleagues to support it as well and ask for a roll call vote.

[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval by Councilor Knight, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes with the vote of seven the affirmative none the negative the gift is a madam vice president Resident who wishes to approach Please state your name and address for the record Hi, my name is Cheryl Rodriguez.

[Cheryl Rodriguez]: I live at 2d1 Park Street and You guys were really fast. I threw out my back, so it took me a little longer to get here. You got through the rights pond thing already, which was what I had come in to speak on. I know you don't want to hear it, but that's too bad. The opening weekend was on June 25th, and I attended the pond. And they had hourly safety checks after 3 p.m., where they kicked everyone out of the beach because all the lifeguards needed to have breaks at the exact same time. I sent several, I made several calls and emails. They were all returned from the mayor's office. I had contacted the parks department because I've been going to the ponds for over 30 years. This was a new rule. Jeanne Camuso told me that these checks were a mandate from the Red Cross. So I called the Red Cross. The Red Cross says we don't make mandates. We just do training. Not sure why she would have said that. And then I read the lifeguard manual. I was lifeguard trained in my youth and they recommended rotations of lifeguards at 20 to 30 minute intervals so that they don't, their eyes don't glaze over. I don't know what the exact language was, just to keep them moving around. They did not recommend hourly breaks. No job recommends hourly breaks. On the 4th of July weekend, I tried to go to the pond again, and I was turned away. I was told that they were at capacity of 70. My mother and daughter were already in the pond. I texted them to say that I was not able to get in. They told me there were less than 30 people in the pond. So even when the crisis of having 70 people at the pond had passed, they did not allow more people into the pond. On Tuesday, July 7th, we had the first MFN concert. If we're only going to allow 70 people in the pond, perhaps we can't have these events because a lot of people do come on that night that don't wish to purchase a pass and swim. And if we're going to shut it off at 70 for people that have paid for a pass, we probably can't have more than 150 were there on the July 7th. On Saturday, July 16th, I again attempted to go to the pond. At 4.30, I went by. I was told it was closed. At 6 o'clock, I drove by again. It was still closed. I find it hard to believe that during that time, no one had left the pond. So I called and spoke to Linda this time at the mayor's office, and although she was very polite, she told me that it must have been for safety and told me that it was a DCR mandate. So I read up on the Massachusetts law on DCR, which is number 302 under section 12. There's no regulations for Cassidy at beaches. I also looked at every single beach controlled by the DCR. None of them had capacity limitations in any of their rules.

[Fred Dello Russo]: So— Point of information, Councilor Knight. I do not believe the DCR has jurisdictional control over Wrights Point.

[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Which is part of my point, because that's the answer that I was given by the City Hall. that they're pulling at straws, just attempting to give me an answer. I know when I used to call the mayor, the old mayor, I would speak to Rose, and if she didn't know the answer, she would say, I don't know. Let me get back to you, which would have been a very acceptable answer. It would have been the preferred answer, because most citizens won't say, oh, it's a Red Cross mandate. Well, let me look up and see what the Red Cross mandate is. I did. Called back. It's not true. Then I get, it's a DCR mandate. Again, research. Find out. It's not true. Most people just say, oh, that must be the rule. That rule stinks, and I don't like it. So my biggest issue is that they seem to want to protect the new person. Her name is Helen. I was told by the Parks Department that she was hired by the mayor, which is fine, but she needs to learn how to do her job and do it properly.

[Fred Dello Russo]: And so I called- Ma'am, this isn't a public forum to criticize people specifically or to call them out.

[Cheryl Rodriguez]: No, it isn't criticism.

[Fred Dello Russo]: I'm not criticizing the mayor. So it's not appropriate to conduct yourself in that manner.

[Cheryl Rodriguez]: I think my manner is pretty appropriate. I said that I don't mind who hired her, but I do feel that she should learn to do her job. If she is saying that this is a Red Cross mandate and or a DCR mandate, then she does not know her job. I have researched these laws. You are welcome to do so. I would be more than happy to provide you with links to read them. I've spent quite a bit of time. I read the Lifeguard. I read the management manual. I read the lifeguard training manual. I've gone through lifeguard training. I read the DCR regulations. So now I've learned that the mayor has posted information that she has decided that the pond is now a pool. The reason why the pond is a pool is because there are ropes around the swimming area. That's not what a pool is. A pool is not a body of water that's on, I believe she said, 148 acres. I'm concerned that we have a mayor now that can make ponds into pools. She said it's 148 acres, according to her Facebook page, and they're going to be going by the regulations of CMR 105-435.23, which is about lifeguards in a swimming pool. It also states that if you go further down to the bathing capacity, section 27, the bathing capacity is anything under five feet is considered non-swimmable. Anyone who's been to Wright's Pond knows that the entire swimming area of Wright's Pond is a non-swimming area. It's under five feet. So the regulation would be that each person in the water would need a minimum of 10 square feet of swimming space, which is a capacity greater than 75. So I would welcome you to please have the pond turned back into a pond and not a pool to... Point of information, Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: I do believe that the pond falls under the jurisdiction of the Parks Board and the pool, I mean the pond rules and regulations are established by the Parks Board or through the administration and the Parks Board's meeting this evening.

[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Yes. I was, my mother was at that meeting and the mayor issued this in response to that. They did read this into the record at the meeting, which is why I'm here because the mayor has injected herself into this scenario and declared the pond a pool, which point of information, the pond is not a pool. It is not a pool. It should not be treated as a pool. The pond's been running fine for 30 years, 40 years, however many years, maybe you know. But it's not a pool. And I think that it's ridiculous that they're so bent on being correct that they're making things up in order to be correct. Even if you make them up, they're still not correct. I'm hoping that somebody can fix this issue. I've had three weekends of problems at Wright's Pond. There's only five left. If they can't handle lifeguard management, perhaps we need to turn the pond into swim at your own risk. You can buy the pass. The parks people can check your pass, and you can go in and swim. I know that that's what people who don't like the length of time that the pond is open currently do. So I think that we need to, you know, I don't think her biggest act as mayor in July should be to ruin the pond. Thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: On motion of council.

[Marian Tomaszczuk]: Hi, my name is Marianne Tomazook. I live at 29 Garfield Avenue in Medford and I was at the Parks Commission meeting earlier. I missed this part and I was dismissed and I was told they were not interested in the law. I went to speak about Rights Pond. I've been having a problem since the first weekend and I have called the Mayor's Office and the Parks Commission and I have called the Parks and Recreation Office because of the, I was there the first weekend when they decided to have these, what Helen has called this new supervisor, well she said she was the director and she said she was the director and that the Parks Commission was now defunct and she was in charge of making all the rules. She had a meeting with the Parks, Ranges, and the Lifeguards. They were the ones that told me this. She also told me that the safety checks that she was having every 50 to one hour for 20 minutes were mandated by the Red Cross, and it was a new state regulation, and that I could call the Red Cross and find out about it. So I did, and I spoke to Kay Thompson, who is the Aquatics Director of Massachusetts. and said that the Red Cross instructs and certifies they do not make mandates. She wanted to know what state this woman was from because she'd never heard of anything like this before. They do not do these things. She said that Helen had told me that these safety checks, the reason they didn't check the water was because bodies float, so there's no need to check. The lifeguards leave so that they can get rehydrated and reapply their sunscreen. Instead of rotating, the lifeguards every 20 to 30 minutes as the lifeguard manual instructs. She was having them rotate every hour. She is now doing it every 20 to 30 minutes, I'm happy to say. But other things are not going as planned. On the July 4th, she closed it. I was one of the people that got in. She was not allowing the people to get in as the pawn got lower and lower, down to 12 people at the end of the evening. She did start this past weekend going to the mothers of infants and toddlers and telling them they could not use the flotation devices that they had on their infants that our parents supervised, because as I said, they're infants and toddlers, so the parents have to be with them. They're Coast Guard certified. It says in the rights upon the Park Commission set these rules up last September. I was there at those meetings. And it says in the rules that are established there and are published there, that they are allowed to use them. They say Coast Guard certified on them. The parents have to be there and supervise the children. And she was there present. I go at 4 o'clock usually in the evenings, and I stay till closed. And she saw them, and she let them use them all week. But on Saturday evening, she decided to tell them that it was no longer permitted. And she went up to each mother, she asked them their names, and then she told them how they couldn't use it anymore and told them to take the children out of the water. The mothers all objected. And it was all over Facebook. But the things that were allowed, and I tried to tell the Parks Commission, were mermaid tails, inner tubes, three-foot boogie boards, which she allowed the children to hold and then jump off of, noodles. She allowed Styrofoam boards, which were breaking apart, which I think are wrong, because these little pieces of Styrofoam all over not only pollute the water, but then animals in the water, the turtles, the fish, and the ducks and geese will choke on them. It's a hazard. They didn't want to hear about that. They told me that that's not true because they don't allow it. Well, I was there. I saw them. It's allowed. You can ask any of the people in Wright's Pond. They are there. You can look at the Facebook posts. They were there. But they told me, no, I'm a liar because that's not true. They don't allow them. The sand fights are unbelievable this year. I have never seen sand fights like this. Not one of the lifeguards has stopped them. I'm talking about older boys, 10 to 14 years old, having big globs of sand and throwing them. None of the lifeguards have stopped them. I have been telling the boys all year, stop. They just look at me like I'm crazy. And I said, well, if you're not going to stop, your parents don't want you to stop, just go over there away from me. That's fine. This is all fine. But babies in the little flotation devices with their parents, that's not fine. Well, the last straw was this letter, and I said that that letter was wrong. That law is wrong. It's not, the mayor is using the wrong law. If she wants to use a law, she has to use the proper law. That law is a bathing area capacity for a pool. The swimming area is under five feet. Wright's Pond, the whole bathing area is under five feet. In fact, I was out there with my granddaughter in the lap area. That area is under five feet that I was swimming with my granddaughter in. The whole swimming area is under five feet. You can't use that rule. I've been going there for 57 years. We've never had a problem with capacity. The 4th of July, when it was closed, there were eight cars in that parking lot. There's no reason for that pond to have been closed. So this is gross mismanagement. We've never had a problem like this in the 57 years I've been there. And I don't see that we should start ruining the pond now. So we don't need to treat it like a pool, and somebody needs to do something about it. But let's not pretend it's a pool. It's not a pool. It's not over five feet. You can't use a rule that says it's over five feet and it's 25 lifeguards. If you're going to use the rule, go find the correct one and go by square footage. And then you'd have to have over 300 people in that water. And there has not been over 300 people in that water all summer. Thank you.

[Robert Cappucci]: Welcome, please state your name and address for the record. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, Rob Capucci, 71 Evans street. I'll try to be really brief. I went to the park department meeting earlier tonight. And, uh, there's, there's a little bit of conflicting information based on what the park ranger that was there, what, what he said and the citizens that, that came before us. And, uh, I mean, if it's, if it's in the purview of this city council, if you have any bearing over the parks department, I don't know if you fund them, if you vote for them on the budget. I would suggest that the rules, that somebody from the parks department that should come here and give their side of the story. For instance, the park ranger that was there is saying that there was always two officers at the base of Wright's Pond, and as people left, he allowed people to come in. But according to the citizen that was here tonight, that is conflicted, and she's reporting something else. And if it is what the citizen said, it comes down to that the residents of Medford are paying a fee to use this. And apparently, it's sometimes getting denied, even after they're paying for it. With all due respect, that translates to other things in the city of Medford, where our tax dollars and we're not getting the basic fundamental services. And it's a very serious issue that I just hope that, based on the conflicting reports that are there from an objective outside observer, from having been at the meeting earlier and hearing what my fellow citizens said, It's an important issue to look into further, and that's my humble suggestion. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Nyland.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If I may, through the chair, I know we have the city solicitor in the audience, and I'm sure that he has not reviewed CMR 105.435.23, but if we could maybe make a request that We do look into that and see if there's any way we can make sure that the proper rule is covering rights pawn versus being a pawn, not a pool. It looks like the capacity levels are completely different, and I think that's probably if we could respectfully request that the mayor relook at this announcement she sent out on the 19th, that maybe we can resolve the matter.

[Mark Rumley]: Yes, I'm not so sure that it needs resolution. The acting director of the Board of Health is here. He may be able to address those concerns tonight.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you.

[SPEAKER_16]: Good evening, Dr. Marino. Not quite. Good evening, Councilors. Richard Marino, Interim Director of Public Health for the city. There are distinct standards for swimming pools and for bathing beaches. The regulations of the Commonwealth for bathing beaches address water quality only. They do not govern beta load or lifeguards. The lifeguards are trained though for pool safety. They take their water safety very serious In their defense, it's not a bad axiom to limit the bather load within the pond so that the lifeguards have a comfort level that they're achieving safety. Periodic census checks, accounts, probably not a bad idea. yet there are no standards for the bathing beaches. They're using what I would call a good operating principle. It's not a law, but I think that it's something that I would support and endorse. I would want the lifeguards to always feel comfortable that they're supervising to a diligent level of safety. However regrettable, I don't see that there would be any need to limit cars in the parking lot. Neither the pool code nor the bathing beach standards address capacity of the car parking lot. We would hope that on a voluntary basis that they would be able to cycle people in and out of the water. I know that when there's thunder, there's an all-out order. When there's lightning, there's a different all-out order. I don't know the history that occurred here. I'm just hearing what was reported and purported tonight. If I could, I'd entertain any questions, but I just wanted to clarify that there are distinct regs and the pertinent sections were provided for you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Marks.

[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. Marino. I guess my question is then, why do we have to distinguish whether we want to refer to it as a pool or a pond? If a CMR only applies to pools, according to what I'm hearing, why can't we apply safe standards, which I agree with you, there should be standards and so forth for public safety. Why do we need to then revert and say, this is a pool? We're not calling it a pool. According to the mayor, she's calling it a pool.

[SPEAKER_16]: I think that's a conclusion that I didn't understand. The rule is a pool rule, but it's not a bad rule. But she's not saying that Wrights Pond is a pool. It's not. It certainly is. It's a freshwater bathing beach.

[Michael Marks]: OK. So maybe some of the confusion would be then that we're setting new standards. Because I don't remember these standards in the past. Um, and we're setting new standards now, which is under the authority of the park commission, correct?

[SPEAKER_16]: I can't speak to what has gone on before this, you know, before today.

[Michael Marks]: Right. But, but any rules and regulations is under the authority according to city ordinance under the authority of the park commission. So if the mayor unilaterally wanted to make pool regulations implemented, she would have to go before the park commission to do so.

[SPEAKER_16]: At this time, I believe that the mayor's guidelines are to rotate swimmers on a voluntary basis. It's not a hard rule. It just is not. At a bathing beach, it is not. So the lifeguards would have to volunteer to be rotated? No, no, that's not what I'm saying. That if the lifeguards feel uncomfortable after doing a census of the number of bodies within the water, and they determine that the bather load exceeds their comfort level of, say, 25 bathers per lifeguard in supervision, that they could ask for people to come out and give other people a chance.

[Michael Marks]: And has that happened in the past or you're not aware because you're relative?

[SPEAKER_16]: I'm not aware because that was not present. Uh, I made only one inspection all season and the, uh, the attendance was sparse, but it was early in the day.

[Michael Marks]: So I guess what I'm saying, if, if this isn't past practice, then maybe this should have been a rule and regulation that was voted on by the park commission and maybe they did vote on it, but I'm not aware of it. And I think that's why we're hearing concerns from residents because people that have gone to rights pawn for many, many years, are unfamiliar with these new rules and regulations.

[SPEAKER_16]: I can only assume that they're displeasures from being excluded altogether. Not every person that drives to the pond will empty the entire car load into the water area. So in other words, if five people are in a car, maybe two might go in the water, maybe five might go in the water, maybe none of them may go in the water. parking spaces has little to do with the bather load, in my opinion. So I think that I'm interested in health and safety and I want to respect the lifeguards comfort level. I think that it's a huge responsibility to try to determine how many people are in the pond, you know, without doing periodic head checks, how safe the pond is if there's so many people in there that they can't even see the bottom. Plus, the sand is, you know, not an easy background. In a modern pool, you know, it's a light blue color, and it's very easy to see how many people are in the pool. It's a lot more difficult to see how many people are in the pond.

[Michael Marks]: I agree with you. And I think it was last year or the year before we had an incident up there where a life was saved.

[SPEAKER_16]: And I'm sure that that exacerbated their safety concern.

[Michael Marks]: Right. A life was saved, and we recognize that particular lifeguard for heroic response, actually, in saving a young child's life at Wrights Pond. So I agree with everything you're saying. I just think maybe the communication could be better. The openness and transparency could have been a lot better. And if a rule and regulation was changed or being strictly enforced. Now, uh, it's easy to get that message out. So people know in the community that are buying passes.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Counsel marks. Thank you, Mr. Director. You're welcome. Madam citizen.

