[Fred Dello Russo]: The 36th regular meeting of the Medford City Council will come to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Present. Seven members present. None absent, please rise to salute the flag.
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The two councilors-elect, John Falco and George Scarpelli, are with us tonight. We invite them to join us behind the rail. Councilors-elect. We have a glorious seating for you over there. Welcome. And the chair recognizes Councilor Knight for a request to suspension of the rules. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I move to take paper 15-432 off the table out of unfinished business to allow MassDOT and its contractor, Zippo and Company, to provide an update on the reconstruction of the Craddock Bridge, please.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. So for the motion for suspension of the rules to take 15-432 off the table for discussion. All those in favor? All those opposed, motion carries. Meeting dash 432, request for Massachusetts Department of Transportation to present themselves, to give an update on the construction project. at the Craddock Bridge, and also to address issues around communication and bus stops. Chair recognizes the gentleman at the podium, who is the man in charge of bridges, I believe. Yes?
[SPEAKER_08]: Scott Kelleway, District 4 Construction, and in charge of the Accelerator Bridge Program. Thank you. Very good.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Welcome. Welcome. Thank you. And Merry Christmas to everyone, and our beautiful winter wonderland. Yes? Department of Transportation.
[SPEAKER_08]: Okay, again, I was asked to provide a briefing. I'll roll right into that as short, as briefly as possible. My project right now is 23% complete. Short-term look ahead, what you'll be seeing over the next few weeks, we'll be focusing, continuing to focus on the installation of the temporary bridge. This will be followed with the roadway tie-ins to that temporary bridge, and then we will, that bridge will eventually carry northbound traffic into Clipper Ship Drive. We're planning on progressing that over the next couple of weeks. We're hoping to have that bridge open by mid to late December. That's currently our goal, and we're looking pretty good for that. Then we're going to, to tie all this in, we're going to have to get new crosswalks going to establish the phase three work zone. That will be phase three traffic switch. That will allow us to start work on the eastern portion of the bridge, of the existing bridge. To do that, we're going to have to install crosswalks, line painting, barrier installation. We're going to have to relocate that bus stop in front of the restaurant. We're gonna have to get the traffic signals active, temporary traffic signals active. Along with this, national grid relocation work will be concurrent with that work. Once the temp bridge is open and we're in the phase three configuration, we're gonna begin the demolition and rehabilitation of that eastern portion of the bridge. That's full demolition of the super end substructure. We're gonna have to enclose the, in water portion in cofferdams. We're gonna then start rebuilding the new bridge, new steel beams, new concrete decks. We'll be then paving, tying it all in. This will of course begin January, this coming January, and will be complete by September of 2017. We'll then roll into phase four, which will allow us to shift traffic onto the new bridge. We'll then begin work on the demolition and reconstruction of the western portion of the bridge. That, very similar to the eastern portion, that'll begin September 2017 and last through August of 2018. That time, we'll pretty much be done with our bridge work. reestablish the islands, reopen the ramp, finish off the job site, and we'll be complete with the project by November of 2018 when everything will be in its normal traffic pattern and everything will return back to normal. Very good. Okay.
[Fred Dello Russo]: That's your synopsis?
[SPEAKER_08]: That's a quick rundown. Be happy to entertain any questions. I do have one question for the council. Sure. Go ahead. Yes. Um, traffic stop relocation. Last time we spoke, uh, you all wanted to weigh in on the subject of proposed, uh, for a temporary bus, I'm sorry, bus stop relocation. Uh, the bus stop in front of the restaurant needs to be relocated cause that's got to become a work zone. So we propose, I'm sorry, that's going to be in part of the, work zone in front of the restaurant. We're going to barrier across there. So pedestrians can't get buses, can't get in there. Okay. Anyway, we've sent to the council a proposal on three locations and we get into the time that we need a decision on that to the city. Sorry, that wasn't forwarded to the council. Okay. It's forwarded to the city. We do need a,
[Fred Dello Russo]: decision on that, not to lay work. I think what, um, the gentleman is alluding to is that there was a communication made to the, um, point of information Councilor Penter in one second. There was a communication made, uh, from the department of transportation, uh, to the, uh, city. I think it was, uh, filtered, uh, through, uh, to the mayor's office and also, uh, to the department of, uh, the developed community development. uh, the, uh, traffic commission, chief of police and the city engineer for response. And I think the, uh, as coordinator of that communication, I think, uh, Ms. DiLorenzo was waiting for a, uh, continued feedback or some feedback from the other offices, uh, to report back to the, uh, uh, department of communication, uh, point of information, Councilor Penta. I also want to, uh, take this opportunity that, uh, Other members of the team representing the Department of Transportation, Mr. Donny Daly, who is the Chief Legislative Liaison of the Department of Transportation, members of Zoppel Construction, and also with us is the Right Honorable Paul J. Donato, State Representative and Leader of the House of Representatives. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Two points. I appreciate the fact that you're here, sir. First of all, I have no idea about this communication that was sent, so I'm assuming one of the reasons why you're here, because the council has asked you folks to be here. We would like to believe that there's been weekly meetings with people in this building, and you folks, and Zappa Construction on the bridge. We've been asking for updates, and this was all foreign to us as of a week ago, so the question is, is that true or false? Have you been meeting with people?
[SPEAKER_08]: On this particular project, in this building? Yes. do not recall building. It hasn't been biweekly. No, we have met at any time upon request. You have a meeting at our field office with, but have you met with another, which the department of public works OCD, anyone like you have, we've been meeting with those representatives biweekly. Yes. Okay.
[Robert Penta]: At our field office, at your field office. And that's, and that's what we had asked for. You know, we'd asked for updates as it relates to that. And we never got a response back from anybody as it relates to that. Go ahead.
[SPEAKER_19]: Excuse me. My name is Peter Trimontosi. I'm the area engineer on the project. Mark Shay does attend our progress meetings as does Dennis McDougal. Um, and Cassandra is invited every single week. So they do send a representative to our five week.
[Robert Penta]: That may be them. This is the council wanting to find out because when we get questions asked to us by the taxpayers and the residents and folks that are using the bus stops, we don't have answers. And that's the reason why the sense of frustration has taken place. If you're meeting with them and we're asking for reports and minutes to the meetings, we get nothing. because nothing's come back.
[SPEAKER_08]: No, nothing against you.
[Robert Penta]: I just want to know you have met with these people. That is correct. Good. That's all you need to know. That's number one. Number two, as it relates to the issue regarding the bus stop. Okay. Um, again, from further information that's been given to us, and I think the city clerk can attest to the fact the gentleman from the MBTA has indicated he will not come out to a night meeting to discuss bus stops. I mean, where are we going with this? If this is supposed to be working together, This can't work like that if they're not going to come out at nighttime to meet with us.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I can't speak on behalf of the MBTA. Are you aware of that? I do not know of any communications to that effect.
[Robert Penta]: Okay. Well, maybe in your bailiwick of inventory of folks, you can figure out how to get them here because the bus stop comes under the control of the council, as you know.
[SPEAKER_08]: Understood. And I believe the way it is tabled now is that once we've decided upon an appropriate location, we simply request that location to them and they will accommodate that request.
[Robert Penta]: And one other thing, if you can do this, um, you indicate that there are certain folks that are going to be affected and they are, if you walk around those businesses in the square, nobody has contacted them telling them of other bridge that took place a few weeks ago when you started doing some work there, the change in the time, the work, the work schedule. There's gotta be more communication because you know, business the way it is, it's tough to begin with and trying to keep your doors open. You meet all your expenses, you know, This is a huge project. We know that it's going to take place until 2017, but if there's no actual personal contact and conversation with the business owners, you're going to have a hard time, you know, selling the project because you're having a hard time selling it to me. But now you're telling me, and I'm glad they appreciate that people in the city are, you know, we have not gotten that response. We don't even know what this lady you're talking about. So Mr. Clerk, if we can ask, can you copy the letter? We don't know about this letter about the bus stop. Just hearing about it for the first time. Do you have a copy that you could give us?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes. We have a copy right here.
[Robert Penta]: You sent it November 18th. Well, and who'd you address, Mr. Daly? Who'd you address that to? Could you make a copy of the letter? That's not the letter. That's the letter?
[SPEAKER_08]: That's not the letter. Those are the proposed locations.
[Robert Penta]: Do you have a copy of the letter, Mr. Daly? Please, for all the councillors.
[Fred Dello Russo]: We have a couple people in queue.
[Richard Caraviello]: Point of information, Councilor Caraviello. If the gentleman could just give us the three locations while we await the letter, I think it would be helpful.
[Fred Dello Russo]: And if I'm correct, these are three temporary locations for the purpose of construction mitigation. Thank you, yeah, I think in lieu of the letter. chair recognizes Council Penter.
[Robert Penta]: Are you all through? I'm just concerned over the fact that is there a time requirement to this letter?
[SPEAKER_08]: You were looking for an answer by, we need to give, it's our understanding. We need to give the MBTA two weeks notice for that relocation to take effect. We're looking to get this in place in just over two weeks. So time is running short. So to not delay the project.
[Robert Penta]: So this is their request that went out per letter, November 14th, they're looking for two week headstart. We're hearing about this for the very first time and where the decision makers of where that bus stop goes. I think you can understand where I'm coming from. It's kind of like obvious that, you know, there's been no communication, you know, and they may just have to wait.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair recognizes Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. With regards to the moving of the MBTA bus stop, just so, through the council, we've met on this before, and the Commission for Persons with Disabilities is adamantly against the moving of that bus stop, so has anybody reached out to DiamaCloud or that?
[SPEAKER_10]: department head, because... On November 18th, Scott forwarded me the three alternatives that's before you. I sent it to Mr. DiLorenzo, forwarded that to the chief of police, Cassandra, Mr. Rumley, and the mayor's office. And we have not gotten a response. So... If you could forward that letter to the commission for persons with disabilities correspond with the, um, right before Thanksgiving say she hasn't heard back and so on and so forth. So up until this morning we were trying to, and I, that's why we laid this to the council president on the phone this morning. I said, I'm going to forward you what I have and we have not heard back from the city departments that we thought would weigh in. So
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Just because they're adamantly against it, I've received documentation within the last few weeks because we did have a meeting with the MBTA last week on something else, and she thought it was on this moving and this bus stop, and you know, we've gotten...
[SPEAKER_10]: And she explained to me that that young lady did weigh in in the opposition, but we had not heard. So, I mean, obviously, we'd weigh in whatever comment she had. The way they deserve us, we wouldn't do anything else. So we haven't heard anything back as of today, absent that.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So... Thank you. Yeah, if we could get those documents, that would be good. Now, the second issue, Councilor Penta touched on it with regards to the project being another three years in total. Is there a way that we can get updates to the business owners
[SPEAKER_08]: even if a street's being shut down or certain sections being shut down for... Tell us how you'd like that and we'll be happy to get you whatever information you like.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Can I make a suggestion? Yes. I've been active with the Green Line Extension Progress project that's gone on now for 12, 13 years we've been working on it. Every week I get, there's a Greenline website, you get on their mailing list and they send you an email every week, update on construction. Maybe that's a simple way of creating emailing lists with this project that all stakeholders can get in on the list and get regular updates on the progress of the construction and whatever traffic alerts need to be made through that, and that's what's done with the T. So whenever Harvard Street is going to be shut down or up on School Street, Somerville, whatever they've done in this whole extension project with the bridges, everybody's gotten an update.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And I think that's a good recommendation. Some way that business owners who want to opt in to get an email once a week or even biweekly so they know what's coming in the next two weeks. I've gotten complaints with regards to restaurants in the area. two other businesses where the street was shut down for whatever it may have been, six, seven hours, and they were unaware it was gonna happen, you know, they lost, definitely lost business, lost customers. So we need to be able to, whether it's through the website or through emails to businesses that wanna opt into that service. And I, as one councilor, would like to get the updates, because we do get the complaints. I think that's extremely important. So if we could make that part of the recommendation to the contractor. That will be helpful.
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, Madam Vice President. So we have been sending out this briefing like this. bi-weekly, just give us the additional emails, and we'll add those on the list. Just send us the email addresses. We've been sending it to everybody that we've had.
[Robert Penta]: One more group you might want to inform. Point of information, Council Member. One more group might be the Medford Chamber of Commerce.
[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah. Point of contact.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: The Chamber of Commerce, Executive Director. She was here today. She was here.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Janet Donnelly is the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce. Not a problem. We'll be in touch on that. Chair recognizes Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. And thank you guys for coming down this evening, Mr. Daley, with your whole entourage. Just a quick couple of questions on the bus stop relocation. It appears that the bus stop, the three options are going across the street. Is that correct?
[SPEAKER_08]: You have to cross the ramp onto Route 16 westbound. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. You do. Yeah. You have to cross both sides. You have to go. So if someone's waiting for a bus, the bus will stop and then they have to cross the street to get on the bus between the location that we have now, it's going to be a giant work zone and we have to get them to the other side. That's my next question. But let's stop with the bus stops. You can't traverse that area. There's not going to be a bridge. So you have to go across the street down and then back over.
[Paul Camuso]: But the bus stop itself, Those red dots that you have are actually across the street.
[SPEAKER_08]: No, they're going to be on the same side as the restaurant. The restaurant's over here. You have to go across the street, down, and then back. Back this way. So it's going to be on the same side of the street.
[Paul Camuso]: Can you explain to people like myself that can't read construction maps, because it's very technical, Whereabouts are the three options so the viewing public will know? Basically, in layman's terms.
[SPEAKER_08]: You have the Route 16 overpass, one's right in the middle.
[Paul Camuso]: In the middle of the overpass? Underneath. Lighting will be approved and everything else if that happens? I have not looked into that.
[SPEAKER_08]: Is it dark there?
[Paul Camuso]: It's docked there until you guys started. Now you have trucks under there with the lights at night. So that's, yeah, that's a, but you can't count that as a construction is not on for a day then. Okay. So that's the first location. Next.
[SPEAKER_08]: They're along that same stretch and one is a closer to the westbound ramp and the other one's closer to the, the westbound ramp from like that little spout.
[Paul Camuso]: So if you come from the restaurant and take a right, I'm assuming it's either on the left side of the street or on the right. All three proposed stops are on the same side of the street. I understand that. If you're in front of the restaurant, you come up to the westbound on-ramp to Route 16. Correct. You take a right. Now you're facing West Medford, down Route 16. Is it on your left or on your right compared to the restaurant? If you were standing at the very beginning of the ramp, it would be immediately to your left. To your left. So you'll actually have to cross the on-ramp to Route 16 eastbound to get to the bus stop from the existing location.
[SPEAKER_08]: And that's the closest one, it assumes, right? Yes, but that's where you will be crossing back across to that side of the ramp. On the right side, if you're facing up that westbound ramp, the right side is gonna be a work zone. So you're not gonna be able to stand there.
[Paul Camuso]: So you're gonna have to walk by the work zone to get to the bus stops underneath the ramp. If you go there, you're just very confused. Forget about the construction maps. I'm having a hard time.
[SPEAKER_08]: If I could show you the picture, it might be easier to describe it. But essentially, you're gonna be coming across.
[Paul Camuso]: So where's the restaurant? The restaurant's not in the picture. I'll get both points out. Because I think we're all a little puzzled by looking at that map.
[SPEAKER_08]: I got it. Let me get another picture out here. All right, here's the, it's two pictures. Present location, restaurant. All right, you're gonna have to get across. You're gonna go across the bridge, get across again, you've got three locations. Okay, the closest one being though, right at the on-ramp.
[Paul Camuso]: This is the westbound on-ramp, So you'd cross the street and the crosswalk, and it would be right there.
[SPEAKER_08]: Correct.
[Paul Camuso]: You walk a little bit further on it.
[SPEAKER_08]: You're going to get onto this protected portion here on the sidewalk. Which is handicap accessible? I'm going to say it's, yes. It will all be ADA accessible. I'm going to say that's 20 feet from the corner, ballpark.
[Paul Camuso]: So it's probably 50 feet from the existing bus stop, maybe a little more, 75? A little more than that. Could you walk over the bridge?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, it's uh... I can't read the stations guys, what is it?
[Paul Camuso]: That's what I thought, yeah. It's about 500 feet. 500 feet, that's a lot for a senior citizen. We're open to any suggestions, we'll put it wherever you want it. Well the problem is, we didn't even know it was an option at this point because the communication inside of this building is certainly, there's a problem. November 18th, and trust me, I know how the MBTA and DOT work. You guys are very good at notifying the community on what's going on. So there's something else going on once it hits the network within City Hall, shall we say, the internal memos within City Hall. But this is the first we're hearing about the three. So I can understand the process. They're probably coming up with a game plan which is the best, according to the professionals, the chief of police, OCD, DPW, and then bringing it to the council for final approval, where we're the approving authority. But like you said, we were under the impression the bus stop was going to stay. But that leads to my second question. A work zone right in front of the restaurant, that's a bigger concern as far as the restaurant, the insurance company, the real estate agent, What do you, when you define original?
[SPEAKER_08]: That is where the barrier is going to be out to establish the work zone. There's not going to be work itself going, but you won't be able to get a bus in there. That's where we have to divert traffic over to that Eastern side.
[Paul Camuso]: So if someone parks on, for lack of a better word, the old ring road or whatever, what do you call it now? Clipper, Clipper ship drive. I think that's what it's, is that right? So for lack of a better word, if you park on Clipper ship drive, you're still going to get access to the restaurant, the insurance company. You could still walk across the street and get on the sidewalk and then get in the restaurant, right? It's not going to. Okay. Yes. All right. When you said work zone, I was just a little, uh, well, yeah, we, we can't have vehicles there though because so basically the barriers are just going to basically divert the road out towards because all the traffic coming towards Medford square from South Medford now is going to go over the new bridge. And the traffic coming from Salem Street is now going to be diverted out, away from the restaurant, down to South Medford. Correct. And when you say work zone, it's nothing more than a diversion of 20 feet out, 30 feet out, 40 feet out. OK, I feel a lot comfortable now. When you said a work zone, I was figuring fences up, and those guys couldn't get to work. I know Mr. Veneziano wouldn't be happy about that particular. With that being said, I just, I want to thank Mr. Daly and his staff too, because, uh, they, they, they obviously have been doing this communications. The breakdown has been from within the walls of this very building that we sit in this evening. So, um, so if you could just keep notifying and, and, um, and I like councilor Dello Russo's idea, the green line, I mean, they've been keeping us abreast of the progress of that, probably weekly. Between the DOT and the Mass Gaming Commission, I've never met two agencies that notify more on a consistent basis. And that's something, as far as transparency, I'm very happy about. The only thing the Green Line hasn't shared with us is their finances. Correct. And hopefully, on a lighter note, I believe that's going to be in about a month or so. They're going to come out with the actual report. Is that fairly correct on that? So I read that in today's Globe, but you can't take the Globe and everything else for 100%. But with that being said, if you could just please keep the notifications coming. I'm going to reach out to Mr. Daley tomorrow, give you some additional email addresses to get on the external communique. Excellent. And one other person that has been Uh, pretty good with this and put me in touch with different, um, agencies regarding the DCR and some of the other stuff going on there has been representative Donato. So, um, I know early on in this project back in June and July, there was a concern about the, um, environmental and the river and things like that. And, uh, rep Donato, uh, put, uh, put the constituents from South street in the right direction. So, um, that, uh, that's always a good avenue of communications on, um, for those people, too.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So that's about it. Thank you, Councilor. I know there's a citizen who would like to address us. If you would, please present yourself to the podium and state your name and address for the record.