[Marian Tomaszczuk]: Marion Tomazuk again. I just wanted to ask one question, is that this year we have the same amount of lifeguards as we did in previous years. I know this because I asked the Parks and Recreation who hires the lifeguards. So why is it, and we also sold the same number of passes this year as we did in past years, so why is it that this year all of a sudden we have a problem? with capacity, with these issues. I mean, all of a sudden, now, like I say, I've been going to the pond for 57 years. I've never been turned away before. I've never been told to get out of the water and go use the bathroom repeatedly for 20 minutes. which I find very demeaning. And other mothers and grandmothers like myself have been told that they really don't need to be parented in that way. There are three ladies' rooms. I don't know how many men's rooms there are. I've never been in there. But can you imagine if everyone in the pond got up and went into the bathroom at the same time, what that would do to the plumbing, what that would do to the lines up there? And the first weekend, it was 95 degrees. The water was ice cold. I'm a disabled senior. When I called the mayor's office and told them that I did not find it very pleasant every 15 minutes to get out of the water and go sit in the heat for 20 minutes at a time, they told me to go walk up to the snack bar and go in the shade, and I could sit up there. I said, I just told you I'm a disabled senior. And I said, it's just a real shock to go back into that cold water. And he said, well, then why didn't you just go home? I found that very rude and condescending. I was bad enough listening to the lifeguard tell me how, you know, to keep going and using the bathroom. But I went there to go relax, cool off, be with my granddaughter. I didn't go there to be harassed. The fifth time in three and a half hours, I left. But why, like I say, if it's the same amount of lifeguards, if it's the same amount of passes, is this going on? I can say the bathing area, if you look at the laws, is under five feet. Therefore, it is not considered a pool. The mayor declaring it a pool is wrong. This is Wrights Pond. We just used the Home Rule petition to declare it our gem.

[Adam Knight]: So please, Scott. I don't think that the mayor is declaring Wrights Pond a pool. I think what the mayor is doing is adopting a pool safety standard because there is no pool safety standard for freshwater bathing areas. So what the mayor is doing is adopting a ratio of one lifeguard per 25 swimmers. If there's four lifeguards, 100 people can go in the water is my understanding and my reading of this.

[Marian Tomaszczuk]: Well, in order to do that, she has to declare it a pool.

[Adam Knight]: And a pool— No, she's adopting—at the municipal level, she's adopting safety standards.

[Marian Tomaszczuk]: Well, she's going above the park commission.

[Adam Knight]: She's adopting safety standards, and she's using CMR—105 CMR 435 as the basis or as the mirroring language. I mean, I think right now what's taking place is there was no safety standard in place for the number of swimmers that are in the water and the ratio for swimmers to lifeguards. The mayor has looked at this and said it's a safety issue, and she's implemented a safety standard. That's the way that I'm reading this and I'm looking at this. Now, I can certainly understand people being frustrated and not being able to access the pond and enjoy the pond in the fashion that they see fit, but I think that people are going to enjoy it a lot less if someone drowns in the pond and dies. So, you know, I certainly have concerns over the implementation. But in terms of the rationale, the policy change focuses on the overall safety of bathers and permits lifeguards to ensure the safety of all persons in the swimming area. If this is the policy that they have adopted and this is the reason that they have adopted it, I certainly have no problem with adopting strong public safety policies so that people don't die in the pond, Mr. President. I certainly have no problem with that. Do I have a problem with the way it was communicated and maybe the way it is implemented and the way maybe it is handled? Yes, absolutely. Do we need someone with a softer touch up there? Yes, maybe. Maybe we do. I think based on the conversations that we are hearing, yes, we do. But ultimately, it's a communication issue, I think, more or less than a bad policy. And I think when we have the Director of the Board of Health here endorsing the policy that's in place and saying this is why it's in place, because there's no safety standard at a freshwater bathing pond, but there are safety standards for ratios for lifeguards to swim at a pool, this is a basis. I think the mayor is saying because there is a rope that clearly delineates the swimming area, Wright's Pond is delineated as to where you can swim, just like a pool is delineated where you can swim. You can't go on the other side of the ropes and swim at Wright's Pond. So they're saying this is the area, this is what's considered the pool or the swimmable area at the pond. So they've adopted safety standards to reflect what they feel is what's going to keep the people and the patrons there the safest so they can enjoy it. I don't necessarily have a problem with adopting safety standards, Mr. President. I think we've all behind this rail set at one time or another. Our number one job is to keep people in this community safe. If we're going to provide an amenity, we need to make sure that it's safely provided. So I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with the communication and with the way that it's been delivered in the rollout, and it probably should have happened like three months before the pool opened, and everybody should have probably got something in the mail or something with their permit when they signed up. That I do have a problem with. I have a problem with the communication, but I don't have a problem with adopting a safety standard to make sure that everybody who utilizes the pool is going to be safe. Thank you, Councilor. Ma'am?

[Marian Tomaszczuk]: I think the big problem here is that Most of you probably have not really been to the pond. And a pond versus a pool is a very different atmosphere. A pool is mostly children. A pond is basically a family. It's parents with their kids or grandparents with their kids. So there's more adult supervision. I go with my grandchild. When I'm there, I usually see fathers with their kids, mothers with their kids. There are parents, the parent ratio to children is a lot higher so that you don't have – and when you look at the lifeguard, the Red Cross manual, the lifeguard ratio to bathers takes that into effect with the children and the adults factor. The 25 bathers to one lifeguard is 25 children to one bather, not 25 bathers collectively. You have to take into effect the parents watching. Yes.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Councilor Scarpelli.

[Marian Tomaszczuk]: Disagree with me? Okay.

[George Scarpelli]: This is what I do for a living. So I'm a little confused with this whole policy. This is why I think we need more clarification. But when people enter our pool, there's no question in our own standards that When a person walks through the door, that's a person that's going in the pool. We don't delineate who's not going to go in the pool, who's a parent, who can oversee. We have the same issues in our facilities. So I understand your frustration, but I really think that that's something that's not something that we should entertain. The number of people is what the key is going to be. It's not going to be 200 people, but only 100 are going to go in because they're children. That's something that's very difficult to do, especially when you're asking lifeguards. to maintain a safe level there. So it's very difficult. I don't disagree with what you're saying and the frustrations you feel because I've heard it. I've talked to a lot of people and I understand that. But at the same time, I think that what I'm reading and what I'm trying to understand, at least hopefully trying to understand, is that there hasn't been a safety ordinance in place in the past. And that was when I was working as a supervisor for recreation back in the days when we had a director of recreation. I think one of the biggest pieces we have that's fallen is having that person that we can direct every single day to. We had a director of recreation here that was at the pond every single day, that was checking the water levels with the head life guides, and that's difficult. We don't have that. So I think that as we're moving forward and having discussions about recreation in our community, having that person, unfortunately, Your family directly has seen the hiccups of change without people in place to help with that change. So I think moving forward, these are the issues we need to vet with the head of recreation that would oversee that day-to-day operations. Because the truth of the matter is, someone sitting at City Hall is not going to have an answer for you. What's the safety ratio? What's the rule? What's the law? that's designated for that area. Now, we have our director, she is certified with water safety, waterfront safety, pool safety, she has all those certifications that when you have a question, you call and she can answer those questions. Our biggest concern, we've talked about this in many areas, we need that person in place moving forward. So I think that that'll help, but you know, we have to look at least at the positive of this At least we're trying to look at an ordinance in place to make it positive for safety. But I agree with your frustration, believe me. And we have been up there. My wife takes my children up there, and we love it. And we haven't been there in the last few weeks, but I can understand your frustration. So believe us.

[Marian Tomaszczuk]: Like I said, the Parks Commission tonight telling me that I'm the only one complaining and that they don't care about the law is wrong. And it really frustrated me tonight, and that's why I'm here. Thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much. Thank you. Can we have a motion?

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Madam Vice President?

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. I was going to ask if the Parks Department adopted the mayor's announcement. Did they make that in tonight's meeting? Did they?

[Fred Dello Russo]: I think the Parks Department could speak to us on that.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If we could just get a copy of the minutes of the Parks Department, see if they actually voted on this, or if the mayor's been doing this herself. I think standards are important, but I feel that what's going on at Wrights Pond is nothing but a mess. Not only lack of communication, but lack of planning, lack of discussing issues that might arise, and possibly putting standards into place is something that should have been talked about in February. not in the middle of the summer. And people are, there are many other people besides the two that have spoke tonight that have complained to myself or are complaining online or have sent us emails. So this is an issue for many, although you have the two people that have come to the council tonight. And I think we need to clear this up and get some answers and some clarification on this announcement and do some proper planning, better planning before next season. And our motion is? I think there was, we already asked the question for clarification in my resolution earlier in the evening.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Do you have that, Mr. Clerk? Yes.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: From the previous paper.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Yeah, there was no paper, so she stated a request. Thank you. So on that motion, all those in favor?

[SPEAKER_16]: Aye.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Motion for further clarification on the announcement. And a copy of the minutes.

[Fred Dello Russo]: And a copy of the minutes. All those in favour? Aye. Thank you. Yes, Councilor. Very good. We'll take that up. This was placed under suspension. On our desk tonight, I'm told that this just came up under suspension, July 19th, 2016. President Fred Dello Russo and members of the Medford City Council request for approval under General Laws Chapter 30B, Chapter, Paragraph 12B to extend Brown and Caldwell contract. Dear President and Councilors, I respectfully request the City Council authorized a second extension to Brown and Caldwell's contract for engineering and consulting services through the completion of remediation services for a period that is as long as necessary to remediate the site and to conduct post-remediation work, including site closure. Brown and Caldwell was awarded a three-year contract with the city beginning August 2, 2010, ending August 1, 2013 for engineering and consulting services for contaminated municipal sites. On June 11, 2013, City Council granted Brown and Caldwell a three-year extension to August 1, 2016, for work at the site at 448 High Street only. Pursuant to the contract, Brown and Caldwell has, since the completion of the peer review of the May 2013 remedy implementation plan, modified its remediation approach and has advanced the work meeting both Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Environmental Protection Agency requirements. At this juncture, the revised phase four remedy implementation plan has been reviewed by MassDEP, and we need to respond to their comments and submit a final plan. Following completion of the phase four documents, Brown and Caldwell will prepare key procurement documents to aid in the hiring of a remediation contractor. The proposed remediation is anticipated take approximately two years with monitoring and site closure activities to follow. I recommend your approval because it would be detrimental to the cleanup effort to change and engineering firms at this time. Here are my reasons. One, Brown and Caldwell has been the LSP of record since January, 2009, when the DEP reopened the 448 high street site and issued a notice of responsibility to the city at Alia. It has fulfilled all the requirements imposed thus far by the 2013 EPA cleanup grant and has developed a productive relationship with EPA relative to this project. Three, DEP timelines must be met in the implementation of the phase four plan. Four, it has provided all the investigations, monitoring, and remediation reports to the DEP, including monitoring of the vapor capture and treatment system at 7 Canal Street. Five, failure to extend the contract will result in delays in the implementation of the right mediation plan and have a prohibitive impact on the city's ability to meet the DEP deadlines and EPA cleanup grant timelines. City Engineer Cassandra Koudelikas is present this evening to answer any questions you may have, councillors. Madam Engineer, If you could explain this to us.

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Yes, I'd be happy to. Good evening, everybody. Cassandra Koudelidis, 29 Crystal Street, Melrose, Massachusetts. So three years ago, Louise Miller came to you and asked for the extension of the Brown and Caldwell contract for 448 High Street only. so that we could continue with the work as was described in that letter. They had started in 2009 working for us and they had advanced a number of different reports and studies at that time. I'm here on behalf of the city to request more time so that we can continue with the work.

[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. Madam Chair, what's the status of that project over in the parking lot over there?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: The status of the project is that we have removed the imminent hazard, so everybody who had an imminent hazard notice, such as the buildings, have taken care of it, but it's a temporary solution.

[Richard Caraviello]: They're just fending, correct?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Yes, they're capturing the fumes and treating it and sending it out.

[Richard Caraviello]: Do we have a plan to actually dig? I know it's been talked about actually digging up the parking lot at some point and spraying some chemical on the ground.

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Well, the plan for digging up the parking lot was abandoned. What happened was there was a peer review in 2013. While the request was being made for the continuance, there was a company called GZA who was conducting a peer review. And they finished in early September and October. And we decided at that point that instead of digging up the parking lot adjacent to that building and doing some other more aggressive work, that we would go through the chemical process, which is an in-situ chemical oxidation. And you would not see a major disruption to the site. You would see a short-term closure while the chemical oxidation was proceeding, and then there would be a time period where they monitor it, then they come back and do another round of ISCO, then they monitor it again, and then they do a third round and then monitor it.

[Adam Knight]: Thank you.

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: You're welcome.

[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. And, Ms.—I always butcher it, How are you doing today? Thank you very much for coming. How much is it going to cost to extend the contract?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Well, the contract, there are a number of items and we have to first fund the procurement piece for Brown and Caldwell, which is around, the last time I had a proposal from them, it needs to be looked at again because some time has passed, was around $48,000 to go to the next step. The total cost at this point for the remediation, including their time, would be around $900,000.

[Adam Knight]: Going forward, or is this including going back six years?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Going forward.

[Adam Knight]: Going forward. So how much have we spent already with Brown and Caldwell, going back to 2000 and what looks like? Nine. Nine?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: I don't have a tally. I could provide that.

[Adam Knight]: And do you see any benefits in doing a shorter term of a contract, a 1-year contract, as opposed to a 2-year or a 3-year going forward? I mean, it seems like we have had them on the hook now for quite a bit of time, and they have certainly been receiving some extensive amount of funds. Do we think it is in the best interest of the city to tie them up for another 3 years? And 9 years with the same company and a contract seems to be a little long.

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: It's not unusual, I mean, as the LSP of record, and for the amount of investigations that they've conducted, the intimate knowledge they have of the site, they have been judicious in spending money. I really haven't had a problem with them going over budget. Any time anything's happened that's been an extra is because the scope of work has changed, and they've had to do more as responding. They had to make a lot of extra effort in response to EPA. And one of the things that was not foreseen in 2013 was the award of the EPA grant and the requirements that the EPA imposed on the project, such as special studies and quality project plans for the way that the investigations are being handled. So a lot of that is outside of our control. We've got the grant money, and we're spending it, but we're using the grant money to help respond to the grant requirements. I would recommend that we continue with them through the end of the process, which could be more than three years. It could be five years. It could be seven years. It's really hard to predict right now. We go through these periods of activity, and then there's a lull. There's sometimes a funding issue or a approval issue. We had a report that we submitted last summer that went out for public comment. You know, that required a certain pausing in the progress of the work.

[Adam Knight]: And is there a reason why a contract of this size wouldn't have to go out to bid, like most other contracts?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: You could, but then when you're hiring a new consultant, let's say you don't, you know, you find somebody else, then they have to start with review of all the material that's been generated today. So that will cost the city more money.

[Adam Knight]: I have a question for the solicitor, too, Mr. President.

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: And the other thing I would point out is that we have an ongoing monthly requirement to maintain the system at 7 Canal Street. So every month there has to be an inspection. The vacuum system has to be checked. The canisters have to be checked to make sure that the carbon isn't spent. I'm concerned that if you're going to go out for a new contract and take months to do that, then somebody has to step in to conduct this work. And I'm just concerned about losing momentum. We seem to be at a point now where We've, you know, submitted our report to DEP, our modified design. They've reviewed it. They have minor comments, but a couple of large ones that they want to talk to us about. And then at that point, you know, we're able to be released. We get the green light to go ahead for procurement. You know, EPA seems pretty satisfied with the quality project plan that we presented to them for how all the tests and studies are going to be conducted on the field work. So we have a new procurement officer on board. who can help us with this.

[Adam Knight]: Thank you, Mr. President.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, uh, Councilor Knight.

[Michael Marks]: Chair recognizes Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, Cassandra, you, you mentioned, uh, seven canal street.

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Yes.

[Michael Marks]: Uh, what about the properties on high street that have, uh, had to undertake the same ventilation, uh, that was done on canal street at the owner's expense?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: They undertook less ventilation. They didn't have to do as much there because they have typical HVAC systems and a pretty tight cellar, basements. So their imminent hazard treatment was far less expensive. And the city has been picking up the bills since, I think, 2014, 2013. Right. For that LSP at both 438 High Street and 452 High Street.

[Michael Marks]: So as of 2014?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Roughly 2014. So at those two locations, they're really just these air purification units.

[Unidentified]: Right.

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: So they're much simpler. You plug them in. It's like a radon system, you know, a simple radon system, because 7 Canal didn't have proper basement, some of it slab on grade and there are a lot of cracks in the foundation and the floor, we went to what's called a sub-slab depressurization system. You drill all these holes in the floor and you put in these vacuum points, you draw the air out from below ground, and then you route it through pipes into a carbon filter, which purifies the air and sends it out the side of the building.

[Michael Marks]: So Brown and Caldwell was at the original LLP, correct?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Brown and Caldwell was the original LSP when the site was reopened.

[Michael Marks]: And then they, at some point, did they stop?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: No.

[Michael Marks]: I thought there was another LSP that recommended, they came in and recommended digging of the lot. There was a study that was done, not by Brown and Caldwell, that recommended the digging of the lot. And we as council members received different dollar amounts depending on what was going to be done. the magnitude of the digging and so forth. Do you remember what company that was?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Well, we hired GZA to do a peer review, and they recommended against digging of the lot.