[Sqp6S0Yyr0A_SPEAKER_04]: Hello. My name is Rachel Tannenhaus. My address is 26 Pearl Street and I am the chair of the Medford Disability Commission. So, um, welcome madam chairman. Thank you. Um, and, uh, so thank you very much for bringing up the, uh, concern, uh, Diane McLeod's concerns. And she actually sent me an email before, uh, the, the meeting last week. Um, and I wasn't able to, make that particular meeting where she thought it was being discussed, but she had to go home sick that day, so that's why she couldn't make it. So am I to understand that they're looking at moving the bus stop that's in front of Carol's? Is that the restaurant we're talking about, the bus stop that they're looking at moving? Correct, okay. So that's, as you said, that's a huge issue for senior citizens. It's certainly a huge issue for folks with disabilities. I will never find that bus stop again if they move it. I gotta tell you, I'm gonna be wandering around everywhere forever. So there needs to be some definite, like, if you did move it, there would have to be some really big indicators as to where it went. But I have to tell you, I live walking distance from, Medford Square, and I take the bus because of those intersections that are there, the ones where the on-ramps are. I could walk and get the exercise, and I could probably use it, but I don't really want to get flattened, so I don't. having to cross those to get to the bus stop, also the safety issue, as you said, of putting the bus stop underneath the overpass. I sometimes come back at night. I'm traveling by myself. I don't want to wait under that overpass. I mean, no offense, it's kind of hinky. And I think it is a safety issue. I would have difficulty navigating there, even with the dog. And I don't even know what somebody using a wheelchair or with or with stamina problems, some sort of condition that would have issues with stamina, I have no idea what they would do in that situation. But I can tell you that in my situation, right now I come to Medford Square because I can take the bus and because there are good bus stops to get me back, I would just stop coming to Medford Square. And I know that we're doing these things to, and it's not that I don't like Medford Square, I like it a lot and I encourage people to come here. but in terms of going to restaurants around that area, it would be really, I mean, you're basically, I understand wanting to revitalize the square. I'm in favor of doing that too, but you don't want to keep populations out in the name of revitalizing the square. So I actually would like to, and are, So the blurry guys in the front, are you the ones who gave the presentation? Yes. Okay. So hi, like I said, my name is Rachel. I am one of the citizens that would be impacted by moving the bus stop, but also, like I said, I am the chair of the Medford Disability Commission. Our next meeting is December the 16th at 5.30 in the evening. around the corner here in room 201. And I'll have to check with Diane McLeod, but I think I can extend to you an invitation to come if you'd like to talk to us about access around the site and also about moving the bus stop and get actual input from the disability community. So if you're having difficulty hearing back from Ms. McLeod, and I know she was out sick a little bit before the holiday, then we can totally hook you up and you can get all the input you want, probably some of you didn't. Sure.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Rachel.
[Sqp6S0Yyr0A_SPEAKER_04]: Thanks.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair recognizes Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I think Mr... Who's the gentleman from the state? Who's that fellow? Scott. Scott, please.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, just so you know, we just were tossing around some ideas and before we I want to get some lines on paper and make sure it's absolutely doable. But right now we've, we think we may have a, uh, a way of making a dedicated lane for bus stop only and leave it in its present location. So we're going to develop that tomorrow. We'll be in touch very shortly. Very good. We need to, we're gonna, we're gonna, I think it can be done. We just want to make sure it can be.
[Robert Penta]: But taking that into consideration, you said you listen to any and all ideas. If in fact that doesn't work, you could still have those buses go right into Medford square cause we had discussed as a spot of the issue and with the square is, and they could just traverse themselves around river street and come back, which is a one way. And you could just reverse the one way, go on the opposite way. And that would make it easier. Cause don't forget you have two senior citizen buildings over there in excess of 500 people. And for them to walk any further, in the end of that ring road, then to cross over and go underneath the bridge, where it'd be a lot easier just to go to Mitford Square. So, and again, folks that might have a handicap or a disability coming from Salem Street, Forest Street, or High Street would still be taking the same amount. If not, it would be shorter for them just to walk across the square through the crosswalks, because you said you'd be making them properly and slated to be traversed. So you have options that are there, and that's all that the council wanted to discuss. is what the options are, what would work the best, and it becomes very hard when you have no communication. So I'm just throwing that out there. Understood. Thank you. Chair recognizes Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Just so we can be sure, if Mr. Daley could come up. You had mentioned that we can, any business owner or city councilor or anybody in the public that wants to get updates on the Craddock Bridge can go on this list. How do we get them on that list or how do we? just send me the emails.
[SPEAKER_10]: And how do we contact you? We already have a database of about how many emails we have.
[Robert Penta]: No, but what's the contact?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So you have about four or five emails that are getting... Yeah, we need whatever database you have.
[SPEAKER_10]: like the chamber groups and so on and so forth, and the civic groups and stuff like that.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And what's your email, if we could?
[SPEAKER_10]: I can give you my contact.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: OK.
[SPEAKER_10]: Give us a messenger. Yeah, make copies. And I'll get it up to our IT department. Thank you. But we do advisories weekly on a lot of projects. I don't know if you folks are familiar. Like the Arlington Mass Ave project, we just cut the ribbon on that. We did weekly updates and stuff like that.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And that will tell you if any roads are shutting down or any major work, what's coming up for the next weeks.
[SPEAKER_10]: We can do that on a weekly basis. It's pretty common practice we have. So thank you.
[Robert Penta]: And one of the other things to the chair, um, you said this was going to be a six day a week double shift project.
[SPEAKER_10]: I can't speak to that also, but, um, You want to speak to the schedule? Yeah, I wouldn't.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Hi, just please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_05]: I'm the project manager.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Wonderful, thank you.
[SPEAKER_05]: Shift-wise, we are on a dedicated five-day work week, eight hours a day during the day, except four times. when we need to catch up or B need to do things that are less disruptive at night, like setting the bridge that we did several weeks ago. But our schedule is daytime five days a week, eight hours a day. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: That's your schedule now, but I believe when you folks were here, the presentation was made, it was going to be a double shift twice a week, six days a week.
[SPEAKER_05]: That was never stated. it is available to us. That's the work shifts that are available to us. So if we need those to make up schedule, we certainly will use them so that we can maintain our schedule and get our completion and be out of your hair as soon as we can.
[Robert Penta]: Well, wouldn't it make more sense if you did double shifts twice a day? We wouldn't have to wait to 2017? 18, excuse me.
[SPEAKER_05]: That doesn't really solve the problems. The schedule issues are wrapped around public utilities that have to make their own movements and our schedules for in-water work. We can't work in the water four months a year. It creates difficulties. Within a schedule like this, if we miss two or three days and miss our water windows, we lose four or five months in the schedule. But if we get caught up and I'm ahead of schedule, I may have to sit and wait four or five months to work. So we have to plan our work so that we work continuously, meet our milestones, and get our work done on time. It's very important. So working ahead. working really quickly to finish a certain amount of tasks and then having to go home for four months doesn't advance the cause at all. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: I don't think it advances the cause to wait to 2018 even for 121 feet.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Penta. Thank you, sir. Chair recognizes Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, If the project manager would just come back for a second, Scott, it's, it's my understanding that the gentleman just referred to water windows and water work windows, water work windows. And based upon the presentation you guys gave last time, there are certain periods of time of the year precluded from being able to work at the site based on, is it federal standard or state standard? It's,
[SPEAKER_08]: It involves environmental permitting for the, there's an in water restriction. Okay. So in terms of, so, but the project can work. It's just not, you can't be in the water. Okay. Thank you very much.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Uh, on the motion, uh, sir, if you want to, uh, address the council, please state your name and address for the record.
[Robert Cappucci]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm Bob Caputi, 71 Evans street. My concern is this bus stop in the work area. I would really like to know what's going to happen here. Are they going to shut down that street? And if so, it might help the local businesses there for whatever part of the street you're going to shut down if you allow, if it's possible, some parking there. I know firsthand, I mean, we all know Carol's restaurant. It's been a tradition in Medford for going on a century here. He's been a friend to me, the family, a lot of you guys here, and I go there a lot, as most of you do, too, and he's losing a ton of business. What I would like to also see is, you know, make sure that these construction crews that are coming in are maintaining that area in terms of eyesore and clutter and whatnot because, you know, along with regular customers of the restaurant. There's also functions and groups that come in there from out of town. Maybe some kind of deal can be made with Republic for a wedding special going on there or a baby shower where carols might be able to print up some cards for these folks and get them in there. And finally, one last thing on the bus stop and what the chairman of the disability community was saying. Maybe somebody from this body can reach out to the MBTA somehow and use that van service that they have and maybe offer some of these folks a ride if they need it. You know, I mean, this, I don't have to tell you folks, this is your job to make sure that the taxpayers, the businesses, and the citizens are well taken care of and that street and area is as safe and accessible as possible. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. So on the motion of approval by Councilor Penta, As amended, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much folks from the Department of Transportation for all your efforts and a special word of thanks to Representative Donato for his leadership in this matter. Thank you all. Motion for suspension by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? While we're under suspension. While we're under suspension, yes.
[Adam Knight]: Last week we put a resolution forward relative to the schedule changes that were potential at the West Medford commuter rail station. And I believe that we got word back from our state delegation that those changes have been put on hold for the time being until an exhaustive public hearing process can be conducted, Mr. President. So while Representative Donato was here, I thought we should thank him for his hard work and his efforts and give him an opportunity to maybe speak on the matter if he sees fit. Thank you very much.
[Paul Donato]: Paul Donato, Representative of 35th Middle Sixth District. The Medford delegation, along with Senator Lewis, who represents Winchester, had a meeting with the MBTA ten days ago. We expressed our concern with regard to the commuter rail changes, and because of our meeting, And our advocacy, I have to tell you that the delegation worked very diligently. We're not very happy with the changes that were being proposed. And the MBTA has relinquished their position relative to the December 15th for the changes and instead is working toward April. The delegation is working once again with the MBTA. We plan a meeting sometime in February to continue the dialogue so that the impact of any of the changes that will be made on the commuter rail will be minimum. Uh, and, and that's where we are at this particular time.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you, Representative.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Representative. So the motion for approval, uh, all those in favor, all those motion carries. Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Yes, Mr. Councilor. I'd like to take 15-432 off the table and receive it and place it on file. The MassDOT was here this evening and that was for them to appear.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes, that was the paper that we actually took and acted upon. We took, okay. Thank you. Thank you. So on the motion of Councilor Camuso to resort back to the regular order of business. All those in favor? Those opposed? 15-780, petition for taxi operator license by Buffon-Gaultier. 1045 River Street, number 32, Hyde Park, Mass, 02136, driving for Joseph Pierre of Citywide Taxi, 40 Canal Street, Medford, Massachusetts. On file query report, chair recognizes Councilor Caraviello for recommendation. Is the petitioner present? Good evening, please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_18]: Bufongoche, 1045 River Street, Hyde Park, Mass, 02136,
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I have reviewed the gentleman's paperwork, and they seem to be in order. And does the gentleman understand that your pickups will be in Medford only? Yes. And not in other cities, and you won't be picking Boston coming back there?
[SPEAKER_18]: No, I already have the Boston license. I have a Boston license already.
[Richard Caraviello]: You have a Boston license also? Yes. Hold on one second. You said that you, it says, are you currently licensed to drive taxis in another city or town? You said no.
[SPEAKER_18]: Town, what, here? No, I just taking it, Friday.
[Richard Caraviello]: So you have a license to drive in Boston also?
[SPEAKER_18]: Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: You just got it on Friday.
[SPEAKER_18]: Yeah, on last Friday.
[Richard Caraviello]: So you're going to need to change replication on question 15 to yes. But it was before. Mr. Clerk, is that- You don't have to use the license for Boston County anyway, so it doesn't- Well, Mr. President, his paperwork seems to be in order. I recommend approval.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the recommendation of approval and the motion of approval by Councilor Caraviello, all those in favor? All those opposed? Mr. Clerk, please mark Councilor Penta as opposed. For the reasons of lack of resolution in the taxicab onus issue and likewise mark Councilor Marks is in opposition. The chair is confident that there's a prevailing authority for granting the approval. So the motion is approved. 15781 communications from the mayor to the honorable president and members of the Medford City Council, City Hall, Medford Mass, 02155, dear Mr. President and city councilors. I respectfully request and recommend that the sum of $147,687 be transferred from sale of real estate to reduce the deficit of June 30th, 2015 in the accounts of snow and ice removal. This transfer combined with the FEMA reimbursement and the amount raised on the fiscal year 2016 tax rate will eliminate the entire deficit, see attached, yours truly, very Michael J. McGlynn, Mayor. With us this evening to make explanation for this Transfer is Louise Miller, Director of Budget, Finance, and Personnel. Madam Directors.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: Thank you. You should have received an attachment from Anne Baker, Finance Director, to Mayor McGlynn that explained the snow and ice deficit and the various components needed so that the snow and ice deficit is reduced to zero in the year going forward. Based upon our anticipated FEMA reimbursement, as well as the amount that will be raised this year, once the tax rate is set, we still need $147,687 to bridge the gap and zero out the deficit. We have proposed, or the mayor has proposed, that this amount be transferred from the sale of real estate account, which right now has $400,000 in it, and that we go forward without a snow and ice deficit this year in fiscal year 16.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair recognizes Madam Vice President Longo.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. I just want to thank Ms. Miller for giving us the snow and ice amortization schedule, which was in our Friday packet. and I'm very pleased that we'll be paying off the entire debt from last year. It was a hefty one of 1.8 million. We're lucky to get 500,000 from FEMA, but I'm glad that the city, you know, we came up with the 1.3 million that we needed to. And so I approve this transfer and I think it's a good way to do business. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion approved by Vice President Longo-Curran, chair recognizes Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Quick question. You're saying that the 500,000 is an estimate, Do we have a final number?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: We do not have a final number from FEMA. We did submit all of our paperwork a couple of months ago, but we still have not heard back from them on what the final number will be.
[Robert Penta]: So is it possible that they may not accept the $500,000?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: No, actually. If anything, we would receive a little bit more. We estimated the $500,000 based upon 75% reimbursement of all the costs that they've told us we were going to receive. In addition to that, we had asked for some costs for some repairs that we had to do to buildings and at the cemetery specifically. So if anything, we would get a small amount more, maybe $25,000 to $35,000, more than that.
[Robert Penta]: But why haven't we heard yet? Why is it taking so long?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: I can't answer that. We have worked now with four different representatives of FEMA. We're on our fourth representative. It just takes time.
[Robert Penta]: Okay.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Okay, councillor. A motion of approval by councillor Lange-Kern, seconded by councillor Knight. Is there a roll? Roll call.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Vice-president Lange-Kern. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Penta. Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes, with a vote of seven, the affirmative, none negative, the measure passes. Next before us, 15782, to the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council, Medford City Hall, Medford Mass, 02155. Dear Mr. President and City Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend your approval of transfer to support the operations of the enterprise funds for fiscal year 16 as follows. From water retained earnings, $212,080 to Water Enterprise, and from sewer retained earnings, $487,920 to Sewer Enterprise. After this transfer, the remaining balances will be as follows. Water retained earnings, $3,150,930. Sewer retained earnings, $3,885,627, very truly yours, very Michael J. McGlynn mayor on the motion for approval by councilor Penta, uh, councilor Camuso, councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Could you explain what this money is for please?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: Yes. Um, last year the water and sewer rates were changed. Um, they were tiered and the, they are not sufficient to meet the water and sewer operating budgets, including the MWRA assessments. So the $700,000 is half of the projected deficit for fiscal year 16. The other half of the projected deficit is going to be raised through modification of the water rates. The Water and Sewer Commission voted new rates that will go into effect Um, some portion of it may go into effect in December, but it will go into effect, um, completely in January.
[Robert Penta]: Okay. So this is kind of like interesting because a couple of years ago when they were discussing the budget, when the council had asked that the money be taken from the water and sewer account, um, the water and sewer commission indicated that that wasn't their purview. It was up to the mayor. Now you're saying tonight that they made a recommendation to take this money of approximately $700,000 or above to go to offset the cost of our water and soil bills here in the city of Medford. Don't forget, I believe we get a discount, strike that, we get a wholesale discount rate from the MWRA, and then the rest of the cost relates to the city of Medford's operation, water and soil department. Okay. That's correct. So if we take this balance, if we transfer this money, we have a balance of $7,036,000. $7 million. I just don't understand why they just don't take the whole thing from the water and sewer account. That's the taxpayer's money. They'd be the overpaid or whatever the account might situation might be. That would have made it a $7.7 million surplus. So the amount that you're taking out right now leaves you with a balance of $7,036,000. It's the taxpayer's money, the rate payers money. They didn't cost, they didn't, it wasn't their charge to raise the rates, you know, and if they made a mistake somewhere along the line, as it relates to this rate structure, then that needs to be figured out. But the taxpayers should not have to pay for it, especially since this is their money that they've had there in surplus for all this amount of time. The law is very simple, as you know. It's either one or two things. The law says, unless you have something that's ready to go in a ready-made project within 90 days, or there's a surplus remaining that goes back to the rate payers. Now, this has been going on for a few years. $7 million and $36 million. $7 million, $36,000, leaving you with a balance. I'm going to vote. that this not go through, that this money come out of the Water and Soil Enterprise account, period. The rate payers should not have to pay for this. Let the city figure out where they went wrong and if they have to make an adjustment. Because it's bad enough that they've been taxed for everything in this community from A to Z. And I just don't think it's fair, especially knowing that you have a remaining balance of $7 million and there is not one project sitting in front of us right now that has a demand of any kind of money. that the water and sewer account has for a balance. That's number one. Number two, I can see leaving maybe two or $3 million in that account in case an emergency takes place. We've had no discussion from the city engineer, the building department or the highway department, public works department regarding a project that the city needs to undertake right now or it's going to be undertaking. All we know right now is that there is this kind of a surplus sitting there. It's unfair. I don't think that the rate payers should have their money that they've paid for now be charged again. I think that money should stay in this account and the city and the city engineer and the new administration should figure out what all the INI and the water leaks and the things that need to be corrected here in this community. They better get on their duff real quick because this is what the administration has been talking about, whether it was myself or the incoming person, you know, this city needs to have a lot of reconstruction in this community as it relates to their water and sewer, their INI and their street and their side construction projects. So, Take this out of this account and transfer it over to pay a debt that belongs with the city. If they mismanaged and miscalculated, don't blame the taxpayer. They've been blamed enough for what goes on in this community. I'm going to move, Mr. President, that the money come out of the retained earnings of the Water and Sewer account and not be transferred.
[Fred Dello Russo]: There's a motion for approval on the floor of the paper that's before us. Point of clarification. Point of clarification. There's no such thing, Vice President Longo-Kearns.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Point of information. So Councilor Penser, just so I understand, you're looking to take the 1.4 that were actually in deficit and take it from the retained earnings, therefore not raising the rates of the water and sewer rate payers.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Right.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Point of information.