[Michael Marks]: So who recommended digging? No one recommended digging originally?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Well, what happens in the process is you have to go through an alternatives analysis. And the message to Brown and Caldwell, or the message they picked up, was that the city was very anxious to get it all cleaned up as soon as possible. So the most aggressive approach would be to dig up the parking lot. So out of the six or seven alternatives that they presented to us, it was chosen to go with the digging of the parking lot. I had some concerns about that. And I wanted to have a peer review just to see if we were on the right track. The peer review came in and said, yes, you could do that. But there are a number of unknowns that you'll still be chasing contaminated groundwater for quite a long period of time, potentially. And you have to think about the foundation of that building. and the disruption to the parking lot. So after looking at it and weighing everything, it was decided not to go in that direction, but to take a different kind of approach with the ISCO.

[Michael Marks]: So is this chemical treatment working?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: This chemical treatment works, particularly for dry cleaning fluid, which is what's out there.

[Michael Marks]: So have we done testing since the chemical has been implemented?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: We haven't gone that far yet at this site. We haven't gone to hire the contractor to do the ISCO. What's been happening so far is that they've done some bench tests, and they've studied the soils to see how it would react with this particular substance. They've also looked at what would be the uptake from the ISCO treatment, how long would it run. But we have not hired a contractor. We have not started anything.

[Michael Marks]: So, so what's, what's the likelihood that, uh, at some point when we have submitted our final plan and all the work is done from Caldwell, that, uh, there still will be a problem with contaminants in that property?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: I would say the likelihood is small because this, um, this particular ISCO revision that we're looking at now, is an enhanced one. It has a surfactant in it, which is like soap. It attaches on to the contaminant in the ground, and it does a better job of destroying it. So what you have, you're going from PCE, and you're going from PCE down to hydrogen and water. So it's time. You're blasting it with VSCO, and you're watching the hydraulic gradient, because the groundwater is moving across the site. And then you're monitoring it to track its efficacy.

[Michael Marks]: And just one last question. At some point, we were notified that some of these contaminants have leached outside of the particular area that we're aware of and made their way down Canal Street. Can you speak to that?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: We have no information to that at all. In fact, DEP put in wells at their own cost at the corner of Canal and High and also opposite the street where the daycare center is, and they found nothing.

[Michael Marks]: So right now you're saying it's the contaminants isolated to the area that we've been treating and not anywhere else?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: We don't find them anywhere else. We don't find them across the street.

[Michael Marks]: Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor. Chair awaits a motion. Motion for approval, Madam Vice President.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: the roll calls vote, if we could get just a breakdown of how much we've spent since 2009, and also, I don't know if you're able to tell us a breakdown of, you had mentioned to Councilor Knight's question, 900,000 will have to be spent in the next, is that gonna be in the next three years?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: It's an approximate figure, and it would be spent probably within the next four to five years. So you'd have, that cost includes some of the procurement, the initial treatment, and then follow-up monitoring. So when they monitor, they sample the groundwater, and they send it in for analysis. Those are the lab costs.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And what we're spending on the three-year contract with just the company, Brown and Caldwell, will be the $48,000 you had mentioned earlier?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Yes, that's the next piece is to hire them to do the procurement, but then we would want them to stay around, you know, during the construction to be the resident engineer to assist us. So there'd be a cost there. And essentially, we'd be spending down the remainder of the grant and then obtaining funding from the source to be identified.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And what's the remaining of the grant?

[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: My understanding is that it's anywhere from the low to mid $200,000 still remaining.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Okay. And then the, so the additional seven, seven to seven and a half, we're not sure where it will come from. Correct. Thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: We had a motion for approval from Councilor. Curve yellow as yellow as amended. Seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clark, please call the roll.

[Clerk]: Yes. Yes.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes, with a vote of seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. 16-603, while we're under suspension. The president and members, honorable members of the Medford City Council, from Stephanie M. Burke, common mayor, re-amendment to chapter six of the revised ordinances. Motion granted, Mr. Solicitor, please.

[Mark Rumley]: Good evening, Mr. President and members of the council. My name is Mark Rumley. I'm the city solicitor. I reside at 50 Woodrow Avenue in Medford. Prior to the budget, I'll just give this little, a couple of entry remarks before I speed through this proposed pilot ordinance. Prior to the budget, the mayor met with some residents who have utilized an area of Tufts Park to exercise or walk their dogs off leash and the mayor asked me to look into the possibility of Well to use just this expression to bless this with a pilot program Because having a dog off leash in the city of Medford is against two specific ordinances the first ordinance is one which Prohibits dogs being off leash in the entire city the second one is uh... under the park department to prevent dogs from being off leash in a park now this area of the park is where the old tufts pool is uh... back in the section of tufts park so as we said during the budget time this was going to come out after the budget and i had some time since the budget passed to craft this pilot program as you know from the other pilot programs we've had Pilot ordinance means that this ordinance is one which would be looked at and reviewed within a certain finite period to see whether or not it worked and if there were any adjustments or whether or not to go forward with it. So this is a pilot ordinance for off leash dogs only in Tufts Park in that designated area. I don't know if the larger plans came to you in your packet, but I have some copies of the plans here if you need them. Now, just to go through, and I'm not gonna read every word. It's on the council agenda. It would be an amendment to chapter six of the revised ordinances. The reason it was chosen to be chapter six is that after consultation with the city clerk, we felt that was the best place to put it. Now, the preamble just basically says that there are residents in the city of Medford who are the owners or keepers of well-behaved dogs. Now, keep that in mind for a second, the term well-behaved dogs. who want to have their dogs off leash in certain areas. So in order to see if this would work, we have this pilot ordinance. Now, going to part one, pilot ordinance. The first section, 6-49 are the different definitions. The keeper of a dog, the owner of a dog, the location, this would be in Tufts Park, the applicable hours, which would be daily between 6 and 8 a.m. and 6 and 8 p.m. More on that later. Now, well-behaved dogs. There is no definition of well-behaved dogs in the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. So I talked with Patrick Hogan, our animal control officer, about how we could handle this well-behaved dog definition. And we decided to do it in a very simple way. All dogs that are properly licensed, which means they have their required shots, would be considered by definition to be well-behaved dogs. And then drawing off of that would be those who fit into the ordinance definition or the state law definition of dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog, a disturbing dog, a barking dog, a nuisance dog, a dangerous dog, or a dog that is subject to complaint under Chapter 140. So what you have is all dogs that are licensed are well-behaved dogs because they have their shots, et cetera, and they're registered. And those that fit into any of these other categories that are the more nefarious dogs are not well-behaved dogs. That's how we defined it. So that's that part of it. The next part, section 650 means that this off-leash dog pilot ordinance would go until January 1st. The reason we chose January 1st was sound like a pretty good day to end the pilot program and to take a look at this. And oftentimes during December it's not heavily snow or anything like that, so people would be walking their dogs in a park even during December right through the first of the year. Now, this doesn't mean that the owners or keepers of the dog wouldn't have to make sure that their dog's waste is picked up on things of that nature because that's required. The enforcement of this pilot ordinance during the duration of the ordinance would be the animal control officer of the city of Medford, who is Patrick Hogan, the police chief of the city of Medford or his designees, or the director of the board of health or his designees. So they would be the ones who would be keeping an eye on it. Now part two of the additional provisions of the pilot program. Under section 6-52, you see 11 different conditions that the animal control officer would monitor. And in fact, he is the author of those 11 conditions. And they are that they must be leashed when entering and exiting the area, that they must have a leash for each dog on hand at all times, their dogs must be in view and under the physical or vocal control of their owners or keepers, no dogs in heat, no dogs under four months old. Owners or keepers must dispose of waste immediately. And the owners or keepers are legally and financially responsible for the actions of their dogs. Each owner or keeper is limited to three dogs. All dogs must have a properly fitted collar or harness to which a current dog license is attached and rabies tag also. And anyone entering the off-leash area does so at their own risk. And the City of Medford is not responsible for any injuries. That type of language, by the way, always has a big footnote to it. We're always responsible for our negligence. And any dog that does not meet the definition of a well-behaved dog shall be removed from the area. Then we have the term. And then the final portion of this is a portion which talks about review. And it says that at the end of the pilot period, which is January 1st, the ordinance would be looked at by the Board of Health, Fire Department, Police Department, Public Works, City Clerk, and the Law Department to meet and to discuss the program, essentially to see how it went, and to make any recommendations, either positively, negatively, whether to expand or even eradicate the program. The last thing I'd say about this is that While I worked on this ordinance itself with Patrick Hogan, we also had the input from other departments in the city of Medford. And one of them in particular was the Department of Public Works. We have asked that if this pilot program is implemented, that there be a suitable and aesthetically proper fencing around the area so that a dog that's off-leash doesn't get out. So the last thing I'd say before I invite my colleague Patrick Hogan to make any statement he'd like to make is this. As I said to you during budget time, this is something that should never be taken lightly. I'm a dog owner, or my children are dog owners, but I walk them pretty often. And I've had dogs all my life. And I love dogs. But I also, as part of the law department, I've been part of other cases dealing with dogs that aren't so snuggly and aren't so nice and cause personal injury. So an ordinance like this might seem to some to be a little bit too much, but we had to strike a balance between the desire to have a dog off leash and a paramount desire to make sure that human beings are protected. Because the ramifications of not protecting human beings with a dog that might be vicious are very, very significant, and we had to try to strike that balance. So that essentially is the pilot ordinance which is before you this evening. And I would invite, with your permission, my colleague to add anything he would like to on this.

[SPEAKER_20]: Patrick Hogan, the Animal Control Officer with the City of Medford. So this proposal was brought up while I was enforcing some off-leash areas at Tufts, and some of the residents came forward and said that they wanted an area to allow their dogs to be off-leash. There are benefits to having dogs off-leash that can't be had when a dog is kept on leash all the time, including the dog is exercised, And that's a benefit for everyone, not just the dog owner, but also for neighbors. Dogs that are exercised are much less likely to bark and annoy the neighbors. Also, they become much better socialized with other dogs and with people, much less likely to bite. And going to Tufts Park, the dog owners there have been very responsible with cleaning up in the winter when the trash barrels are removed. They bring their own trash bags, remove the trash out, and they actually have a dispenser there to dispense their own poop bags, feces removal.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Pat, we don't see anything in our package here about the fence. Can you explain what the fence is there? Sure. Do you have a picture of what the fence, what the area is going to be? Is it, are we talking just that square area where the pool used to be? Exactly, just that rectangular area. Just that, and that's gonna be fenced in? That's right, yeah. So the dog can't run outside of that fence. That's right, yeah. We have, okay.

[SPEAKER_20]: So the area is just that, well, I'll wait till you have it in front of you. So the area that we're talking about is that rectangular area in the rear there. There'll be one fence that goes just past the parking lot on the Granville Ave side towards Marion Street, and there'll be another one on the Winchester Street side in that little alleyway, before the alleyway. Each one will have double gates so that you can bring the dog in, shut the gate behind you, take the dog off a leash, open the other gate, the dog will go in.

[Richard Caraviello]: Okay, well, now is this, I mean, what you're proposing here is a second dog park, if I'm understanding you correctly.

[SPEAKER_20]: It is, but this fencing is temporary, so it could be removed at any time.

[Richard Caraviello]: Now, are they going to have to adhere to the same standards that the other dog park is going to? Well, the other dog park doesn't have any standards yet. I mean, all this is, it's just a basic dog park. Yeah, I think you're right, yeah. Are you going to be there monitoring this park? I'm going to be there as much as I can, yes. Because that's the part that concerns me. And most of the dogs that are off leash, tend to be the bigger dogs.

[SPEAKER_20]: Well, the thing is this, this area has been in use for this purpose without a leash, without a fence for quite a while. And we've had very few problems.

[Adam Knight]: Um, if it's been used for a purpose that's outside the ordinances of both the city of Medford and the ordinances established by the parks department in violation thereof, but then to say that there are very few problems,

[SPEAKER_20]: Well, that's right.

[Adam Knight]: Because I don't think that you were down there enforcing off-leash hours by accident. I think you got a phone call, and that's why you were down there at that point.

[Richard Caraviello]: I know I called you.

[Adam Knight]: So there are some neighbors that are complaining about the off-leash use down there, and there are some people that are utilizing the park for off-leash use, but there are people that are abutting the property that are opposed to it. Is that what I'm understanding?

[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Thank you. What about these people that do a dog business? I mean, I know you took care of a group that there was a running a business that would dog classes. I mean, are they going to be using this too?

[SPEAKER_20]: So under the definitions here, they would be considered a keeper, and they would be allowed a maximum of each person would be allowed a maximum of three dogs. So whether you're a business or an individual, you could do that.

[Richard Caraviello]: I'm also being told now that this area is being considered for a community garden in the future. Will the dog feces and the dog urine contaminate that property if that happens?

[SPEAKER_20]: Well, I don't know anything about a community garden, but when I see community gardens, they have raised beds. And so the dogs aren't going to be jumping up into the beds to do their business.

[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, I wasn't going to say anything, but Alicia Hunt, 41 Waston Street, is the environmental director. I'm working with the Community Garden Commission. There is a different part of Tufts Park that's been under discussion. No, if you know where the Tufts pool currently is, and on this map there's a basketball court It's actually that small area between the basketball court and the current Tufts pool, where there's grass and it's outside. It's actually- In back of the school. Sorry, between the school, sorry. Yep, I didn't focus on that very well. Between the school and basketball court, that's the area that the community garden commission has interest in community. So it is a completely separate part of Tufts Park. I just don't want there to be confusion that there are two groups vying for the same space.

[Richard Caraviello]: All right. Thank you. I mean, like I say, I grew up in this area. I grew up in Tufts Park, and I was there when the pool was there. I don't know if I'm sold on this. Again, who is going to determine the well-behaved dog? Well, that's written in the ordinance. Yeah, but who—well, everybody thinks the dog is well-behaved.

[SPEAKER_20]: Right. There's a dog. We'll have to be licensed, but if it meets any of the definitions of a dog that's not well behaved, then we remove it.

[Richard Caraviello]: I don't know. I'm, I'm, I'm skeptical about this.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, was there a clarification? Is this restricted to Medford dogs only?

[Richard Caraviello]: Uh, I guess it says, I think there's something that says the dog has to be licensed in Medford. That correct. Thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Knight, did you have something?

[Adam Knight]: Um, I do. That was my point of information.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you.