[Fred Dello Russo]: If I could point out that the Water and Sewer Commission has already voted and enacted a rate change. Councilor Camuso, point of information.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. Um, and I was going to basically make that point. They actually met before the city council met last week and the paper before us. is to move it from the account he's asking on the other part. So the proper thing, I think, as one voting member of the council, is to move the paper. And I think we made it loud and clear at previous meetings. We wanted it to come out of this. But obviously, based upon the data before us, they took that vote last week prior to our committee of the whole. So on this particular paper, I'm going to not withdraw my motion for approval, because in the sense, in essence, what Councilor Penta is asking to do is take more money out of it. So we have to take this to get to this point now anyway, so.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. And your motion is contradictory to the motion of approval.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If I may?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor, Vice-President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. Can you tell us how much is remaining in the retained earnings as of right now before the 700,000 is taken out. I know we went over the numbers last week.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: I just want to, yes, the total for both water and sewers, approximately $7.7 million. So water retained earnings is at $3,360,000 plus or minus a couple thousand. And then the sewer retained earnings are at Oh, I have to do this in my head. $4.76 or $7.8 million. And is there a reason why the administration only wanted to take the $700,000 versus a million or the full $1.4? Actually, we did run a number of different scenarios with a consultant, Woodcock and Associates, who are water and sewer rate, and they do other consulting, but they work with water and sewer rates, and ran different options. What would happen if we did not use any of the retained earnings? What would happen in the long term? And what we're looking for are two things. One is rate stability. and also sufficient amount of reserves given the age of the infrastructure in Medford. There are a fair number of water main breaks and other issues with sewer and drainage, so we also asked the consultant what would be prudent to maintain and retain earnings, and this is approximately a little over 10%, almost 15%, I believe, of the operating actually 15, yeah, 15% of the operating budget for each particular fund.
[Sqp6S0Yyr0A_SPEAKER_04]: Okay.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Just because I, I mean, I agree with Councilor Penta, why, you know, almost double tax the rate payer. Um, I think this is definitely a good step that we're taking 700,000 out of the retained earnings to be able to, otherwise the rate, the rates would go up, um, double then I guess what they're proposed. What I would want to add is that the Water and Sewer Commission may have voted for this last week, but they were given the number 700,000. They didn't pick it. It was given to them by the administration. And I would just ask that the administration relook at this and possibly give more so that we can keep the rates stable rather than have an increase of, I believe it was a 5% increase once the 700,000 was applied. Yes, I believe that's correct. I just would like to, um, lower that increase for the, for the rate payer as well. So I, I see Councilor Penta's point. Um, I understand both sides, but, um, this still, even if we took the full amount, we'd still have 6.3 million left in water and sewer retain earnings. Plus we're going to be adding to it this year. So that's going to probably be back up to at least 7 million. Um, I think that's, that's the best step to take, but obviously that's something we have to question the administration on.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Madam Vice President.
[Adam Knight]: Chair recognizes Councilor Knight. Yes, Mr. President. Thank you very much. And Ms. Miller, thank you for your presentation. Um, Woodcock and associates is a consultant, correct? That is correct. And what type, what type of consultant services do they provide now for the city and for the, um, the, the water and sewer commission?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: They actually, um, provide advice on rates, um, retained earnings, you know, how much should be in retained earnings, those kinds of,
[Adam Knight]: And based upon our discussions that we had last week, one of the things that came up was that Woodcock and Associates recommends that we would maintain between 25% and 50% of our water sewer budget and reserves. Is that correct?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: That is correct. This is on the low end.
[Adam Knight]: We're on the lower end at this point in time.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: We are on the lower end at this point in time.
[Adam Knight]: So if we make this appropriation, what you're saying is that we'll be at about 15% of our total operating budget for water and sewer and our retained earnings. So we'd still be 10% below what it is that is recommended from our consultant?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: That is correct based upon what he said last week. I mean, right now we don't have a retained earnings policy and they caution also that different towns and cities approach it very differently. So, you are correct. This is below what they stated their recommendation was.
[Adam Knight]: And did they not also state that in terms of surrounding communities and communities that we're comparable with, we are in the middle of the road right now in terms of what we have in our reserves?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: We are. Yes, we are.
[Adam Knight]: Okay. Excellent. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Madam Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President de la Rousseau. I asked that question, I believe, and that was my question. I believe he said we'd be at 25% to 30% once this $700,000 is taken. He said we'd still be at that level once $700,000 was taken. That was my specific question. I'm not sure if you could just clarify that.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: Okay. I may, I may have the numbers wrong, but I thought we would end up being a little bit lower after that.
[Adam Knight]: I thought it was that he thought he would, that we would be at 26% 700,000. I would still be closer to 20, 26%, 25%. Okay.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: I may have the numbers wrong. Yes. I may be recalling the numbers incorrectly.
[Unidentified]: Are we okay?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: I actually don't have the operating budget in front of me, but I know that the assessments alone are close to, $17 million for both water and sewer $18 million plus at least another five or six for the remainder of the budget. Chair recognizes Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: You all done? I'm all done. Yep. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, geez, I remember the days with the water and sewer where we were in deficit every year and we didn't have any money in the retained earnings. And I never heard Mr. Woodcock, who's been on board for a number of years as a consultant, saying, hey, Method, you better beef up your retained earnings because there's not enough money in that account. But now I'm hearing the reverse. We have six or seven million built up, and Mr. Woodcock is telling us, make sure you don't spend any of that money because we don't want to tap into the reserves below a certain amount. You know, I don't buy into that, first of all. I happen to have attended uh, the meeting of the water and sewer commissioners, uh, last week prior to our meeting. And, uh, I found it very interesting that, um, and as the budget director, I think, uh, I think you were present at the meeting also. Um, one of the issues, uh, which was brought up by the chairman of the water and sewer commission, uh, Mr. Dominic Camara, uh, he had a very valid point. Uh, he said, why, uh, is it not in the city's budget for a water and sewer expense on the municipal side and on the school side. And that's a very, very valid point. That's a utility. As far as I'm concerned, it's a utility like gas, like oil, like electricity. And how can you have, for instance, I believe it was last year, $550,000 in water and sewer from the municipality, and that includes the school side. That's a half a million dollars that's not in the budget. you're not accounting for in an operating budget. Now, if you had a budget at your house, could you leave out a portion of that size and say, well, I'm not, you know, water's really not part of my utilities? Of course it's part of your operating budget. So how does a city not include a half a million dollars that they know is going to be accounted for, or in this case, we refer to it as unaccounted for because it's not needed. So I'm not quite sure. And, and Mr. Kamara raised a very valid point, uh, cause he mentioned, and I've been preaching about this for several years now. Cause I remember the days when I was on the school committee, like Mr. Scarpelli and Mr. Falco that are here tonight, uh, where the water and sewer were in the school budget. And then I don't know what happened, but miraculously one given year it was gone. It never appeared as a line item anymore in the budget. I don't know who made that recommendation. I don't know who took it out of the budget. I don't ever remember a vote on it, but all of a sudden, it was never in the budget again. And I think one recommendation we should be making, Mr. President, as a council, is that the city administration put back the water and sewer cost, the real cost, for every school in this city, for every municipal building in this city, So we can have a direct accounting for that particular expense in every operating budget. There's no reason why we shouldn't account for water and sewer that we know is going to be a direct expense, Mr. President. So that would be one recommendation that I ask.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'm sorry to interrupt. So is that a recommendation or an amendment to the motion of approval?
[Michael Marks]: I would ask it to be an amendment. We have the budget director here. I don't know how she feels on that. I don't expect her to answer that tonight. I could just tell you that, you know, the days of underfunding our snow and ice, when we know we're going to spend $800,000 and only put $200,000 in the budget, that's a concern. I know we could run a deficit in that account, but it's a concern. And, you know, when you have water expense in the school department, and they don't have to pay for it. Who pays for it, Mr. President? Where does it go? It just doesn't vanish. It goes for unaccounted for water. And all of our rates, we end up paying it no matter what anyways, but all of our rates get raised because of the unaccounted for water that Councilor Penta has been talking about. Now, one of the reasons why we're having an increase in, or a deficit, I should say, is the fact that we moved the tier one from zero from 0 to 800 to 0 to 1,000 cubic feet. And what we did was, in effect, take anyone that was using 900, 1,000 cubic feet that were paying a higher rate, we put them into the lower rate. And we lost revenue by doing that. And that was the decision that was made. And now I believe we're going to go back to the 0 to 800. That is what the commissioners voted. Yes. That was one of the recommendations. So clearly that recommendation, uh, didn't work in regards to, uh, maintaining rates within our community or at least having a way to pay for a water and sewer in our community. And I agree with, uh, council Penter and council Longo. If the money's there, we have $7 million. Uh, I don't think that's going to make a hill of beans on any barn rating in our community to take that money, And there's only two purposes you can use it for, the retained earnings. It's in state statute, anyone can read it. It's to offset rates, and it's for infrastructure improvements. You can't use it for anything else unless you file special home rule petition, like the mayor did back some years ago, to offset a budget deficit, but that's a whole other issue. But it can only be used for those two purposes. This is a legitimate purpose to use the money for. And to sit back and say, We don't want to touch that account. The mayor's state of the city speech over the weekend. He was bragging about all the surplus money we have. The city's in great shape. We have all the surplus money. Yes, it's the taxpayers' money the mayor's sitting on. And to use other resources to pay when we already have an account specifically earmarked for that type of reason, I can't in good faith vote for it. I really can't. So I agree with my two colleagues that The money should come out of retained earnings. That's not going to impact our bond rating. And you better believe, as Councilor Longo said, within the next several months, we're going to see an increase in the retained earnings on both the water and sewer side. So those are my thoughts, Mr. President. And the budget should be a realistic budget that reflects the actual operating expenses. And to take out water and sewer and say that's not an operating expense, I believe is being short-sighted. And, uh, I think, uh, you know, the city should, uh, start, uh, creating budgets that are realistic, uh, budgets and budgets that are attainable and not budgets that have hidden, uh, you know, trap doors at every, uh, term is the president.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: Mr. President, if I may, um, I want to thank councilor Marks. He reminded me as well. The other reason why the, um, there was a, shortfall in the water and sewer budgets is also because of water conservation. With the tiered rates came additional water conservation and we should see the result of that in the coming years with our MWRA water assessment. It will not affect the sewer assessment, but it will affect our water assessment.