[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And, um, you know, I, I think, uh, over the last several years, uh, there's been a number of residents that have approached this council that have approached the administration, uh, regarding the need for a dog park in this community and looking at Arlington, Somerville, Malden, Brookline, Boston, you can go through all the surrounding communities. They all have one or multiple parks in a community. And we were fortunate in a city to have 23 parks. And, uh, it's one thing you hear quite often mentioned. We have a fair amount of open space in this community. And, um, you know, I was part and still am part of, uh, pause for method, which was a citizen group that got together out of frustration, to be quite honest, back about two years ago and did our own research and found grant funding for the creation of a first dog park. And it took about two years with countless meetings, hiring an outside consultant that builds dog parks. And really it was an eye opener to see that a dog park is not just erecting a fence. And I think what we're hearing tonight is we're going to put up a fence. And to me, what we need in this community is not a fenced area to have dogs run. We need a dog park. We have one that's going to be proposed behind the McGlynn School. And at the time, the mayor, Mayor McGlynn, did his due diligence. contacted the local paper and I believe sent out a blast in the reverse 911 and got feedback regarding that particular site and several other sites throughout the community. And based on the fact that that site is centralized, there's not a lot of neighbors in that particular area behind the McGlynn School on Riverbend. It was handicap accessible. There's already water that's piped into the area. There's going to be ample lighting that's going to be put on the site. And other considerations that were made, and we heard over and over again, is that small dog owners said, I can't let my dog run with a larger dog. And it's not because larger dogs run friendly. My dog will get trampled. My six-pound terrier will get trampled and possibly killed. And so when we took into consideration creating a first-ever dog park, That was one of the first things, to make a small and large dog park, have it separated. The park that we're proposing also has an obstacle course. And it's a state-of-the-art park. It's going to have the latest infiltration systems. It's really a lot of thought and effort went into it. And I hate to say it, I'm not seeing it with this park. And I realize it's a pilot. I went out and I walked the site. I noticed that it's 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. October, November, it's dark at 7.30. There's no light there. You know, our first concern has to be public safety and then pet safety. And in my opinion, you need proper lighting down there in the hours that they're proposing. So that doesn't exist. There's also discarded building materials. I took a walk around and there's cinder blocks scattered along the fences around the perimeter. There are actually gaping, and I just found out tonight you're putting a fence up, but if you go a little further, like you're going out to Winchester Street, there's actually a gaping hole into a neighbor's yard that the fence has not secured. You have the pole that is hanging down off the fence that could be a real safety concern in the area. I talked to some of the abutters, and many of the abutters were great. They said, you know, these people are excellent. We've talked to them. They're very courteous. They pick up after the dog. They said something else about people using the park to play ball. They mentioned how people are urinating and defecating in the area, and that's a whole other issue. But they spoke very highly about the dog walkers. The one thing they weren't aware of, I think this is really a concern is that when you propose something, you have to talk to the director about it. That's politics 101. You have to go knock the doors, do a reverse call on Randall, on Winchester, just to those neighbors. We can target it. Let them know what's going on. Because the neighbors I talked to said, you know what, we don't mind. We may see seven, eight people out there walking their dog. And when you say, do you realize, this will be the only off leash park in the city right now. And you may have from eight to nine, you may have 30 to 40 to 50 people. We don't know. And I'm sure there wasn't a study done potentially on how many people will use this park. So I think these are the things that had to be vetted before we just say, Oh, we're throwing up a fence. We'll create some rules and regulations. We'll let it look good. We'll let it appear to be a dog park. It'll look like one. It'll smell like one. but it's not really a dog park. And that's the problem I have. I want to see a full-fledged dog park. And I know we're not going to have them in every park, but if we strategically have them throughout the community, that's a win-win. That's a win-win for this community. And the hope of the pause committee was to show that a dog park is needed in the city, which we all know, show that we didn't need to get city funding, which we approached the Stanton Foundation. I know Gary that's on the committee with me is in the audience. a few other members that couldn't make it. And we got $250,000 for a dog park. And they've given us $10,000 for upkeep. The first, I think it's three years. But this is what happened when citizens got together and say, there's a need out there. And I think you'll find there's a need throughout the community. I'm here in a car park. I live near Harris Park. The same people out there with their dogs off the leash, you probably get the same calls. It's throughout the city. So it's telling me there's a need. In a $162 million budget, there's a need for dog parks in this community. You know, and last year, the city of Medford licensed, I think it was 340 dogs. I have 340 dogs on my street. That's no joke. We have thousands of dogs living in this city, and there is a need in this community. You know, so, you know, I don't want to seem like a Debbie Downer, but, This particular ordinance, I think, was just a quick fix. Let's get the few people that approached the mayor. Let's give them something. The people that called me up and wanted to talk about it, the first thing I asked them, did you read the ordinance? Said, oh, no, we didn't know there was an ordinance. Jeez, I didn't see an ordinance. So these are the things I think you have to do your homework and your due diligence, like the PAWS Committee did for two years. And I'm not saying this park should take two years, but what I'm saying is there's a need. And residents in this community should be reaching out to the administration and saying there's a need in this community. There's a need to be dog friendly in this community. And I'm not quite sure a pilot program, I've seen a million pilot programs by this administration and the previous administration. We still have the street sweeping pilot program that was implemented 10 years ago. 10 years ago, it's still a pilot program. So I'm not sold on this, that in January 1st, they're gonna come back with recommendations and they're gonna say, well, these are the parks that are gonna be off-leash and so forth. I find it ironic that I didn't get this until tonight. So up until tonight, I didn't think there was a fence. I knew there was a fence around where the neighbor's yards were. I didn't think it was fenced off. So these are the things that should have been distributed to us. You know, and I'm just disappointed. And I see a lot of residents up here, some pro, some con. I was also told St. Clement's uses that and some of their football equipment is still on the field. And some people said they still use it. Some people said they haven't seen anyone up there. So I'm not quite sure if it's still being used for that. So I guess what we can hope to do as a council, and I'm not going to speak for anyone else, is number one, send a message back to the administration. And it's great. We're moving forward with the first ever dog park behind the McGlynn, but method is seven square miles. We have 23 parks. We need to expand the program and it can't take 30 years to do it. We have to expand the program. I went on the website and looked up a green dog in Brookline. And I know a gentleman just passed out some information on it. And, um, You know, their parks, from what I can understand, don't have any fencing, or the ones that are off-leash are not fenced at all. And they have a system of alerting residents on inclement weather, when the park is not used because it's too rainy or too muddy and so forth. And I'm not even sure we're at that level in this community. Has anybody been on the city website? I don't think we're capable, and this is no disrespect to you, to monitor this for four months and then come up with a meaningful resolution to it. I don't think we're capable of doing it right now. And I'd rather see residents get together and start discussing the potential of other dog parks throughout the community and how we can get funding for that and how we can maybe tap up the Stanton group again and move forward in that. rather than just a knee-jerk reaction that may solve a problem for four months. And then in four months, these residents are going to be back in January saying, OK, what are we doing? What are we doing? And we're going to say, well, we're meeting on this. And nothing's going to happen. I'm telling you, nothing's going to happen. I'd rather see it as a united front, a united effort in this community. And I don't think this resolution is the way to go right now. I really don't believe that. If you want to put lighting on the site, I was there the other day, the barrel was overflowed with trash. Boston Athletic Club was playing softball 30 feet from the park. Now, I know you're saying there's going to be a fence, but the park's utilized. And I think we have to do our homework really before we approve anything. And in particular, this ordinance. I appreciate the city solicitor for putting it together, but I don't think this merits a vote tonight on a dog park in this community, this particular ordinance. I'll be the first to sit down with any group that wants to sit down and move this forward. But, um, I don't think this is the avenue to be quite honest with you. And I appreciate your time and you've done a great job as a dog officer in the community. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Councilor chair recognizes Councilor Falcon.

[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, thank you to City Solicitor Romley for putting this together. And thank you, Mr. Hogan, for being here tonight. I am a dog owner. I love my dog. And, you know, he's a big part of our family. And I've received many calls both for and against. And, you know, and Councilor Marks brings up a good point. There's almost a need for dog parks in different areas throughout our community. There's a demand for it. It was interesting to get this tonight because actually a lot of the questions that it got from people that were concerned were, is there going to be a fence? And I was under the assumption that there was no fence. I'm happy that they're suggesting a fence. Do we know anything about if this passes the fence, what type of fence, how long it'll take to implement this as far as actually getting a temporary fence set up?

[Mark Rumley]: Now, when Patrick and I had talked to Brian Kerins, we were talking about the height of the fence. And there were a couple of suggestions. I think he started at four feet. And then we talked about the aesthetics of the fence, color and material. But there has not been any order or anybody looking at any manufacturer's product or anything of that nature, because that would be premature without the ordinance in place. But we did have that discussion, and it would have been followed up on. but not at this junction.

[John Falco]: As far as the, um, and I know you said earlier that, you know, uh, because a lot of, a lot of the questions I'm getting is who's going to monitor this. Is anyone going to monitor this? And I, and I know you said, you know, you, you, you're going to be at the park as much as possible. And I know you work a full day. Um, so right now, do you have specific hours as far as your current regular hours is supposed to be 830 to 430, 830 to 430.

[SPEAKER_20]: So, But I'm called in on emergencies.

[John Falco]: I'm sorry? But I'm also called in on emergencies. OK, yeah, I would imagine. OK. So as far as, because a lot of the calls I'm getting are from people saying, you know, is someone going to be there to, you know, what if something goes wrong? What if a dog needs to be removed? Who's going to remove the dog? You know, I mean, if you're not there, you know, it's impossible to be there all the time. You know, are they going to have to call the police? Is that something the police is going to have to do?

[SPEAKER_20]: Yeah, that is addressed in the ordinance.

[John Falco]: And I think people are concerned about that, too, as far as should the police really be diving into monitoring a dog park. And so there are concerns there as well. As far as a well-behaved dog is a dog that has a valid license. Makes sense. But as far as if there's no one there constantly monitoring the dog, it could be anyone showing up with a dog, just letting him run wild. So I think a lot of the calls that I've gotten from concerned residents saying, you know, is there any type of monitoring at all? It sounds like there might be some, but not, you know, on a regular—not on a—every night from 6 to 8, there's going to be someone there opening up, locking up, that type of thing.

[SPEAKER_20]: overwhelmingly self-policing. The people that are there using it really want it to function well. And if there's someone there who's abusing it or their dog isn't functioning well, they will use peer pressure to move the person out. And if the person won't move out on their own, then they'll call.

[John Falco]: Okay. That's good to know. I mean, I definitely support the dog park that's going to go beyond the schools. I think it's a great idea. I can't wait to see it happen. But I just have some concerns from people that have called me. With regard to In the ordinance, there are conditions. There are about 11 conditions here. Are those conditions going to be posted at the park? To me, it makes sense. There'll be some sort of signage that there'll be expectations.

[Mark Rumley]: In the case that this ordinance is adopted on a pilot basis, yes. There would be notice to those participating that these conditions are applicable along with any of the others which are in the ordinance that they should be aware of. We certainly wouldn't want people to operate without knowledge of what is prohibited.

[John Falco]: Thank you. That's it for now. Thank you.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Being a doggone old myself of over 30 years, and like Councilor Mark says, I know in my neighborhood, there's probably 300 dogs in my neighborhood. I see my wife walking with the dogs, there's dogs everywhere, and they're all good dogs, and occasionally they don't pick up the stuff, but that's another issue. There's like 20, almost 20 houses here that border this park, and like Councilor Mark said, what's the condition of their fence on the Granville side and on the Marion Street side? Like I say, I'm a former resident of that area, of William Street, And, you know, I used to go to that pool. But I say, you know, is there anybody here from that in the Marion Street or Granville Ave that's in favor or not in favor? I'd like to hear their opinion. I mean, if they would know if I didn't mean that, are they going to be happy if there's going to be a light on there all the time? Is there going to be water for these dogs there? But I say I'd like to hear from the residents of the area and see what their opinion is.

[SPEAKER_11]: Please state your name and address for the record. David Livingston, 20 Bow Street. What street? Bow. B-O-W. 20 Bow Street. Right. You're right along. I'd like to address everything that's been brought up, if I may have the time. Or I can answer your question simply, sir. The defense, Mr. Marks, you came and saw. It's in fair condition. There's one small hole behind 5 Granville Avenue. That's to let a cat out, who is an outdoor cat, a rescue cat, by my friend, my neighbor, a neighbor of the park. He wants to let his cat in the park. He's a large proponent of having the dogs there. The back section near Winchester Street, A very large tree came down during Hurricane Irene and damaged the fence and neighbors have been asked for it to be repaired. Um, I am the originator of this proposal. I met with the mayor and, and, and asked him along with Patrick Hogan for a program like this to be inserted. However, I did mention that I do not support fencing of any sort whatsoever. Um, The whole philosophy of open space, off-leash time with dogs is that dogs are so much more relaxed when they are not confined.

[Michael Marks]: I can barely hear you. I'm sorry. Did you say you don't support fencing?

[SPEAKER_11]: I do not of any kind, and I recommended against it in my meeting. The whole philosophy of open space, off-leash time for dogs is that they are so much more relaxed in open spaces. When you confine them, their anxiety levels are raised. When dogs have a conflict of any sort, they have fight-or-flight instincts. And if you confine them in a space, however large, and remove their flight instincts, you end up with a conflict. You end up with a problem. And if you add fencing there, the dog's anxiety levels will be raised. And they will see anything on the other side of that fence as bad, as a problem. They will react to it. I'm there every day. I confess to you, I've been bringing my dog there off leash 11 years every single day. And I'm there all the time. I've spent over 5,000 hours of my life there. The dogs that visit there regularly do not react to a kid riding his bike or the softball players two people playing frisbee or jogger because they see it every day. But as soon as you put up a barricade of any sort, they're going to think that's bad and they will all rush the fence and they will bark and it will go from a friendly, peaceful, positive experience to a very negative experience. They don't care about about what's on the other side, because there's no fence. We have the paved path right there. We use that to teach the dogs that they are not allowed over the paved path. And any dog that goes near it is expected to be recalled. And this happens, by and large. It can be done better. It's not 100%. And some of the newcomers and some of the younger dogs, the puppies that haven't been taught this yet, we work with them. We install this. We teach them. We're a very strong community. And we have our own set of unwritten rules. We don't want any trouble for anyone, of course. And as far as some of the other items that you mentioned, and I'd like to address everyone's as well, if anyone has questions. But there is lighting there. There is lighting. There are two very bright lamps. I think they're 1,000 watt lamps. It's on the street grid, the National Grid controls. It's run off of Granville Avenue, the end of Granville Ave. And they light up the park well enough at night. And I'm there at night. There's a pole with two lamps, one facing the parking lot and one facing the back section of the park. Yeah. And I've called many times to have those lamps repaired when the lights are out. And National Grid does respond. But I'm very strongly against fencing of any sort. As far as any of the other issues you have, any questions anyone has for me, I'm sorry. There was a lot spoken about tonight. Thank you. Can I please mention one more thing? We're organized. We have a Facebook group page with about 90 members on it. And we organize cleanup days. volunteer cleanup days. We have dozens of people come and clean up every piece of litter and any type of leftover dog waste. We, I find one pile of waste on average a week and I purchased a mailbox and I hung it and I myself and others replenish it with empty dog bags. Cleanliness is absolutely supported. I can tell you that when you have a community setting, there is a social responsibility to pick up after your dog, whereas... Yes, sir.

[George Scarpelli]: Point of information, Councilor Scott. I appreciate what you're saying, but as we talk about a pilot program, we're actually notifying everybody in the community now. It's not just your backyard anymore. Right. So what's happening is we're gonna be inviting everybody, and there are gonna be people that have dogs that aren't gonna have the same philosophy as you. And that's a little alarming to me, to be honest with you. And the reference, the way you're putting this, you're making it sound that there's a great community and I can appreciate that. And it is a great community. From what I hear that you maintain the park in ways, but we're opening it up to everybody, the whole community. So if people come into that area and don't go with your Facebook group or how is that gonna be handled? How are you gonna handle that?

[SPEAKER_11]: Councilor, I agree with you entirely. And when I met with the mayor, mentioned that this can't succeed in one space. And I agree with you, too. It cannot. It should be a neighborhood-based program spread out around the city in the appropriate spaces, car park, the other parks. I couldn't vouch for parks and neighborhoods that I'm unfamiliar with. So I couldn't have a list. And there was a major crackdown after see, click, fix was initiated. A lot of people started complaining and Mr. Hogan got very, very busy enforcing the leash law because the complaints were just flooding in all over the city. That made it nearly impossible for me to visit the neighborhoods and find people who brought their dogs regularly to parks and get organized. I could only do that successfully in my neighborhood. So I agree 100% I would like this proposal modified to remove the fencing, and to add additional spaces, three, four, five, six, whatever would work best. I was hoping to do this citywide and I was not able to do it because the parks are empty suddenly. So anyways, thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record.

[Sqp6S0Yyr0A_SPEAKER_02]: Yes. My name is a Philip Osino. I'll leave a grant at 55 at Granville Ave in Medford. Thank you, Councilman, to listen to what I have to say. I've been a resident of South Medford for the last 44 years. That park there has been a recreational park for everybody that plays over there, that plays softball, that play football. The particular area that they're trying to block it off, that particular area has been used by St. Clement's football team. They come and practice and Not only that, if you block it off, they have no place to go to practice. In the summertime, there's little kids that come to the park. They have a recreational area that they play on the particular area right beside the parking lot. They have an hour, two hours, they play games, and they go to the pool. In the last two weeks that I talked with the staff members of St. Clement's, kindergarten kids that they have a program, and two of the kids that step on dog poop, and they had to clean it up with a towel that they were going to the swimming pool. Now this one here to me is disturbing. I raised three kids on that area there, and to have kids step on dog poop and then they have to take it home, that's unsanitary in my book. Okay, now if you, this program, this pilot program gets approved, okay, it's going to create a lot of problems. On the left side where you guys see where it's all yelled off from across from the parking lot on the opposite side. There is a seven family that live on that, on those property there. And they, and they raise gardens. Now there is dogs that they go all over the place and everything else. Three of the gentlemen that they live on that side there had to come out and yell at the people that they had the dog, the dogs there. I called the Board of Health many times. I complained, laws are being broken. There is a sign over there that says, no off-leash dog. I spoke with some of the mothers that they have little kids at St. Clement's. They told me, says, we afraid to go down the park. One of my kids are practicing for soccer because there is dogs off-leash. So I got three dogs on my own. I love dogs. I was raised with 17 dogs. in my country. So I love dogs. There is no doubt about that. But when it comes to kids, that's the first priority that it's supposed to be. Not anything else. Yeah, dogs, they can run wild. Buy a farm, put them in the farm, let them run wild in the farm. Not in the park where there is human beings and there is kids. I thank you very much to listen to me. And I appreciate it. And I would appreciate if you both know on this proposal, because this proposal is gonna create more problems than it is. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.

[SPEAKER_02]: Hi, my name is Alana... Hi, good evening.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Please state your name and address for the record.