[Michael Marks]: So, so Mr. President, yes, counsel. So based on a con, this is what I don't understand about this. If we can serve, we still get the same bill from the MWRA. That's correct. So it's great to do conservation. I support it wholeheartedly. But when do we tell the ratepayer that there'll be some type of relief? Most people attribute, I use less water, I'm going to pay less. But that's not the case. It's not the case. And even when we do a better job with I&I inflow and infiltration and relining our pipes and so forth, we could decrease I&I by 10 percent. But if every other community decreases it by 20%, we still pay extra. That's correct. It just, it's crazy. It really, it makes no sense. You can never get ahead of the game. You know, you can never offer, we thought with the second meter outside, you know, people are going to be able to save when they water their lawns or when they fill up their pool. And talk to anyone that has a second meter outside. They'll tell you there's no savings at all. If anything, they had to spend $500 to put the meter in, they have to spend extra money to have it tested, and so forth. So, you know, all these different ways of taking the burden off the ratepayer really is fruitless. I mean, I don't see any way you conserve, you pay extra. You do a better job with fixing your infrastructure, you still end up paying extra. How do you get around this? It's not a question for you, but as a city, I think we have to take a look at this, because this is not chump change we're talking about. This is millions and millions of dollars, and it's millions in surplus, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of approval by Councilor Camuso, as amended by Councilor Marks, the Chair recognizes Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I agree with Councilor Marks and my colleague Councilor Lungo-Koehn. The interesting part, you were at that meeting, Louise, as it relates to the conservation. What did the commissioner say? That the sad part about this whole thing, the people are conserving more, but they're going to have to be paying more. So the ball bounces itself back and forth. This goes back to almost like the green barrel before you got here, the green barrel issue. When we got into these green barrels and we get into this whole idea of being conservation and recycling, and we have the two different size barrels here, but what happens here to the city of Medford because of the recycling, which cuts down on the hardcore, The waste that cost the city, I think it was last year, $159,000 more, because even though we were recycling more, we went from three to 30%, it still cost the city more. And people just need to understand something. Well, if you're going to use less, why are you paying more? So some people may get the attitude, if I'm going to pay for them, I should just use it. So the whole conservation theme, it's going to be lost. The other part of the issue is that, again, It's $7.7 million of tax payers, rate payers money that's been sitting there with no major projects on ready to go. Nowhere, nowhere to go. And the law is very succinct. It's either 90 days ready to go or it goes back to the rate payers. Now we know that there's a projected rate increase coming in this year from the MWRA. Who's going to eat that again? It's going to be the rate payers. So it's bad enough that they're going to have to pay for the increase to the water and sewer. system. And I understand you have to pay for salaries and all the contract negotiations that take place. But when you're sitting on the surplus like this, there was no reason why the rate payer, the rate payers should get involved in paying off whatever the difference might be. Councilor Marks just alluded to something a few years ago and kudos to him. He was the only council that voted against taking a million point one ballot, a million point $100,000 out of the water and sewer account to offset the mayor's budget deficit to balance his proposed budget. And he was right. It should have never been done. First and only time in the legislature, first and last time it's going to be done. This is the rate payers' money. You know, it's bad enough you've got them with the Republic kiosk parking. You know, you're hitting them in every single corner here with attacks and attacks. And their streets, their roads, their bridges and everything is just in a state of chaos. I just cannot in good conscience go forward with this. I'm not going to support it. It doesn't belong. It doesn't belong here right now. And until the city can get its act together financially as to where it needs to go, how it needs to resolve this water and soil situation, so be it. There are so many options here. You have a consultant that tells you you're in a deficit, you gotta start saving. And then when you start saving, you gotta save more than what you're saving. I don't care about other cities and towns, and I don't care about our bond rating. What I care about is having taxpayers spend too much money on more than being charged for more than what's necessary. Life is not too easy right now. You may hear all kinds of great stories out there about the economy. People are still struggling. People are still out there that haven't received raises in five and six years. The employees in this building and citywide and the school department, they should be thankful they have their jobs. Thankful they have their jobs. And they shouldn't be complaining about, you know, we're not getting enough of a percentage here. They're everywhere. You want to negotiate in good faith? I've got no problem in that. But don't go out and hit the people. that don't have that job security, that haven't gotten that pay raise in two or three years, and knowingly should not have to pay for this deficit that, unfortunately, was created by a miscalculation. I won't say it was intentional, but an unintentional miscalculation. So you're going to have to go back to the drawing boards and revisit it, you know. And that's the best way I can say it, Mr. President. You know, I don't think — you know, when this council — I think it was two budgets ago — voted $660,000 to be taken out of the budget. to not to absorb the water, 9% water rate increase from the MWRA that particular year. The mayor went nuts. He didn't like that whole idea and he chastised us and he had all kinds of press releases sent out that we were, you know, weren't good people. We were against the taxpayers and this and that. We were for the taxpayers back then because that's what the money should have come out of. And unbeknownst to us, we didn't know that that 9% was taking place until the budget vote on that just before the budget was going to be proposed in that particular time. Yes, Louise, you gave us this ahead of time. I got no problem with that, but I can't support it in good conscience, knowing that that kind of a deficit is sitting there and knowing and just thinking about what's going on in the school department. With all the new jobs that were just created this past year, over $500,000 in new administrative jobs, a $7,000 salary increase to someone because they're retiring to give them their highest three years. And when people start hearing that and knowing that those type of salaries are going out there, and when we're sitting on $7 million of their money, and they have to pay for raising their water and sewer rates, it's unacceptable. It doesn't fly by me, and I cannot and I will not support it. Yeah, I support that the entire money comes out of the water and sewer account. But he says you can't do it. I'd like to amend the motion, Mr. President. Amend the main motion that the entire deficit of whatever it might be comes out of the retained earnings of the water and sewer account. And the amendment supersedes the main motion. Yes, you do. It's an amendment. Move the question.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President will be on the, uh, main motion for approval by councilor Camuso as amended by vice president Longo current and Councilor Marks. And secondly, the B paper contrary to the, uh, main motion offered by councilor Penta. Uh, before we do that, we have a citizen who wishes to address the council. If, uh, chair recognizes, uh, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Um, If I'm understanding the motion that's on the floor, regardless, we're going to have to appropriate the money that's before us right now in this paper. No. So why don't we act on that and then worry about the rest of it at a later time? The amendment proceeds the main motion. No, that's fine. I'm just trying to make it. I mean, we all have a similar, you know, we were all okay with spending the 700,000. It's the excess of 700,000 that we're not all okay with. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Please state your name and address for the record.
[Michael Ruggiero]: My name is Michael Majuro. I live on 18 Pembroke Street. I want to speak really quickly about this rate increase. I am very much in favor of taking the entire amount out of retained earnings, and here's why. First, I want to bring up the point that Councilman Mark brought up. It feels sort of like rate pairs of playing three-card Monte. You know the game where you have three cups and one ball, and no matter what you do, you just can't seem to find it. It seems to be the same game that's going on here. We choose one option of, well, we'll just conserve more. Nope, rate pace is still going to go up. Let's make it so that we have actually this huge bonus to make sure that we can withdraw from in cases that there is an overage. Nope, that doesn't work either. A 5% increase is very onerous for a lot of people in this community. It has to be probably one of the top three complaints I hear in the city, especially in the senior center. It might not seem like a huge increase for a lot of people, but it can really hurt. There is no reason why we shouldn't take the money that we already have currently in surplus, and here's why. I think the best reason why we should use the money that we already have reserved is that's the skin in the game that the city already has. If that number keeps going down, then we're going to be the force to address perhaps the leaks that are causing these huge rate increases, or perhaps just looking at where the schools are and why they're using more than they should. Maybe that's where the conservation needs to be looked at. So I strongly suggest that we should take this money out of retained earnings to have it go on the rate payer who are actually already conserving is an onerous, and it's going to be difficult for many seniors. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record. Welcome.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you, Council President. Councilor Neddy, Andrew, Cushing Street, Method Mass. Councilor Marks brought up a point about, I think it's tier one, and thanks to Councilor Penta, I believe it was increased for a single-family usage from 800 to 1,000 units of... Anyways, I'm not sure how to feel about this before your decision for the vote. However, it seems like these water bills, the new tiered system that went into effect a few years back, and I'm not sure if the state set those numbers with the tiered But it seems like it adds insult to injury to the ratepayer for water in the MWRA system, because Tier 1 is for, I believe, single-family usage, and it's X amount, like let's just say 12 cents per gallon or whatever it is. However, Tier 2 allows more, and that's at a little bit higher cost, a cent more. Tier 3, that was not really the third because they called it un-tiered for the next highest price, which is fine. However, Tier 3 is higher than the un-tiered. Well, That means a three-family, in effect, is paying more per gallon than all others outside of a one, two, or three-family home. And that is businesses, commercial, industrial, maybe, otherwise it has something to do with lobbying the state house to pass this law and its tiered structure, whether it was the state's doing or the local doing. It seems like it's as insult to further rape as injuries. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnet. On the motion of approval by Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President. My apologies.
[Richard Caraviello]: Unfortunately, the bill we get from the MWRA is not just for water, but the MWRA is constantly doing improvements throughout the whole system. And I think our share of the bill this year was like $23.5 million that we have to pay, am I correct?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: I don't recall.