[SPEAKER_02]: My name is Alana Pierkowski. I live at 5 Russell Street. I wanted to thank you for taking the time to to talk about this issue, which is very near and dear to me. A couple of questions that you guys have brought up that I just wanted to give my own points on. One is that I wouldn't necessarily think of this as a dog park in the same way as the one that Councilor Marks has been working on so hard, which I think is a great thing. I almost consider this as an option for dog owners who live in Medford right now to have a place where they can take their dogs and get them the exercise that Patrick talked about now, as opposed to a year plus from now when we're going to be getting a dog park. Right now, we have nowhere to go. So dogs need to exercise. Off-leash is the best way, especially for young dogs, to be able to do that. Is this a dog park in a traditional sense? No, it's not, but it's a place where Medford residents who are paying taxes to be able to use our parks, dog owners can use our parks. And I understand that, you know, I understand what he was saying about children, but part of the beauty about it having specific hours is there are specific hours where the dogs can be there and everybody can know this is the time when the dogs are there. If you're afraid of dogs, there's plenty of hours during the day and plenty of other parks that children can go to. Regarding Councilor Falco's very good question about policing, I don't know anywhere that has a dog park in any city that has a cop right there watching. Like, that's not the way dog parks work, and it is a lot of self-policing. You know, when there's a problem, you call and you have somebody come. You call the cops if there's a problem with anything. That doesn't usually happen, because for the most part, the way it's supposed to work, and the way it does work, is that responsible dog owners take their dogs and they play and then they leave and they clean up after them. And the whole cleaning up after poop, having a leash on your dog or not having a leash on your dog has nothing to do with cleaning up the poop. People who don't clean up after their dogs, they're not cleaning up after their dogs when they're walking them in front of my house and they're pooping in front of my house. But it's a totally separate matter that also should be policed. If you don't clean up after your dog, you should get a ticket, regardless of where you're at. But I think it's a separate issue from the idea of a place where dogs can go and get the exercise that they need, that we desperately need in this city. And right now, we don't have it all. And the idea of having to take your dogs daily to another city to exercise them is really hard. I mean, who would wanna have to take their kids to Somerville to play every day or to Arlington or to anywhere? So I don't know if this is the exact right answer for us, but I'm hoping that you as a city council can work with the mayor to figure out something for me and the thousands of other people in Medford that have dogs. My dog is my child. I want to be able to use our wonderful resources, and I don't know how I can do that, and I don't know how to get organized about that. I've tried contacting the mayor. I've tried contacting several of you. I don't know what else I can do. please help me, help us. Like there are a lot of us that have dogs and we would be willing, I get my dog licensed, I get both my dogs licensed every year. I'm one of the first ones, I think I'm number 14 and 15 on my licenses. If we could have more options for dog owners to use, they'd have more reason to go get licensed. So thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes, Councilor Marks.

[Michael Marks]: Now, do you support fencing or no fencing?

[SPEAKER_02]: You know, honestly, I prefer no fencing for my dogs because I've got two golden retrievers. They're the sweetest things. They just need to run. My biggest thing about fencing is it usually ends up being a small park that doesn't give me the option to throw the ball the 200 feet that they'd like to be able to go. But if it's going to take a fence in order for me to be able to let them off leash, have a fence. I mean, I don't know the answer to fencing to not fencing, but I do know that for the most part of the year, when I want to go to the park, there's nobody else there, and it wouldn't matter if there's a fence or not. Like during the winter, nobody's using the parks. There's nobody there except the people with the dogs when it's 20 degrees, when there's three feet of snow. And that's not even just 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., that's all day long. And the parks are being completely underutilized, but they could be. So, yeah, insofar as what makes the most sense, I've seen it both ways. I was just in Brooklyn. Brooklyn can make this work. I was in Brooklyn, and they have awfully showers in a park with no fence from, I think it was, I can't remember, sometime after dinner, all night, until 9 a.m. the next morning. So once again, I think a lot of it's a matter of having confidence that people are going to be responsible for their dogs, and if they're not, then go and figure out how to deal with it, rather than trying to overthink it and make it hard. But there's plenty of places that have dog parks with fences, and there's plenty that have them without. And I think a lot of it also depends on the location of the park. Like, if your park is right near a major road, I'd absolutely want a fence. You know, if it was right off of 28, I wouldn't feel comfortable having my dogs play right near 28. But if it's in a safe location where, if they happen to stray a little bit off, I don't have to worry about them getting hit by a car, I don't see the need for a fence for my dogs and for all of the dogs that I know that play in the parks that I particularly go to. I've been taking my dogs down to Hingham because I can, because it's legal there to let them go swimming. And there's no fences, it's this great little isthmus and they go swimming and they run around and it's fabulous and it works great. Thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. Solicitor, Mr. Solicitor, do we know if this proposal will displace any existing arrangements that are there? In particular, will St. Clement's School football be displaced by the initiating of this program?

[Mark Rumley]: I've heard this issue raised by one of the councilors yesterday, a telephone call. I've asked Mr. Hogan about it. I don't have any personal knowledge of that. When I heard about St. Clement's football team, I hadn't heard that before. So I can't affirm or disaffirm that.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Mr. Solis. Good evening, ma'am. Welcome. Please state your name and address for the record.

[SPEAKER_28]: Laura Osino, 55 Granville Ave.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Welcome.

[SPEAKER_28]: Thank you. I'd like to ask you to not vote for anything without offense. I've lived on Granville Ave all my life. And within the last several years, I've encountered many problems with the off-leash dogs. My dog has gotten bitten a couple of times. One instance was a pit bull latched onto the rear end of my 13-pound dog and would not let go. And I yelled, whose dog is this? And nobody came forward. The person that was with the dog was on the far side of the park with another off-leash dog. Okay, I've seen them run into the neighborhood. I've had two of them run in my yard. The owners have had to come in my yard and chase the dogs to get them. So I would really appreciate if you do not vote on anything without offense. It's a safety issue as far as I'm concerned.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mrs. Rusty.

[SPEAKER_28]: Thank you.

[Gary DeStefano]: Thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Please state your name and address for the record.

[Gary DeStefano]: Gary DeStefano, 31 Goldsmith Ave at Medford. So I heard about this Friday night and I wasn't too sure if I was fired against it. So I came here tonight to see what it's all about. One of the concerns was the fence. Another concern was the definition of a well-behaved dog. I believe that's been answered tonight by the council. And basically all the concerns you have of the same concerns for the dog park that we've already voted and said we're going to put in. As far as policing goes, it's always self-policed. As far as fence, I think we should have a fencing, but David's against fencing. That's neither here nor there for me. I actually think the main difference between the dog park that we voted for and having And this one, the biggest difference, is $350,000. It's going to cost you $10,000 for a fence. We're putting in a dog park that's going to end up costing $375,000. So if we can put up a bunch of these little guys, I'm all for it. Any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer. And again, I just came down to listen, but I decided I'm for it. Okay.

[Fred Dello Russo]: The chair recognizes the gentleman from East Medford.

[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you. Councilor, president Andrew Kasten, Eddie Cushion street method mass. Um, first off everything body and pet deserves to have us place. I definitely agree with it and away. First off, I do like some dogs and at times even more than some of the people. But dogs, if they're unleashed in a public area, they must be in a fenced-in area, or else we may for sure have an extra safety problem in 02155. If it's approved, therefore, would the city, although they say maybe no, be responsible for any dog attacks in the future? for dogs behaving badly? What about the so-called $1.5 million, whatever the figure was, dog park? Therefore, maybe we don't need the dog park. So can we cancel that dog park and give our money back to the taxpayers or grant money? Also, who decides if a dog is well-behaved? And if it is true, according to GOP, is it not possible for any dog to have a bout of rage? Therefore, if you, the political leaders, allow this, you may have, maybe you should have dog owners post a bond in the city also to cover all possible dog attacks and injuries. In closing, maybe my godfather was right. After all, in this country, they care more about the dogs than they do the people. Also, my friend's daughter, as a girl, was brutally mauled in her face and attacked by a dog and required multiple surgeries and, I'm sure, trauma to this day. Very sad. P.S., the average lawsuit, I believe I told the mayor at a meeting over a month ago about this, is about $40,000 per dog attack in the United States of America. Personally speaking, I would not repeal your city's leash law. Rather, I would reason on the side of caution and safety. The dog is in your court. Thank you for your attention.

[Adam Knight]: Thank you. Chair recognizes Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. Um, at the beginning of a solicitor Runley's presentation, he said there are two ordinances that need to be changed. So the first ordinance would be the city council's ordinance, which says that off leash dogs are prohibited citywide. Then he also said that there's a parks department ordinance. I'd like the solicitor to come up and explain this a little bit further. because the way I'm looking at it is we could pass this piece of legislation tonight, and it goes forward, and it goes to the Parks Department, and they say, so what? We have the authority to determine whether or not we're gonna allow dogs in our parks off-leash or not. So I'd just like a little clarification from the solicitor if that's.

[Mark Rumley]: Yes, the reason that the two ordinances are referred to is that they kind of overlap. You have the Parks Commission that has jurisdiction over the parks, this particular dog, off leash dog area would be in a park. Therefore it's under their jurisdiction. The second ordinance we have is a wider jurisdiction, which is the entire city. You're not supposed to have a dog off a leash. So indeed, if this is to go forward, it has to go forward. And this is very odd and very unique. It has to be approved two places here and before the park commission. So it is possible that the city council could, these are the arrays of choices that you have. If you pass this in whatever form, whether it's tonight or another night, it still has to go to the parks board. And if you passed it and they didn't, it doesn't happen because you can't overrule their decision or their discretion. Secondly, you could send it to them first for them to make a decision before you do, which is not an invalid choice either. And if they said no, then it would stop there. So these are the different and unique combinations that occur because of the location of this particular endeavor. It's in a park. So it's under the jurisdiction of the park board, and the city is under the jurisdiction of the general ordinances, which is you. So there's the relationship between the two.

[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, has the park board been consulted at all?

[Mark Rumley]: I've talked to Mr. Graham about it. He shared with me some of his feelings, but I'm sure that those are his to share, not mine. uh... he said that he would await its receipt if indeed it comes and they will handle it in due course and uh... just one more minute monthly at this point in time yeah i didn't know if they were meeting tonight uh... but uh... they they certainly were talking apparently about rights bond for a great deal of fear their meeting in the head of the business but this would not have been something that i would start there anyway because if it's if it's not okay from the point of view of the council then i don't think it'd be not wise to send it, it would be inappropriate to send it to the Park Board. Conversely, it could have started there, but it's really an equivocal choice, one or the other. It's here, and you could refer it to the Park Board for their determination, or you could put it into a committee, or you could act on it tonight. I think I'm preaching to the choir here, because I know you're well-versed in what your options are.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Yeah.

[Clerk]: Thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Chair recognizes council Scott Peller.

[George Scarpelli]: Um, thank you. I'm a solicitor. I just, I just to go over a direct question to you. So I know that I know that Mr. Caraviello wants to say something quickly. I can yell to him.

[SPEAKER_16]: Sure.

[Mark Rumley]: Peel the two audits that we have already actually, because this is a pilot, they would stay in effect. It would be kind of like a relief.

[Richard Caraviello]: They kind of run contrary to each other. You're saying, One's saying, yes, you know, you.

[Mark Rumley]: Oh, no, no. The park board would still have to pass it if you do. You have to have both. So you can't, they're not going to be conflicting. If the pilot program passes here and before the park board, the application of those two ordinances on that area would be, or we could use the word waived for a particular window of time. And that's all. That's what this, that's I, I, I understand the point about different pilot programs and the number of pilot programs. But this is the type of area that you would want to have some study on. Whether or not this is the one you want is another issue. I will say this about fence. There's no, fence to me, I don't want to, in 32 years here at City Hall, the different dog cases that we've had to be involved in, myself, Mr. Hogan have been involved in a couple that are very serious. The fence is not negotiable. If you ask, if there was ever a sense to remove the fence, then I would recommend that this not pass, not because I don't trust the opinions or the experiences of those who have spoken tonight, but because the experiences that we've had with dog cases that have gone wrong have injured children, some seniors significantly and human life is sacred and must be protected.

[Fred Dello Russo]: I'll set council.

[George Scarpelli]: That's it. But thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much. Chair recognizes the council Scott.

[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Now I've, I've had phone calls for and, um, against this, this, this, um, this process and, and I've had great dialogue with many different community members. And I concur with my fellow colleagues done such a great job and Mr. Marks and bringing a true dog park to our community. Again, I work in a community that has dog parks set aside all over the areas, and they're all fenced in, and they're a great option for their constituents. I also look at this process with a fence being something I wouldn't give in with. I think it's important that if you look at the area, it's a big enough area that if you throw a ball, that the dogs are going to be able to run freely in that area. So I can understand that. And I also feel that this is something that being a pilot program and being first time on the committee and understanding that this is the first pilot program that's coming to our desk and looking at a time limit on that. Would that time limit be complete? The pilot program will be complete as of January 1st, 2017 and then revisited.

[Mark Rumley]: Yes, that's the intention of the ordinance as presently written.

[George Scarpelli]: So with that pilot program, putting in place safety being the number one concern, and the opportunity to have an area where our dog families can run. And I know that my wife will be there with our dog, because she has the 60-foot leash. And my wife's a marathon runner, so my dog runs with my wife six miles a day. So I know the importance. I mean, maybe she tells me I should take him out That won't happen. So, but I look at, I look at the situation and it's something our community needs. I think it's, it cries for something as long as it's policed the right way. I mean, the biggest concerns I had were without that fence and having a dog that the people that follow those ordinances and have the dogs on the leash and having a dog that might not be part of the program or part of this group that's there now that maybe is a little more rambunctious and jumping on that dog or that person. I think frightens me and I think that's my number one concern. Um, so if, if it is moving forward, I think that, uh, I wouldn't, I wouldn't entertain it without that. So, and then the case that I want to get to as a liability piece, I know that we say that we're not liable, but truth of the matter is we are correct.

[Mark Rumley]: Truth of the matter is that the city of Medford, like any other municipality is responsible for its negligence. Uh, and if, if the negligence of the city led to some, damage or some injury, then, depending upon the facts of the case, yes, indeed, we could be liable.

[George Scarpelli]: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Solisa.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Chair awaits a motion.

[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. Mr. President, I'll make a motion that we refer this to the Parks Department for their opinion.

[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Caraviello that the matter be referred to the Parks Department I'm sorry. On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, that this be sent to the Parks Department. Ma'am, if you would like to please present yourself, please state your name and address for the record.

[SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. My name is Alexis Smith at 4 Bellevue Terrace in Medford. I'd like to thank you all, councilors, for considering this and the city for its work. And I want to just express my strong, strong support for this ordinance. I love talking park I don't have a backyard myself and so this is my backyard this is the whole community's backyard and I love that on any given night there's kids riding bikes and kicking a soccer ball around and people playing softball and and we the dog owners are there too it's amazing for my dog to be able to run around and to socialize with other dogs it's a lot healthier for him that way and honestly it's amazing for me having a dog now I know more of my neighbors here in Medford than I have known in any other place I've lived, all combined. And I love that. We are a responsible group. We self-police. We want this area to be clean and safe. And I think that, as was mentioned before, you know, the six to eight hours of usage really make short It ensures that this is going to be a thing that an area that can be used by everyone if kids want to play during the day That's fine. They can there's just a specific set of hours when the dogs will be there With regards to the fence, um, I'd prefer not be there But if if that's what it takes to get a dog park here, then then so be it. That's fine I just I want to be able to bring my dog to the park and have him be able to play with other dogs I love being a part of it here and I thank you for your consideration.

[SPEAKER_16]: Thank you

[SPEAKER_12]: Hi, please state your name and address for the record. Hi, my name is Brian Pilcher. I'm at 41 Winchester street in Medford, um, abutting this park. So I appreciate your consideration here for this ordinance. And I just want to hit a couple of points. Um, I concur with another, uh, commenter that I would like you to, you know, as best possible, not consider this to be a traditional dog park. You know, I don't think anyone in this group that's on the pro side or anyone in the city that's put forth this and visions of $400,000, expense here. This is an area for dogs to exercise limited hours during the day. It's something that's been happening for over a decade here already. The bites and the poop and the cleanliness and the safety issues and the litany of other things that, you know, are real concerns or legitimate concerns, I can tell you for the year and a half that I've been going there, This community, and Councilor Scarpelli hits a key point as far as you're getting newcomers in, you know, how do you keep that similar responsible culture going? And it's been mentioned here several times already tonight, the self-policing factor is is paramount to these, and particularly this park. And that would continue regardless of if you get 50 more newcomers from outside of this neighborhood, because there's a core group, quite frankly, of people who don't want to lose the benefit of being able to exercise their dogs here. Not a permanent dog park that takes 24-7, but exercise their dogs here. And so it doesn't need to be, and I mean this very respectfully, but bureaucratized and overthought. I think it can be done in a way that strikes a balance that would meet the solicitor's goals as far as making it legitimate and not exposing the municipality to risk. There are ways to structure this. I'm very confident in that. And I really ask you to consider it and really, you know, think carefully about it because this group is not a safety hazard. We will self-police effectively. And if we don't, you can revoke that privilege. The other thing is that even during the four hours of usage it gets right now as an unofficial off-leash dog park, without offense, there hasn't been any incidences of bites in that period. I wish we had a couple videos to show you, but there's folks who We're not born in America who, you know, aren't really accustomed to our whole culture of, you know, pets being kind of as prevalent as they are here. And there's a small, I believe she's Indian, adorable girl who regularly is brought over by her father to expose her to pets. You know, they're a citizen of Medford. The dad is purposely walking her daughter, his daughter, over to this group of people. And it's done very respectfully. It's a really good, this is, I can't underscore enough that this dynamic is the dynamic that you hopefully, I don't know any of you very well, if you're good city councilors, this is the dynamic that you're gonna want in your community. This is a community that's active. I mean, if you wanna talk about neighborhood watch, this is a neighborhood watch group. It's a force for good in the neighborhood. People are getting together. This group of people that is already going there wouldn't know each other otherwise. And the other thing I'll say is I know in Medford there's a lot of strife about gentrification and back and forth. We understand that there's dynamics of old and new Medford here, and we're not trying to rub it in people's faces. We're trying to do this respectfully, and we're trying to just carry on our daily lives in a way here that we hope you don't interfere with. And we want to work with you to carry this out effectively. I'd love to see, personally, a pro-vote on this, as opposed to just, frankly, kicking it to another committee and dying a slow death of bureaucracy. And I mean that respectfully, but I've learned in my time here and a year and a half in Medford quite frankly, I see a lot of room for improvement in the city, a significant room for improvement in public administration. And I'm going to start paying a little more attention a little more carefully because. It's just very unfortunate that we can't figure out how to kind of thread the needle and run a city a little more efficiently and get things done. And I get the risk factor, and I'm not trying to belittle that, but this does not need to be overkilled. And if we have to do a fence, great. And I think you'll find there is a healthy group of people who want to help make this happen, self-police it, and won't negatively impact safety at this park. Thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Hike, please state your name and address for the record.