[Richard Caraviello]: I know it's somewhere around that. And the MWRA, let's say they do, say along with the water and the leaks and everything else, but they said that the system is constantly being upgraded and that's part of the money. And they said, all we know is, the MWRA, similar to like the tiered thing, here's your bill, you figure out how to pay it. And that's pretty much how it works. So I mean, NSA, I know we tried the tiered system and We didn't have any history to go on that. And now that we had a little bit of history, the commission had to go back and readjust it a little bit to make it work. So we do have the $23.5 million to pay our share of the MWRA costs that the city has assessed.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the main motion of approval by Councilor Camuso, as amended by Councilors Lungo-Koehn,
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Just regarding the conservation that was brought up by one of the speakers, you know, it is interesting that the city's promoting conservation with the residents of this community. And when it comes to their own conservation, they don't know what they're paying for water and sewer. They have no idea because they don't pay a bill. And if you look at any of the faucets, I would ask you to go into any building, come into city hall, Go into any of the restrooms and see the old, outdated faucets they're using in there. There's no low-lying water heads in any of those faucets in there. So really, when it comes to conservation, the city should practice what they preach. And if they had a bill, and they looked at their bill and said, hey, from this year to this year, we used X number of gallons, and we need to conserve. But there's no statistics, because they're not getting a bill, Mr. President. Wouldn't that be great if you didn't get a bill? You wouldn't have to worry about conservation at all. And that's what the city's doing right now. The city's not concerned with conservation. Go into any of the facilities. Go into the library. You turn on the water, it comes out like a fire hose. There's no conservation there. Our faucets have two knobs, hot and cold. That went out 50 years ago, Mr. President. Consular, we're a step away from a watering hole. We really are. And not only, Mr. President, just to talk about the restrooms up here again, when you go in to use the hot and cold water, if you take your hand off the cold, it flips back. So to put hot and cold on at the same time, if you want lukewarm water, you have to have seven pairs of hands there. So you have to go ask someone else from City Hall if they could come and hold the cold while you got the hot going so you can wash your hands. This is how archaic it is, Mr. President. So, when it comes to conservation, you know, the City Hall, Mr. Mayor can preach all he wants about conservation and the great shape the city's in. If you want to see the great shape the city is in, take your family up and use the restroom in the public library and take them up here to City Hall and have them go, your son or daughter, go under the caution tape in the bathroom at City Hall here, and you'll be able to see firsthand what great shape the city's in, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. So on the motion approved by Councilor Camuso as amended by Councilors Marks and Lungo-Koehn and with the B paper or the amendment offered, the separate amendment offered by, is it a B paper? It's a separate amendment, which is contrary to the main motion. and as amended by Councilor Penta. So on that, it's the whole motion taken together. Or are we taking your amendment separately? His amendment is separate. Councilor Penta's amendment is separate. Mr. Clerk, please call roll on the severed amendment. On the severed amendment of Councilor Penta. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso? No. Councilor Caraviello? No. Councilor Knight? No. Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. No. The vote of four in the negative three in the affirmative. The motion fails main paper by with a motion of approval by council. So as amended by Councilors, Lungo-Koehn and marks as a clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: No.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes, with a vote of 5 in the affirmative and 2 in the negative, the motion passes. Councilor Camuso. It's all set. Very good. On the motion of Councilor Camuso to take the papers from the table. All those in favor? Those opposed? We've received the Afford mentioned a paper of communication and explanation as a requested by the council previously, and as further required by the council by vote of emotion of vice-president on go current. Uh, so before us is 15-seven 34 loan order for the DPW facility project funds, $300,000. Uh, the chair recognizes a councilor Camuso for motion of approval. Ms. Miller, if any of the councilors have any questions for you. There is a written, uh, we didn't have any questions last week. It was on the table last week.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: I did not receive any. questions. I responded to the questions that you asked me here last time I was here.
[Michael Marks]: So we asked the question of the city solicitor regarding the DPW yard, whether or not we were going to go after, uh, the particular consultant company, uh, for the cost. It does not say that that is not for that. There's two different papers. So for that paper, mr. President, we asked, We did not get a response back from the city solicitor. And that was one of the reasons why it was tabled. That was only the one I could fit. I know there was several questions asked. Ms.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: Miller, do you want to, um, yeah, if I may, Mr. President, um, I did speak with the city solicitor. I do recall that you asked that question. I did speak with the city's solicitor. Um, and what he said was we would certainly look at what our avenues were. However, because there was no breach of contract on the part of the consultant here. So we likely would not be recovering anything even if we tried to pursue some type of litigation. This was an estimate on a project. So that's where we were at.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So we hire, and I'm not putting this at you, but we hire an outside consultant to come in and give us an estimate. on the cost of cleanup of the DPW yard. They were roughly 100% off of what they quoted us. And we have no recourse. Why are we hiring these companies? Why are we paying these companies? I mean, you could have got Joe off the street to give you an estimate, and he probably would have been closer. I mean, I'm not sure why there's no recourse on this. It doesn't make any sense.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: We would have to establish professional negligence. That's what the standard would be in this particular instance.
[Michael Marks]: So what is the current standard now? If you hire a company, because I know we've hired companies in the past, and I've heard of a margin of 10 to 15 percent is an acceptable margin of error, and 100 percent to me is not acceptable. There has to be a current standard of practice that's used, and there has to be one that exists. I'm not sure if you can answer that or not.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: I can't answer that today, but I, I did speak with the city solicitor regarding this. And so to the extent that there are avenues that we can pursue, we certainly will. Um, it just was, we're not confident.
[Michael Marks]: I don't think anything's going to be followed up on unless I see something in writing. I don't think anything in this to be quite honest with you is going to be followed up on. Um, so I, I can't support this. I cannot support this DPW paper. based on the fact that this company was $475,000 off of an estimate that they gave. They said it was gonna be about 500,000 to clean up this site. And then it goes on, the response we get back, and this response to me, if you read it, it says the city environmental consultant had tested the property to determine the extent of the contamination. So that's great. They went in there, did their boring, and tested the soil to let us know what's under there. Now I know because of the cleanup that took place on Riverside Ave with the site of where the noodles and Panera is that there was a lot of issues with the contamination. Once it was dug up, there was different ways that they had to handle the contamination. So the reason why you do the boring is to find out what's under there. So it's not a surprise. So you know what has to go out to landfill or what has to be recycled or what could be disposed of in an unlined area. of landfill. So that's the reason why you do this testing. And then it goes on to say, depending on the test results of the soil, we were able to reuse, dispose at an unlined landfill, dispose at a lined landfill, or recycled off-site. The exact amount of the soil in each category and the cost could not be fully determined until the testing of each pile of evacuated soil. That's why we do the boring. That's why we dig. That's why we dig to find out what's out there. So we know what's under the ground. And you're not going to get it exact. I understand that. But we should know the contaminants that are underground. Based on the footage that's in that lot, we should be able to tell roughly what it costs to handle this particular landfill. So I don't buy that. I don't buy the fact that the city now is saying that, well, until we actually get the soil on the ground and see what it is, then we can really have a great picture of what we have to deal with. That's why we did the testing in the first place. Tell me if I'm wrong.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: No, no, I understand what you're saying. But so what happened with the soils, separate permits have to be obtained. for the disposal of, and they're in 500 ton piles. So each 500 ton pile had to be tested separately because that's the maximum amount that the DEP allows in one disposal load. And each one did test separately. And even after we finished removing the contaminated soil, as we dug further in phase two of the construction, we still continued to having to test every pile that we created that was over a certain amount.
[Michael Marks]: So, so what did we find that wasn't in the report? Um, we find out the double the cost that wasn't in the original report when, uh, this particular consultant came back, the city's environmental consultant came back and said, you know what method it's going to cost you a half a million dollars to clean this up. It has the smoking gun.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: It had to do with the site to which we, um, were able to take the soil. and the quantities that we needed it removed. So the site had a more expensive cost facility. The facility had more expensive costs. That is correct. It was more expensive. And the consultant wasn't aware of that. That is correct.
[Michael Marks]: And we have no recourse on that.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: That I have to leave to the city solicitor.
[Michael Marks]: But in my conversation with him, that's, that's where this is a half a million dollars of taxpayer money. Actually, you know, we want to loan, we want to borrow for it. So it mushrooms into 20 years of taxpayers' money, Mr. President. I can't support this, Mr. President. I want a detailed answer from the city solicitor on why this has doubled in cost, Mr. President. After hiring, we did our homework. We did our due diligence. We had the testing. We hired a firm, which I assume is a firm that adheres to all the standards of this particular site testing. And I don't know why we're so far off. Could you build an addition on your house? They come and say it's a hundred thousand then present you with a bill with 200,000 when you raise a flag and say, Hey, what's going on here? But no, we're a city. We'll just eat it. We'll just eat. It's not a big deal.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: I'm not saying that the city is going to end up eating the loss, but at this point we had contracts with contractors and the contractors who have done work and are finishing up work have to be paid. that's where we are with this particular loan order. So whether we have recourse against the engineering firm is or consulting firm is one thing, but this is really to pay the contractors.
[Michael Marks]: Right. I understand that, but I'm not supporting it tonight.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Would it be helpful if we had a committee of the whole meeting on this paper with the, uh, uh, Ms. Miller and the city solicitor, uh, to discuss the matter?
[Michael Marks]: It's up to the council.
[Robert Penta]: I'm not supporting it tonight, but it's up to the council chair recognizes councilor Penta Louise, you, um, not you, excuse me. On November 4th, we received a letter from a solicitor Romley relating to this $300,000 request. And he indicated that the payment is for all costs incidental and related to, well, whatever incidental and related to is, I don't know. And then he indicates, that it's including payments for all costs as it relates to the construction of this particular building. Now, that was on November 4th. You give us a paper on November 25th, but prior to November 25th, which was last week, I believe some of the questions were as follows. Water leaks into the building, the air conditioning and the heating system were at awry, and there were problems ongoing over there. Now you would just say that here tonight, that this payment is for the contractor because of the job that he did. Why would you be paying the contractor if you still have leaks in the building, you have an AC and a heating system still not operable? The building's not even a year old. Isn't it customary that there's always a holdback of X amount of dollars in construction contracts or projects until at least the warranty period is up?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: The holdback is actually until final completion of the project, which hasn't occurred, and we have held back funds right now. We have not paid the contractor, which is why we're not having a problem right now. However, if we don't get the money, we will not be able to pay the contractor, at which point we'll be in breach of contract with the contractor.
[Robert Penta]: How much are you holding back right now?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: Approximately $300,000.