[Robert Cappucci]: Thank you, Mr. President. Bob Capucci, 71 Evans Street. My question in all of this is on discretion. I mean, the laws are in place, and we are a city, a state, and a nation of laws that we must follow. But I'm worried about, you know, just applying these laws no matter what. I mean, are we going to hire people now that the animal control officer is here? I mean, when do they apply the law of dogs being off the leash? I asked this for a specific instance. A few weeks ago, actually earlier in the spring, a woman, a senior citizen who walks her dog in the park near my house, Morrison, the dog's name is Noodle. It's about a foot and a half long, six inches high. She left the dog off the leash and she got hit with a $200 ticket. And she asked the officer, you know, don't you give a warning first? And he said, yeah, this is the warning, here. And it was a $200 ticket. I mean, we should definitely respect and follow the laws. But I also think that there are times when, you know, I mean, we hire police and teachers and we elect city councilors to also be, you know, of good judgment. And I think that was a bad judgment call to give this woman a $200 ticket for noodle that you wouldn't even feel if it was sitting on your foot. You know, I think looking at this and talking about offense and everything else, you know, we should just, like the last gentleman spoke about, about discretion and improvement. I mean, I think terms of judgment calls is one of the areas we should also look at. I mean, people know their dogs. They know their city. They know when the dog should be off the leash and when not. And every dog owner I've seen across Medford always picks up after their dog and looks out when other dogs are present. But those are my two cents. And thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Welcome. Please state your name and address for the record.

[SPEAKER_32]: I'm Linda Julian, 25 Edward Street. I guess I would like to thank all of you for your consideration and encourage you to vote in favor of this. I would like to echo other people, this is not traditional dog park. As others have said, it's been going on for a long time. I knew it before I got a dog. I've visited on a few occasions since I got a dog. These people are great. I don't see them very often, but they're awesome. And they are absolutely correct. I would say as a semi-outsider that they do self-police, and I've always felt safe there. I've always felt welcome there. My daughter loves to play in the playground. She loves to meet all the dogs at the dog park, the area where the dogs like to play. I don't think this is a threat to the dog park at all. I'm completely in favor of the proper official dog park. I hope it comes soon. Can't come soon enough as far as I'm concerned. I think when I heard this was being the works, I wondered how they could possibly get it to work. I'm so encouraged to know that other cities are doing this successfully. I think we can learn a lot from them. And I think that Mr. Rumley's writing of this proposal is brilliant. I think he's addressed so many concerns that I could imagine. And the fact that it's a pilot program with a limited time period, with the ability for the city to impose additional restrictions on the fly if they are deemed necessary, I think that's great. I think there's very little risk here to the city or to anybody. It's a wonderful opportunity to try it out, see how it works. It can be adjusted. It can be called quits if it's not working. Other people have spoken more articulately than I have, but I really hope you will consider this. I think it's a great addition to our city. Thanks.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much.

[SPEAKER_30]: All right, I can see you guys are falling asleep, so I'll try to talk quickly.

[Fred Dello Russo]: State your name and address for the record.

[SPEAKER_30]: Sarah Pilcher, 41 Winchester Street. I am pro for the dog park. I'd also be for the dog park not having a fence. If it has to have a fence, then it has to have a fence. I would like to bring up the area that you said has a hole in it is actually outside of the proposed fenced area. So that wouldn't be a problem. Another thing I heard people talk about is kids that are scared to come to the field. There are lots of kids that come over and say hello all the time to the dogs. I know more people in this neighborhood who are scared of leash dogs that bark and try to bite them and lunge at them. You know, we're expecting our first child. We want to raise a child in this community. And I guess I'd really just like to say how much this would mean to everybody. I mean, the dogs are going to continue to be off leash there. So I think we should try to work together and figure something out. Thanks.

[SPEAKER_04]: Sorry, one more. My name is Courtney Knights. No relation. I haven't asked you, don't. 60 Morton Ave. I have been going to the park for several years, for five years. I have a little French bulldog. Her name's Coco. She's my life. I and my fellow neighbors have been using the small area in the back, which we were talking about tonight, as a dog park with no reported issues or incidents, we all pick up after ourselves. If my dog's pooping, somebody else is picking it up. That dog's pooping, I'm picking it up. We take care of each other. The unofficial small section of the rear has brought fine qualities. I've met neighbors that I wouldn't normally have befriended. It has become a pleasant social experience for all of us. Our dogs love it. I'm not a fan of the fence because I do feel that they do feel like they're closed in when they have a fence, but if that's what it takes, then by all means, give us the fence. I really hope you guys would take this time to really consider it and not push it on to somebody else to make the decision for us. Thank you, have a good night.

[Fred Dello Russo]: There's a motion on the floor that this matter be sent to the Parks Commission. Chair recognizes Councilor Marks. I'm sorry? Councilor Marks was first in queue. You're all set? Chair recognizes Vice President Legault-Kern.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. I'm President Dello Russo, and I appreciate everybody coming and speaking, whether you're for or against it. It's good to see what the community wants. In this case, not everybody's in unison, so that makes it tougher for us. But this is something that I would definitely want to look into further and explore. I've had calls also from the car park area where people are unleashing their dogs, and there are good, responsible dog owners that want a space up in that area, too. I can see this definitely possibly expanding if we can do it the right way. Some of the concerns I would have is I would definitely want to see a fence. As a personal injury attorney, I have seen dog bite cases myself, as City Solicitor has mentioned. So I think the fence, although I understand the argument, is necessary. I also think that we've had, I think, five or six direct abutters. two or three are in favor and two and three are opposed. I think it's extremely important, I think, for transparency reasons to have notified all, you know, before we actually take a specific vote, I think we should have to notify everybody that is a direct abutter and just see if there are any other people that are for or against it. I think we need to look into the lighting and the St. Clements school issue. and we need to know what the park board would do. So maybe within the next month, we can get some of those answers. And I think probably a good thing to do is to start this in September, even if we have to push the pilot program, possibly another month to September to February, maybe a good time to do that would be when the park is less full with children, just to get it off the ground, whether that be September, October until January, February. But I do think that we do need to create more than just one official dog park in the city. And I think this quite possibly could be the way to do it. We just need to do it the right way and make sure all our questions are answered and cross all the T's and dot all the I's and make sure we inform the neighborhood in full what's going on and make sure everybody is aware. Because from what I understand, not many people knew about this ordinance you have a specific interest for or against it, and I think that's important. Notification, we discussed it at our last meeting, notifying people with regards to hearings before the Board of Appeals. It's just extremely important to make sure that the community knows what's going on and can have a say, whether that's for or against. So those are just my opinions, and I'm glad I got to hear. I've spoken to people about this before tonight, for and against, and I'm glad I got to hear more comments from the public.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Madam Vice President.

[Richard Caraviello]: Chair recognizes Councilor Cavanagh. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't want people to think that we're fluffing this off. We were given this on Friday. So again, Councilor Malauulu was right. If you want to do it, you do it correctly. You make sure you have all the answers. Again, it's from Friday afternoon, we all work. And to today, it was only a few days that we've had to digest changing an ordinance for the whole city of Medford. So please don't think that we're to fluff off. But I say there are questions that need to be answered and ramifications that we need to answer. And I would like to amend my motion that the abutters be notified of the park meeting for the date that they have it so they are aware of it. Because again, I've spoken to the same people. There are some in favor, there are some that aren't. I'd say I'm a dog owner myself and I understand the needs. But again, please don't assume that this isn't being fluffed off. Four days to adopt an ordinance is not really enough time for us to really do our job and to represent the people of the community correctly. I hope you understand that. It's not a fluff off. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the motion of Councilor Caraviello that the matter be sent to the Park Commission as amended, that there be a proper notification of all bodies to the proposed areas. Chair recognizes Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. And I certainly concur with both Councilor Longo and Councilor Caraviello. I think this needs to be looked at. I think that we can reach a compromise or a balance. And I would certainly support sending the matter to the Parks Board. However, I'd like to have a joint public hearing with the Council and the Parks Board on the topic. If, in fact, there are two ordinances that need to be changed and we change one and they don't, then it's moved. If we don't change it, they can't move forward and change theirs. It is moved. So I think that the best course would be to put everybody in a room together, sit down and have a joint public hearing where people can come up and express their concerns. The President. Public meeting? Mr. Zients. A public meeting or a public hearing where people can express their opposition or support of the initiative and why. And then we can sit down and, you know, we can deliberate as our individual bodies as to what our concerns are and then make some recommendations back and forth and maybe come up with a medium, a happy ground.

[Mark Rumley]: That would be a public meeting upon which positive, negative, or other comments are received. But you have to be careful not to use the word hearing if it's not a hearing under a regulation, ordinance, or statute, because that's a different kettle of fish entirely. So it would be a meeting, a joint meeting of two governmental bodies for a particular purpose, which is noticed under the open meeting law.

[Adam Knight]: So that's what I would like to propose, Mr. President, by way of an amendment to the councilor's referral to the Parks Commission. I think it's a great idea to send it to the Parks Board. Certainly, that's something that I was going to vote in favor of. I just think that we do have a lot of questions and a lot of concerns, and we want to bring the neighbors and the butters in. Let's do it all together and all at once.

[Fred Dello Russo]: As amended by Councilor Knight, chair recognizes Councilor Marksx.

[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And not to belabor the point, uh, section six dash 54, uh, which in my opinion is probably one of the most important parts of this ordinance is the review by the department heads, uh, does not have a timeframe. So it says, uh, all these particular departments show me to discuss, uh, the phases of the off leash dog pilot program, uh, talk about something that could last forever. Uh, you know, we, we would need to put a timeframe if, if the administration serious about this, Uh, I would say that they should come back with a recommendation by a certain date and not leave it open ended. The second point I have is, uh, you know, I'm probably even more confused now than it was when this first started. I was under the impression this was a pilot program because we were introducing something that's never happened in the city before. And that was allowing dogs to run off leash without being fenced in. And that is a major change in this community. Now I'm hearing the proposal had, from the start, fencing, so the area would be fenced in, which in my opinion, whether you wanna call it a dog park or not, is a dog park. I don't know why we need a program to implement a dog park. Why do we need a pilot program? What is the chief, what is the dog officer gonna tell me that I already don't know about a dog park? I know a dog park will be successful. I know this will work in our community. I know there's a need. Now the off-leash rail fencing, I agree that that may deserve a warrant, a larger discussion. But to me, in my opinion, I'd rather see come forward with a proposal and say, these have to due diligence. These are the five locations strategically placed around the city that we're going to have a pop-up dog park, we're going to put fencing up, and we're going to provide these conditions, and we're going to provide this. And this way, it'll be located in every section of the community. Why are we starting off with a pilot program? It doesn't make any sense. If it's a fenced-in area, why are we starting off with a pilot program? Really, I'm more confused now than I was before.

[Mark Rumley]: Well, maybe I can help you with your confusion. Because there are two ordinances that prohibit dogs being unleashed in the city of Medford. I understand that. I understand that. No, no, no. Let's address the questions that you've raised. Therefore, in order to do this and to have it compatible with our regulatory scheme, which we call ordinances, what we would be doing for a particular period of time, whenever that would begin, is to waive that requirement in this area. That's why a pilot program would be prudent in this instance. That's your opinion. No, it's also the Lord's common sense. No, it's not common sense. It's your opinion. No, it's not an opinion. Opinion is like supposition. What I'm telling you is that this is necessary in order to get around the prohibitions which are presently in our ordinance in two places.

[Michael Marks]: Well, we heard from residents that when they met with the mayor said absolutely they don't want fencing at all. So that was the mayor's opinion to put fencing around this and that's her prerogative with the legislative body. I don't see a need for a pilot program in this circumstance. I don't see a need for it. We're not creating the wheel here. We know what a dog pile, they're in every community, you heard around the, they're in every community. This isn't something new that the city of Medford just designed. We don't need to sit back and review it for four months. That's ridiculous. That's your opinion. Right, and I was elected to give my opinion. Yes, and I was appointed to give mine. I was elected to give my opinion. Solicitors give opinions. Mr. Solicitor, you wrote it, we don't need you to back it now. You wrote it, we don't need you to back it. If the mayor wanted to back it, she'd find her way up here as the newly elected mayor of the city. The mayor is represented through her department heads here tonight. I appreciate that you're up here, but I'm not here to debate an ordinance with you, because I don't know when you were elected. As far as I'm concerned, you are elected. No, I was appointed. Oh, right. So I'm not here to debate this with you.

[SPEAKER_16]: That's the date.

[Michael Marks]: I'm giving my opinion as elected official why I don't think a pilot program is necessary, especially a pilot program that talks about a fenced-in area, in my opinion, which is a dog park. which still would require relief from ordinances. And we know that. You keep on stating the obvious. I understand that. Sometimes stating the obvious is necessary because it doesn't get through. Well, thank you very much. We know you're here to do the mayor's bidding, and I think you're all done right now. So I'm not here to discuss this with you. Thank you very much.

[Mark Rumley]: All evidence to the contrary.

[Michael Marks]: I'm not here to discuss this with you. Thank you. I'm giving my opinion. And I don't need you to come up and fight me on my own opinion. I'm not fighting you. I'm giving you facts. That's fine. You gave me the facts, and I realize which sections have to be amended. What I'm saying is, we don't have to do this by way of a pilot program. That's what I'm saying. We don't have to do this. And you've heard from residents here. They don't want to belabor this any longer than it has to be. And creating a pilot program for four months, to me, is skirting the issue. It's skirting the issue. I'm prepared tonight if we want to send a response to the park department to have them look at other parks in the community and not just make it this four month, uh, uh, pilot program. Uh, in my opinion, that doesn't have a timeframe for review. And, uh, as many of the conditions are in here, uh, although they, they may seem warranted, uh, a suspect in nature, because at any time the dog officer could come up and say, Geez, your dog barked, in my opinion, excessively. You're not welcome back here anymore. And then you, as a dog owner, say, oh my God, what do you mean? This is my life. What am I? This needs to be thought out in a better way. That's all I'm saying. And in my opinion, Mr. President, creating a four-month temporary park in this community that doesn't call for any type of review or timeframe for a review is not the way to go in this.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. But then what do you propose to us in relation to the motion that's already on?

[Michael Marks]: Well, I think we have to put something together because the mayor had months and months to propose this. And I think we have to put a thoughtful proposal out that includes the entire city and not just one little section for four months and then say, Oh, we've arrived at what, how we think we're going to go. You know, if the mayor really wanted to put someone forward, there's been a pause committee created for two years of activists in this community, and no one's putting down these other residents from Tufts area, and not one of the activists that put together this pause committee and have done yeoman's work in finding private funding wherever contracted, contacted or said, Hey, would you like to participate? Do you have any thoughts? We know you worked on this for two years. What are your thoughts? So this was a quick knee jerk reaction to please some residents. Uh, you know, and in my opinion, this, this is not the way to go. And I think you've seen it from the council. This is not the way to go. Let's go back to the mayor. Let's get your 90 group strong. And that's go wait in the mayor's door and say, Madam Mayor, we want something that makes sense in this community. Because ultimately we're going to need funding from the mayor. We can approve everything we want. The funding comes from initiated by the mayor's office. So whatever it might take to create these parks throughout the city, even if it's just fencing or whatever it might be, some lighting, it's going to have to be an appropriation by the mayor's office. So I'd rather go with the paper in hand and say, we want five parks after our work and our due diligence. throughout the community, we want them fenced in, this is the way we want it, and this is the way it's going to work, rather than do a four-month approach. Because you're going to be back here in January saying, where are we? You're going to be back here in February saying, where are we? I'm telling you what's going to happen. This is going to happen. You're going to be back, and all of a sudden, January 1st, you can't bring your dog there, because they're going to start enforcing it. And they're going to say, well, these committees are getting together, and they're going to discuss this, and we'll see what's happening. Let's do it now. Let's do it now. Let's get this out of the way. Mr. President, I think that's what we need to do then. And if it calls for — I know in the summer we don't — we only meet once in July and once in August. If it calls for an emergency meeting, I think this is an important issue. And we should get together, the Committee of the Whole meeting, invite the Park Commission, and discuss the potential park sites, and discuss a full-fledged dog park program throughout our community. We don't have to take baby steps. All you have to do is look at Brookline and look at these other communities. Somerville as council Scarpelli mentioned that are doing it right now and as successful doing it, we don't need a pilot program. What do we create? It's a dog park. So that would be my recommendation. Mr. Mr. Mr. President.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of council Caraviello as amended by council Caraviello and councilor night,

[George Scarpelli]: Chair recognizes Councilor Scarpelli. Just a quick question. Part of that meeting just wanted to see, through the park board, what permits would be affected in the children's programs. Obviously it doesn't look, and St. Clement's, it doesn't look like the way that it's set up, it really is going to affect any program, but we want to see, I know that last year's talk was when I met with U Soccer, they were thinking of using that area as a rotating system for their U12, U10 soccer. So if that's not going to be the case anymore, we, we need to make sure that they're informed and, um, and, and this is vetted. I think this is, this is the biggest, the bigger issue. I don't think anybody here doesn't want to see, uh, growth and movement to what other communities are having. I don't think that that's the question I think, or the question that the community policing of the Tufts organization is an issue, but when you talk about a pilot program, which is what it's called right now, you're opening it up for everybody. And it might not be, you know, when you open up that type of area, you're gonna have people that might not want the same, or have the same philosophy or opinion that you have already established there. So these are issues that I like to see the idea of moving it in different parts of the neighborhoods and different areas. I don't see that being an issue, but I do think that doing it, you know, through the proper steps. I think that's the most important. So, um, yeah, making sure, I think there's going to be a key mending it that the tax department updates us with whose permit, who, what, what affected permits. Um, no, not just, I think moving forward too, because I, you know, ultimately I think that this program, I have no doubt that it'll be successful. if it's, if it moved through that, what effect will we have throughout the total year? You know, even if it's not looked at as a pilot program, it's implemented as a full program. How would it affect our programming for our children year round?

[Fred Dello Russo]: So in the parks. Thank you. Thank you. So on motion of council Caraviello as amended by council Caraviello, councilor Knight and councilor Scarpelli chair recognizes Councilor Marks.

[Michael Marks]: if we're going to send this to the park commission, I agree with a joint meeting. I think that's a great suggestion having a joint meeting. I think it was councilor night that brought that up. Um, but why not ask the experts, the park commission, what are the parks out of the 22 or 23 parks we have throughout this entire city? What are the parks baby suitable for a pop up dog park? Why not ask that question? And they may come back and say, we can cover each north method, south method, west method, the hillside, Salt, you know, we can, Haines Square, we can cover each section of the city by one or two parks in some of the neighborhoods. And to me, that'll go a long way to making a recommendation back to the mayor saying, Madam Mayor, I know you're looking at a four month pilot program and putting a fence at Tufts Park, but we're looking at possibly doing this at five other parks throughout the community. And if she wants to call a pilot program, fine. But that's expanded. There's no reason why this shouldn't be expanded. There's no reason why we have to take a look back and say, you know, let's see how it goes. It's a dog park. That's all it is. And now it's fenced in. Before, it wasn't fenced in. To me, that's somewhat more controversial, and I appreciate the residents that don't want it. I can see that claim. But it's a far easier sell having a fenced-in area. And I'll be done in a minute, Mr. President. it's, it's, it's a far easier sell to have a fenced in area. And also to say, that's not just do it for four months in one area. Let's do it throughout the city. So that would be my recommendation. The joint meeting, I don't know if councilor Knight's still off of that. Is that part of the, that's part of it. And that the park commission come up with alternate sites so that each and every section of the neighborhood is covered with the dog park. and have them make recommendations to us. And it's not going to happen overnight, but we can move forward on this. You've been in the city a year and a half. Let me tell you, things don't happen overnight in this city. You figure that out. So, uh, in a pilot program, a pilot program, you might as well just write it off on the motion of council.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Caraviello has amended all those in favor roll call vote, Mr. President.

[John Falco]: I'll make it quick. Um, if we could, uh, also just amend the resolution to just get a report back from, uh, Mike Nestor with regard to parks and park maintenance and just to see what the impact will be as far as, uh, his concerns.

[Fred Dello Russo]: As amended by council Falco, all those in favor.

[Michael Marks]: And I don't want to put the dog officer on the spot, but, uh, in looking through some of the city ordinances, There's a section in here that requires the dog officer to provide quarterly reports, October, 1st, January, April, and July. Has that ever been done? So there's a section in here of our ordinances, 6-42, quarterly reports by dog officer. And it's section A and B. And the section B also states that the dog officer shall meet with the city clerk to get a census on how many dogs there are in the community. I'm not sure how you would do that, but there's also a requirement under city ordinance. And section eight states that you should provide a quality report on the number of complaints, number of dog bites in the community. So you may want to take, take a peek at that too. That may be helpful. It's done monthly now. So you are, so you are doing reporting. Okay. And what type of reports? Okay.

[Fred Dello Russo]: So, so, okay. So you're doing a monthly. Okay. Thank you. On the motion as amended. All those in favor. All those opposed.

[Michael Marks]: Roll call was requested. Mr. President. Roll call was requested.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Vice-President O'Kerr? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Dello Russo?

[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. 16-604. Honorable members of the Metro City Council, from Mayor Stephanie M. Burke, Amendment to Chapter 14 of the revised ordinances of the City of Medford entitled Mobile Food Truck Ordinance. Dear President De La Ruzo and honorable members of the Medford City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following amendment to Chapter 14 of the revised ordinances of the City of Medford entitled Mobile Food Truck Ordinance. This amendment will allow the City to license food trucks in the City of Medford with appropriate safeguards for public safety, neighborhoods, and also existing businesses. An ordinance of this nature is overdue as various public gatherings, community and charitable events become more commonplace and varied in our city. Given that this council may want to have the comfort of additional time to review this amendment and to offer possible changes or additions, this paper may possibly be referred to a council subcommittee or committee of the whole meeting. If this occurs, it is my recommendation then to the council that the pilot program that has been permitted mobile food trucks to be at the farmer's market be extended to the following upcoming events while this ordinance is being considered. The events are Hoops of Hope, August 20th, Mystic River Celebration, September 24th, Harvest Your Energy Festival, October 1st, Medford Community Day, October 23rd, Medford Family Network, Condon Shell Concert, August 2, 9, and 16. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, signature on file, Stephanie M. Burke, Mayor. Do any of the councillors want me to read the entire ordinance?

[Unidentified]: Read the reading, Mr. President. Read the reading.

[Fred Dello Russo]: On that motion, Mr. Solicitor.

[Mark Rumley]: I'll be very brief. This ordinance is one which has been talked about in various incarnations over the course of the last four or five years. Food trucks you may see at the farmer's market when the farmer's market days are in back of city hall because that was an outgrowth of city council pilot program a few years back. This particular ordinance is not a pilot ordinance. It is a, an ordinance which would deal with mobile food trucks in the city of Medford in order to license, inspect them, et cetera. There is great discretion which is given here to the Director of the Board of Health in examining and making sure a prospective licensee for a food truck license is appropriate. And I'll just go through the ordinance quickly. 14-495 the purpose it's to regulate food trucks and then there's the definitional section under 496 which after going through the board and the director of the Board of Health talks about the food vendor license and a Mobile Food Vendor, a Mobile Food Vendor License, a One Day Mobile Food Vendor License, Mobile Food Vendor Licensee, which is the holder, and a Special Event Mobile Food Vendor License, which would be a license given for special events. Then there is the 497 section, which deals with the application, and the applications are applied, the applications are submitted to the Director of the Board of Health. Next, permit fees would be set for a mobile food vehicle by the Board of Health under Chapter 40, Section 22F. And then there are application requirements. And I'll skip through them quickly. And they're under 499. And they are a description of the business and the menu of every food item that'll be offered, proposed hours of operation, and a schedule of times and locations where the vendor will be stationary and serving food. In the case of vendors who will not conduct business at a set location, their proposed hours of operation and their route. A plan for the control and elimination of litter that complies with Board of Health regs. A description of cooking elements, including gas tank size and all heating elements and devices. A description of cooking, refrigeration, seating, and other equipment apparatus or furniture the vendor wishes to place outside the area of the truck. And a description of sanitary facilities, access to hand washing facilities, that would be available for the use of employees and also proof of lease or rental of a garage or commercial parking space. Proof also that the car, that the truck and it's that, that or car should be the, or car should be eliminated will be serviced by a mobile food commissary, which some are, or another method approved by the board. The existence of liability insurance, in an amount of not less than $1 million in a form approved by the city solicitor. And if the license is approved for use on city of Medford property, then there has to be approval given by the department under which the, who's under jurisdiction of the city of Medford and also appropriate saving language in an agreement with the law department dealing with liability and indemnification. Next, considering their application, The director shall consider public good, which comes down to these factors. One, impact on the community and residential neighborhood with regard to noise, traffic congestion, odors, sanitary or waste disposal facilities, dust and fumes. The impact on the neighborhood and whether any harm would follow from the granting of the license. The director should consider the public benefit that would flow from the proposed location and use and the competitive or other impact on existing restaurants. The licensee must operate at locations that are handicapped accessible as provided in 521 C.M.R. and the Americans with Disability Act. Prior to granting the license, the director shall seek advisory reports from the police, health, building, and fire. Applicants are subject to background check to determine their suitability under the National Criminal History Records check, CORI checks, and the Sex Offender Registry Board. All criminal background checks and the handling of the results will be in conformity with Massachusetts statute. Uh, the director may add, remove or reapportion the available location among the different vendors as he or she and their discretion, uh, deemed fit and proper giving the standards we've just met. Next operating requirements under section 500, no license shall be granted to operate on a public way within 200 feet of any school between the hours of 8 AM and 3 PM on days when school are open. This shall not include post-secondary schools or colleges. Measurement shall be taken from the boundary line of the lot on which the school rests. Licensees are not permitted to operate within 200 feet of a person or entity currently holding a common vitualist license, which would be a restaurateur in the city of Medford without written permission from that licensed victualist. Such permission shall not be required in instances where the licensee and the vitualist have common ownership.

[Michael Marks]: Point of information? I would just respectfully request that this paper be sent to the licensing commission, licensing subcommittee, where it could be duly vetted. This is a number of page ordinance. It's great that the mayor wants to support.

[Fred Dello Russo]: This isn't a point of information, Councilor. You're interjecting into the person's reading.

[Michael Marks]: Absolutely, it was a point of information. I just gave information that I'd like to send this to the licensing subcommittee. Thank you.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor. That's not a point of information. The gentleman, I gave the gentleman the floor. A point of information is a statement of a salient fact pertinent to facts being discussed, Councilor. You know better than that.

[Michael Marks]: Councilor, please continue. You had the floor. Okay. So we've just finished that about two... That does that. That does that.

[Mark Rumley]: Yes.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Ends all debate.

[Mark Rumley]: Yeah, it ends all debate. Uh, and then it ends all debate on the paper.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Um, on the motion of Councilor, vice president Lungo-Koehn to return to the regular order of business. All those in favor, all those opposed. The motion passes. 16-605, petition by Joseph Viglione, 59 Garfield Avenue, Medford, to address the city council on free access TV from Medford and other cable TV matters. Good evening.

[Joe Viglione]: Thank you, Council President. Please state your name and address for the record. Yes, sir. Thank you, Council President. My name is Joe Viglione, 59 Garfield Avenue. I'll be very brief. In Springfield, Massachusetts, major city, free access TV for the residents. In Pepperall, Mass., where they'll be playing my show now, good friend of mine lives up there, free access TV for him. So residents in these communities, in this evolving world of access, and it is evolving, they're getting free television. Now, since we've had no TV, and since the ratepayers have been paying into this for years and years and years, millions of dollars, I think it's only fair that our new mayor, consider free TV for everyone, because 80% of the monies go to the city hall, 60% to the general fund, 20% of the government channel to three salaries at the high school. That 20% that we're paying is just a fraction, and we're not getting much. So because we're paying millions, why not open the doors to residents, businesses, and civic groups in Medford, free access television for them? This is a key issue. I thank the city council for hearing this very brief speech because, as you know, we're going to have an access station at the high school. So we have to make it accessible. And part of accessibility is making it feel free. People have already paid for it. Let's not double hit them. Let's give them free TV. Thank you very much.

[John Falco]: take a paper from the table.

[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Falco to suspend the rules to take a paper from the table. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. What paper would you like off the table, Councilor? 16-534. On the motion of Councilor Falco to take 16-534, Authorized City of Medford Community Electricity Aggregation. The matter is before us, Councilor.

[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, we had talked about this, uh, previously in, um, the subcommittee meeting and it came up, uh, before us in our regular meeting, uh, back, I think it was in the month of June, uh, maybe May. And I know, uh, this is an issue where I think time is of the essence. Um, and, uh, so I think it's something that we should, uh, move on and act upon, uh, as a council tonight.

[Fred Dello Russo]: So was there a motion?

[John Falco]: I'd like to make a motion to approve.

[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval of, uh, the, uh, to authorize the city of Medford to enter into community electricity aggregation offered by Councilor Falco. Motion for approval. All those in favor. Councilor Marks.

[Michael Marks]: I'm not sure. Maybe the gentlemen can state the reason we took up this issue. Uh, not too long ago, uh, I think a month, month and a half ago. And if maybe the gentleman can state his reasoning why he's asking for approval tonight, where there seemed to be a lot of opposition, uh, uh, regarding this particular.

[Fred Dello Russo]: If the chair recalls correctly, the, uh, opposition was just, uh, uh, the desire for people to examine the, uh, uh, matter in greater detail and to have the luxury to do that. It was before the council on June 7th is now July. 19th council.

[John Falco]: That's basically, I mean, it was, it was basically tabled. Um, I know I, I was prepared to vote that night, but it was tabled. I think to give everyone an opportunity to look into it further. Um, it's, uh, it's, it's been over a month now. Um, I think, you know, if we vote for it or against it, you know, that, that's what we get paid to do to make votes. And, um, you know, I, I know I'm prepared to vote for it tonight. Um, I know, uh, Alicia hunts here. She could probably answer if there are any unanswered questions, but I think it's something that we need to move upon.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor. Do any of the Councilors have any questions for the Director of Energy and Environment?

[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. Alicia, again, only 300 people responded to your thing. We've got 17,000 households in the city of Medved.

[Alicia Hunt]: So we put out a survey to the residents of Medford as city council requested.

[SPEAKER_28]: It was online.

[Alicia Hunt]: It was in the newspaper. Again, it was around and 80% of the people who responded to the survey said they were in favor of it.

[Richard Caraviello]: 200 people responded out of 17, 17,000 homes.

[Alicia Hunt]: You know, I am sorry that more people, this is what I mean.

[Richard Caraviello]: People, people aren't going to know they have this until they have it. And then when it goes wrong, it's going to come back to this party. It should have a public hearing if you want. This is where you want to go, have a public hearing, get some people down here. But again, 200 people responded, and they said, like I said, when it goes bad, it goes bad.

[Alicia Hunt]: I can't interrupt you, but at the same time, if we got people down here, we would never get more than 15 or 20 people pro or con. We got almost 240 people to voice their opinion online. You are, I'm so sorry, but it's very late. And the idea that 10 people at the podium are more persuasive than 200 people online.

[Richard Caraviello]: 17,000 houses in the city. Again, people aren't gonna know they have this. Is the city gonna take responsibility if the rate goes up?

[Alicia Hunt]: That's the answer. The way the process works is that when there's a plan in place.

[Richard Caraviello]: And does this company have the funding The backup, the contracts. Right.

[Alicia Hunt]: When there's a plan in place, then there would be a public hearing on the plan. But to ask people to come to a public hearing on no plan is difficult to do, and frankly, is not something that any of the other 80 communities that are involved in aggregation have done. They have a consultant prepare a plan, and then it's a coherent plan that they ask the community to comment on. that's what we would ask the community to comment on. Nothing would actually go into effect without a public hearing, but I can't ask people to come to a public hearing on an idea. They have to have a plan to discuss.

[Richard Caraviello]: I can't support this with, with, with, um, I'm telling people what to do. Sorry. Thank you. So we have a motion for approval on the floor.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Um, Mr. Clerk, I think it would be a majority vote. Yes. Yes. Yes. Chair recognizes Vice President Lungo-Koehn.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: This is a tough one. I just want to back up Councilor Caraviello a little bit. I think it's great that a number of people, a lot of the comments, because I have it right here on my phone, more renewable energy. You see that a lot, but every third comment has a question, and I think that's where public hearing would be beneficial, because then you could even say, you know, whether we're here or not, I'm sure some of us would try to go. 10 people showed up, then we would know we had a survey, we had a public hearing, we've had two council meetings on it, next one's gonna be three, and it would give us more to go on. And then when people did complain, we could say there was a public hearing, maybe even something that's sent out in the tax bills to let people know this is a possibility, the city council is exploring this, it's something that is gonna lock you in unless you make an effort to opt out of this program, and then if you have any questions, this is where you direct your questions to. I have a feeling this is going to also, if something goes wrong with this, it's going to backfire on us 100%, and that's what makes me nervous. But would it be something that I would want my, I know Councilor Scarpelli has it in his home. Would it be something that I probably would do with my family? I've actually got calls to my office, and I have been thinking about it for my business, but it's just, putting it on us to mandate and make, you know, have every household involved with this is risky. I think there is a risk involved, and I think you said that to us last meeting. It is a 100 percent savings guarantee, and that's where I find that it is, you know, not as risky as the stock market, but this is risky. And to have the taxpayers' energy bills on our backs is a whole other burden that I'm not ready for without a public hearing.

[Alicia Hunt]: So there would not be an implementation without a public hearing that is a required part of the process. you couldn't do that. So that would have to occur in order for the implementation to actually occur.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And then when it would come back to the council for a vote, you'd still only need a 4-3 vote to pass it through?

[Alicia Hunt]: I don't know under what situations you need more than a 4-3 vote. That's why at any point, yeah. What's the question? She asked if, um, if so, after the public hearing, it would come back to the city council for, for approval of the plan. That would again, need a four, three vote.

[Mark Rumley]: Unless legislation or ordinance calls for a two thirds vote. It's always four, three. That's that's, that's the general statement of law.

[Unidentified]: Okay.

[Mark Rumley]: Sorry.

[Fred Dello Russo]: I just have motion for approval on the floor.

[SPEAKER_13]: Mr. President.

[Michael Marks]: Councilor. I'm kind of amazed that it's such an important issue, uh, that affects each and every resident of this community is brought up under suspension. Uh, Mr. President, in the middle of the summer, I'm really, I really point of information council night.

[Adam Knight]: The matter was tabled on January 7th, and the councillor moved to bring the matter off the table. So it wasn't like it's filed under suspension. I understand where you're coming from, councillor. I mean, it's 11 o'clock at night, and it's an issue that's going to affect 17,000 households in the community.

[Unidentified]: Right, right.

[Adam Knight]: But in terms of, you know what I mean, it wasn't like he filed a paper under suspension and waited until the bail indoctrinates to pull it out.

[Michael Marks]: It was on the agenda. It wasn't filed under suspension, but as you stated, you know, this is a real controversial issue that impacts a lot of people in this community. And whether you like green energy or not, You have to opt out of certain things. So, you know, this could end up costing people more money, depending on how much green energy you want and so forth. And, you know, this is not a quick fix by any stretch. As was mentioned, there's 80 communities out of 360 whatever-odd communities in Massachusetts. So, you know, this isn't the panacea of saving money that everyone talks about.

[Alicia Hunt]: I'm sorry.

[Michael Marks]: Go ahead, go ahead.

[Alicia Hunt]: We would be presented with the plan. The plan would absolutely involve paper mailings to every single household. It would absolutely involve, but we can't, like, I don't have a plan until you give me permission to make one, but there's no idea that a plan wouldn't involve a paper mailing to every household, as well as articles in the newspapers. because we have the robocall system. We could certainly, I mean, I would recommend that we would include it on there because that's, we have that here. So what the next step would be to actually prepare an outreach plan for the residents. I can't give you an outreach plan until you give me permission to create one, but that's actually the step that we're asking permission for is to start that plan.

[Michael Marks]: And if this was voluntary, I would be on board 110%. But I'm not going to impose on anyone in this community who they're going to buy their electricity through. It's not my role. So I appreciate you pushing for it. Same, you know, it's... All set?

[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caffiello. No, the company you were going to use is Good Energy, correct?

[Alicia Hunt]: Yes.

[Richard Caraviello]: I mean, have we vetted their company? Do they have the financing to back up their contracts?

[Alicia Hunt]: So they're a consulting firm, and so they would go out and do the solicitation.

[Richard Caraviello]: But you have to make sure, because I sought expert advice on this, and you have to make sure that you go to a company that has the money and the finances to back up the contracts. Other companies have had problems in the past where they didn't have enough money to back up the contract.

[Alicia Hunt]: Of course you would. They were been thoroughly vetted, not actually just by myself, but by a committee of my peers through the Regional Metropolitan Area Planning Council. So by more than just, I mean, I am just one person in the city, but they actually brought together a committee of my peers from other communities as well, who also reviewed the materials that Good Energy submitted to MAPC. So it was actually a broader vetting process than we could do on our own.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President.

[George Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli. My quick question was, I know that we brought it up, we talked about some of our buildings already are using, and I don't know if we asked for or we got any information back that showed savings with the municipal buildings that already have this implemented. Do we have that?

[Alicia Hunt]: I haven't actually run those numbers, but we certainly could. I know that since we have entered into contract for our electricity, the last two, three years, our rate has been lower than the national grid rate has been. So I know there's been savings every year, but I haven't actually run the numbers to say what the totals are.

[George Scarpelli]: Again, like I said, I'm all for the opportunity because I did it myself and we found a company and we're saving money. But again, that's still my only question is, you know, the process for everybody getting the word out. So it's a fine line.

[Alicia Hunt]: So you may know that some companies are good and respectable and some are not. And there are people going around knocking on the doors of our very vulnerable residents and switching them without their desire to some more disreputable companies. And there are also people who are not aware of this at all, and they are the ones who need this the most, who don't have the time to pay attention, to look into it, to do their own research, and they're the ones who would most benefit from this. And those are the people who we could help by doing this, because they'll say, oh, if the city did it for me, I can trust it. You know, not everybody trusts the city. But there are a lot of people who actually do. When the city seal is on something, they say, well, then it must be worthwhile. Somebody else has done the research for me. There are a lot of people like that. So this is actually going to help those people on fixed income, the elderly, the people who don't speak English as a primary language. Those are the people who couldn't do that research that you're able to do on your own. And so this will benefit that population the most.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Councilor? We have a motion on the floor for approval. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello? No. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Layton? No. Vice-President Levin-Kern? Councilor Marks? No. Councilor Scarpelli? No. President De La Rosa?

[Fred Dello Russo]: No. With the vote of one in the affirmative, six in the negative, the matter fails. Thank you. On motion of Councilor Knight to take 16-546 off the table. Revised Chapter 66 Ordinance Non-Union Officers and Employees This was for the assistant city solicitors pay increase which required an ordinance adjustment. It was voted affirmatively before the council on June 14th. It was advertised for a second reading June 30th and now on July 19th is eligible for a final reading. Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. This item was an item that came up during our budget deliberations. It was a wage equality issue. We took a look at what the assistant city solicitor was making and compared that to other communities and recognized that she was making a significantly less amount of money in an effort to bring parity to the position. The mayor had presented an ordinance change reclassifying the position. The council supported it at its first reading. It was duly advertised in the Medford transcript and today it's eligible for its third reading. I'd move for approval, Mr. President.

[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval by Councilor Knight, Councilor Lungo-Koehn is abstaining for reasons that she disclosed to us at a previous meeting. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Falco?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Clerk]: Councilor Knight? Yes. Vice President Lara Kern?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Clerk]: Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Schapelle? Yes. President Dello Russo?

[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes, with a vote of six in the affirmative, one abstention. There's no reconsideration. I haven't called the vote. Your vote, Madam Vice President, is abstention or present. with the vote of six in the affirmative, one present or abstaining. The motion passes and is ordained. While we're under suspension, we have one more item here, 16-606 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council discuss and vote on moving the bus stop on Main Street to Riverside Avenue. Councilor Caraviello, which bus stop is that?

[Richard Caraviello]: It's the bus stop in front of one of our favorite restaurant there. Um, we, we, we, we've discussed it. We've gone on and on. Uh, it's time to make a vote, move the bus stop and let the, uh, T's come down.

[Fred Dello Russo]: They haven't given us a decision on the motion of the council of Caffiello to move the bus stop to Riverside Avenue.

[Richard Caraviello]: Let's just vote. And, uh, chair recognizes the authority to vote and move the bus stop as, as, as the chairperson.

[George Scarpelli]: I, I, I feel the frustration, but we're waiting on the study back from the T that affected a bunch of people that have contacted us to see where that would fall. So believe me, I feel the frustration. I've talked to the restaurant owner this evening and I just want to make sure that what we talked with my word with the people that have contacted me that this would be something that would be discussed with them and moving forward. So, you know,

[Fred Dello Russo]: I can't hear you, Councilor. The tea is dragging their feet, Mr. President. So the motion before us is for approval. Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, the matter has been discussed and deliberated at the subcommittee level. Councilor Scarpelli's put a lot of work, a lot of time, a lot of effort into this. I respect his wishes and I think that if he has given his word to certain individuals and certain aspects of this matter would be vetted and looked at appropriately that we should allow that opportunity. Um, that coupled with the fact that the disability community has still expressed, uh, quite a bit of interest in maintaining this bus stop at this current position. And the council really hasn't had a meeting, a hearing or anything else with the individuals that would be affected thereof. I think that it's a little bit premature enough for us to take this vote. And as such, I'd be voting in the negative.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. So on the motion for approval by council, Caraviello chair recognizes Councilor Marks.

[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. As someone that sits on the committee, I appreciate the work that council Scarpelli has done on this. It's not an easy answer. It sounds, easy to say move a bus stop, but it's not an easy answer. However, at what point do we have to take into consideration the business owner? And I think we have a business owner over there that's been dealt a lousy hand with the construction of the Craddock Bridge and also coupled with the bus stop. And I think he's asking for some relief. And at what point do we take into consideration the business owner in the community? And I think that's all that Councilor Caraviello is looking at. And I know Councilor Scarpelli is too. We're all concerned, but waiting for a report back from the T, your study, I don't have any faith in that. I really don't. Do they give you any idea when it may happen?

[George Scarpelli]: I mean, I... I'll be honest, I'm a little disappointed that I found out about this tonight from my fellow council members.

[SPEAKER_13]: I'll make that statement, but I will tell you that

[George Scarpelli]: I know the person personally, and I understand the trials and tribulations he's gone through. This isn't just the T stepping on and kicking him around. This is everybody. So I'm put in a pretty bad position and pretty disappointed in that. But I will tell you, I cannot vote for it because I also gave other people my word that I would vet through this process now as a newer Councilor. And understanding what the T's done, not happy with it. But not only the T, but our public utilities, very disappointed. But I will tell you, I cannot vote for it because of the fact that I have to stand by my word that I've talked to people that had concerns about moving this. And until that process is complete, again, I will contact a state representative because it seems it moves quicker when a state representative said Donato's involved. So maybe that can help us move.

[Richard Caraviello]: I spoke to the state representative said it's, well, she told me that it's on, it's on us. I mean, let's say if you want to, we'll wait till the next meeting again. Again, we keep waiting, waiting, waiting. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor. I'll, I'll reset my motion.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, you, I'll reset my motion. And so is there a subsequent motion? Madam vice president.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I see everybody's frustrations that a number of the businesses are calling all of us, and we're also getting it from Diane McLeod, who's our disability director. Why don't we give it one more month until our next meeting? We'll try to get answers from the Disability Commission, see if we can set up a public hearing process during our next meeting, and we'll also try to get in contact with the T and Representative Donato and try to work it out, and then once and for all take a vote on it. because people are frustrated on many levels in many areas.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: I think we can also take the opportunity to reach out to Mr. Fielding who's been assigned and I'm sure that you've had multiple conversations with him as well, and I'm sure that the response that they've been giving is, well, move it to wherever you want, just tell us where you want to put it. But that doesn't necessarily guarantee that the bus is going to stop where you put the new stop either. So I think that there are a little bit more.

[Fred Dello Russo]: And we can't move a bus stop if it involves changing the route of a bus. That is outside of our purview. So there are some other moving parts. And I would ask that the city solicitor, because people have been throwing around the word loosely again, that the city solicitor explain to this body Again, while he's here at this late hour, what the ramifications of calling something a public hearing is?

[Mark Rumley]: I think everybody knows what a public hearing is, a hearing on an issue. It's statutory or it's under a regulation or an ordinance which requires advertisement. And then people come and they say yay or nay their positions, whatever they are. public hearings always take place in the context of a public meeting. They're at a public meeting, but yet they're a public hearing, but you can have a meeting without a public hearing as you did tonight. There was no hearing tonight on any particular issue. It would seem like it because people would come up and be on both sides of the issue on the dog, dog ordinance, but that really wasn't a hearing. That was a meeting in which you receive both positive and negative input. A hearing is a specific animal. So for example, Vice President Lungo Curran talked about notifying people within a certain area, which is a nice thing to do in addition to what you normally have to do. But that's required in the zoning issue under the statute. But it's not required for a meeting. But you might have an issue now and then that you want to have direct contact with people, as you might with the dogs. So then you'd say, well, let's give notice to the people in this area. But that's still a meeting, not a hearing. Was I confusing enough?

[Fred Dello Russo]: You were perfect. Thank you. So council, you've, uh, you've withdrawn your motion. Motion is withdrawn. Now the tabled records of the meeting of June 14th, 2016. Yes, madam vice president. Um,

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: We requested, I'm not sure if anything was sent to Mr. Gliona with regards to coming before the council tonight and discussing his communications with the state delegation and Massport. Obviously not here tonight, but could we request that he come to the next meeting to discuss?

[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of clarification, Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: It's my understanding, I spoke with Mr. Glowner earlier last week, and it was my understanding he was gonna be on vacation, I believe, a family vacation this week, if I'm not mistaken.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, perfect, yeah, it's July, that's understandable, and that's fine. If we could just respectfully request that he come to the next city council meeting. As we all heard tonight, every five minutes, a plane was going over City Hall. I receive complaints on this repeatedly every day. It's getting worse. And again, like we said last meeting, make sure you're sending in your complaints and getting those letters back.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Councilor, the clerk has spoken to Mr. Galeano.

[Clerk]: Yes, Mr. Galeano could not make it for this particular meeting. Obviously, he said he would be happy to come if notified to the next meeting, but he suggested possibly to wait afterwards because he does have the meeting with Massport in first week of September. You know what I mean? So to come after this, you know, that meeting to give, you know, give some better answers or whatever, you know, so.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: We could make a resolution then to request that Mr. Galeona, attorney Galeona come to the first meeting in September after his meeting with Massport. That would be great.

[Fred Dello Russo]: The first convenient meeting for him, uh, the first committee convenient city council meeting for him. in September. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion carries. Tabled records of the meeting of June 14, 2016, will pass to Councilor Marks.

[Michael Marks]: Prior to that, Mr. President, I'd like to, on paper, 604. the, uh, revised ordinance, the city method entitled, uh, mobile food truck ordinance, which draw my motion, uh, section 22 motion, uh, to allow for the, uh, part of the paper, which allows for mobile food trucks on a temporary basis to be used at five different locations, which was part of the main ordinance. But, uh, this was a subsection of the ordinance. So, I would ask that we remove section 22, Mr. President, respectfully.

[Adam Knight]: Well, as the author of the motion, I think I have the authority to... I think he can withdraw because we didn't take a vote. He can withdraw 22. He can withdraw 22 because we didn't take a vote.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Okay, we're hereby withdrawing section 22 on the aforementioned paper before us.

[Michael Marks]: Paper 604.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Motion 22 has been withdrawn.

[Adam Knight]: Point of clarification, Mr. President, I have a question.

[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of clarification, Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: So it's my understanding by Councilor Marks withdrawing a section 22 motion that he is now moving to adopt the pilot provisions that are included in that resolution to expand to those five or six events that were going to be taking place this summer to allow for the mobile food trucks to service those events while we go back and do our homework.

[Michael Marks]: That was my oversight, yes, absolutely.

[Adam Knight]: I support that wholeheartedly, Mr. President, and I thank the councilor for his efforts in rescinding his vote, his motion.

[Mark Rumley]: On behalf of the administration, we also think that that's a very good idea, which will support these very important municipal celebrations.

[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Mark, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor?

[Adam Knight]: Aye.

[Fred Dello Russo]: All those opposed? Carries. So it's going to the licensing committee, but it's been adopted. But we remain on the table, right? It's allowing for the- Yeah, we didn't send it to the licensing.

[Michael Marks]: Send it to a committee. You sent it to licensing, right? That's originally what I wanted to do, but I don't think we formally said send it to the licensing committee. It's because I section 22 it.

[Fred Dello Russo]: But we're allowing for the exercise of this section to, um, temporary, temporary allotment for hoops and hope Mr. Griffith celebration harvest as it is presented to us.

[Adam Knight]: So the ordinance is not adopted. The pilot program is extended beyond the farmer's market to those other entities that were outlined in the cover letter by the mayor.

[Michael Marks]: Right. If you read her cover letter, she actually asked us to almost send it to subcommittee and pretty much approved. Right. Just to prove that.

[Fred Dello Russo]: So that's, that's, so what we're doing is we voted while at the same time allowing, um, a, uh, broader use of it. Uh, beyond the farmer's market to the five or six, seven allowed events. And that was voted on affirmatively by this body. records of June 14th, Council Marks.

[Michael Marks]: How do you find them?

[Fred Dello Russo]: Motion to approve records of June 14th. All those in favor? All those opposed? Records of the meeting of June 28th will pass to Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I find those records to be in order after review and I move for approval.

[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. Meeting to adjourn.

Fred Dello Russo total time: 35.5 minutes total words: 2681	Breanna Lungo-Koehn total time: 15.24 minutes total words: 1237	Michael Marks total time: 39.15 minutes total words: 2351	Richard Caraviello total time: 9.39 minutes total words: 947
Adam Knight total time: 14.89 minutes total words: 1466	John Falco total time: 5.32 minutes total words: 540	Robert Cappucci total time: 4.06 minutes total words: 352	George Scarpelli total time: 11.18 minutes total words: 945