[Robert Penta]: You're holding back, and you want another $300,000?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: No, that's the $300,000 we're holding back.
[Robert Penta]: So you're not holding it back. It's nowhere else in reserve out there.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: That is correct.
[Robert Penta]: OK. So therefore, we would like to believe that this $14,800,000 building was supposedly paid for, however it was paid for. Now we're being told that there is an environmental aspect to it. So the environmental aspect here that you're asking The cost of the project for part, if not all of this money, seems to be contrary to the building paying the contract. What does the contract have to do with the environmental part of it?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: We had a total budget for the project. And there were various funding sources for the budget. We need additional funds primarily because there were cost overruns. And what I did is I described for the council where the cost overruns came in. saved money from what our original projected budget was for the building, which is why I'm only here asking for $300,000 rather than almost the $500,000 that was the total cost over on the soil remediation. We waited to see whether we would recoup some of the losses as part of the building project, which we did. We recouped $200,000 worth of the losses during the building project.
[Robert Penta]: police on November 4th, the letter came forward. It did not mention anything about heat, air conditioning, soil, environmental, nothing. It just says for, for incidentals relative there to very generic and it makes no sense. I'm even surprised that the city solicitor would even write a letter like that without being more descriptive as it relates to why we're looking for the money. But last week I think you heard what the concerns were. you know, what, what, what, what some of these things are. And I, I just cannot believe this was Caldwell and Banker, Caldwell and Brown. This is Brown and Caldwell. And this is the same people that are in the West Medford area doing the city's parking lot over there, making an estimate of, of what should be done there.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: Same group of people? That is correct. But in West Medford, we actually hired a second consulting firm to do a review of the proposed cleanup and the cost estimate. So we did get that second opinion.
[Robert Penta]: And that second firm,
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: It costs $5,000.
[Robert Penta]: That's correct. And the $5,000 company reviewed the $100,000 company.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: That is correct.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah. Well, that makes a lot of sense, but that's beside the point. I am not going to support this. This does not make any sense. There is no reason in here as to why we should even be going forward with this. And if, in fact, they ran into a problem because they couldn't figure out In the landfill, I mean, how deep did they go? Is it their requirement? How deep did they go? Do you know?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: We asked that the entire site be cleaned up so that it could be closed. They went as deep as they had to to remove all the contamination.
[Robert Penta]: So if they went as deep as they had to go? Yes, to clean up the entire contamination. And why is all this coming up now as a cost factor?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: Because we had a total project budget, and we were waiting to see what cost over one would be at the end of the project, which is where we are now.
[Robert Penta]: The actual cost you said is $975,000.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: That was the actual cost of the soil remediation.
[Robert Penta]: But now it's going to be another $300,000 over there. No, the $300,000 for the entire project.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: It's for the entire $14.5 million or whatever the total project cost was. No. It was $500,000. The cleanup had been budgeted originally at $500,000. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: There's obviously some questions. Why don't we send this to the committee of the whole where we can have the department heads there? Cause it's, I just, there's some questions. So I would make that motion. I would draw a motion for approval. Motion to send it to the committee of the whole. Councilor Lococo.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. I agree to Senate's Committee of the Whole. Maybe we can get some documentation with regards to the bill from the contractor and how it's broken down. We did get correspondence, but maybe it can be just a little bit more detailed. Also, if we could just suggest that the free cash be looked into. We were told tonight that there is $9,623,000 in free cash, so I'm not sure why we're going out to bond for the $300,000 when we have obviously overtax the taxpayers enough. So if we can get that question answered or looked into before our Committee of the Whole meeting, that would be helpful. And that's just on this paper?
[Fred Dello Russo]: On this paper. So on the motion to send this to Committee of the Whole by Councilor Camuso as seconded by Councilor Caraviello, and we'll get those questions asked.
[Robert Penta]: Can we get the questions regarding the leaks in the building and the air conditioning and the heating and everything else? There must be a punch list of things to do.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: Yes, and I do believe that those papers were forwarded to various department heads.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Is there a person in the DPW who's in charge of those issues?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: The commissioner.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The commissioner. Very good. So we'll ask, request his presence. I have one question for Louisa.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caffiello. Louisa, also when we meet next week, I had asked about the warranty of the building, when it actually takes effect versus when they say it takes effect. I would think it shouldn't take effect until we actually complete our punch list. We'll find out when it takes effect.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? It was a citizen that wanted to speak.
[Jeanne Martin]: We're going to have a committee of the whole. Jean Martington, Cumming Street, Medford. First of all, I want to thank Mr. Marks for asking those very good questions. But there's two issues here. First of all is the quality of work. which is in question, but then the second question, no offense to the person, the budget director, but the reason why they're coming to you is because they want another bond. So there are two separate issues here. First, you have the quality of work and that whole idea, and then you have the bonding question. And so that's great that you're holding out on the money until they do what they said they were going to do. Plus, can I say something? It was the DPW yards. To not expect toxins is like a duh. You know what I mean? I mean, DPW yard ground. The contractor should have known that there would have been toxins in that ground and deep. So shame on us or shame, you know, for not thinking that through because we're letting the contractor get away with that one. That's on us. That's number one. But number two, the bonding question, no offense, but there's a hidden agenda to keep the bonding rate low. to keep a certain amount of money in the free cash. And let's be honest about that, what's going on behind that scene, which is that they want a lower bonding rate, which is great for borrowing money. But you're putting us in more debt when we have free cash. Plus, this can go under the water and sewer enterprise account because it's the DPW yard. So, no? Okay, I apologize for that, then I'm wrong. I stand corrected. But anyway, you can use the free cash money, but again, there is a hidden agenda that we shouldn't keep this money if we need it for this purpose. And yes, we should have a little cushion in case there's a rainy day, but it's like $9 million, okay? So we can use the $300,000 for this, because we need a police station, and that's going to also have toxins under it. But thank you very much.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. So this paper has been disposed of. This paper has been disposed of. It's no longer under discussion.
[Joe Viglione]: Just a quick point of view. Thank you. Joe Villione, 59 Garfield Avenue, Effort Mass. I'd love to discuss this on public access TV. I think we need to have more transparency in the city because one night at a city council meeting is not enough to get the point across to all 58,000 people, 60,000 people in the city. Where's our public access TV? Where's all this money going?
[Fred Dello Russo]: We have 15 736 before us, a loan order on the Whitthrop street drainage project for $350,000. Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: This one here, uh, the city is pursuing litigation for the money that they feel is owed to them. Um, we have to pay this and move approval at this point.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Motion approved by Councilor Camuso. Ms. Miller, do you, uh, have anything in addition to, uh, present to us? No.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: In this instance, we are seeking, um, we are pursuing the, um, engineering firm and I have detailed what the $350,000 adds up to. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair recognizes the Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President De La Russa. I know we had discussed this last week and there was no, you know, no detail to it. So just to let the viewing public know that the cost overruns are attributed to design errors of the city's outside engineering firm. which the City intends to recoup through litigation. An unmarked duck-bang conflict resulted in $87,000 of additional cost, while unanticipated rock that had to be removed cost another $171,000. This additional work resulted in additional police details totaling $72,000 and additional time spent on the project by a contracted construction supervisor of $20,000. Same question on this one with regards to the the recouping, number one, using free cash, number two, recouping through litigation. You did mention that last week as well. What stage in litigation are we at? Have we filed suit? Are we trying to negotiate that first?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: We have not filed suit. What we did is we prepared our internal documents. We have put a file together and the city solicitor and I have discussed an outside firm that we would be hiring.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And what do we put in towards the outside firm as far as litigation costs? We haven't assessed that yet. And are we going after the full 350 or? Yes, we are. Anything additional to the 350 or that's it?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: I couldn't answer that question. If the city solicitor has something else in mind, yeah, he would have to answer that question.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Roll call. I would just move that this be taken out of free cash.
[Paul Camuso]: Contradictory.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'm amending it to read that the money be taken out of free cash.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So it's two votes, the same as the other paper. Motion. Is there a motion to sever that? Please. A motion to sever this as a B paper.
[Robert Penta]: Chair recognizes Councilor Penta. Mr. President, I, I, Louise, I'm somewhat confused here right now because You're asking for $350,000 to close out the project, but you're also suing the contractor.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: We're not suing the contractor. We're suing the engineering firm.
[Robert Penta]: You're suing the engineering firm? Yes. So you're paying $350,000 to the contractor because you're alleging, or they're alleging, that there was additional rock that had to be removed.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: That is correct.
[Robert Penta]: And it cost $171,000. And the duck bank thing and $72,000 detail. Where was the city's person on this? Did the city from the engineer's office have a person on this job? Yes, we did. Well, didn't they anticipate this? If when they first started up on Winthrop street and got to the rotary, it was all rock going up and it was all rock going forward.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: We did not. And, um, president council president, I'm not sure how far into what our claim I want to, um, or am able to go into an open session. Um, but the engineering firm did not do what the contract required it to do before putting the engineering contract out to bid. And that is what our claim is.
[Robert Penta]: You're saying the engineering firm did not do what the contractor said or vice versa?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: The contract with the engineering firm required them to do before putting out bidding documents. The engineering portion of the bidding documents. I do the contract.
[Robert Penta]: But while that's going on, but where was the city's person to say, what are you doing? You can't do this. You're not following the contract. Why did they go through all this? Almost $300,000, $350,000 before they realized that they didn't do what they were supposed to do.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: Oh no. We knew that there was an issue before the $350,000 was spent. But once the project was started, there was a hole in the street and the project had to be continued.
[Robert Penta]: But as the project was being continued, where was the update from the city or from the person from the city? This looks like it's all now after the fact, because once they got to the rotary there at Winthrop circle and they started to go forward on Winthrop street, further to the high school, that's when they hit all that ledge. That is correct. Continuously, continuously. And we never got any updates on that. And we never got any kind of notification as it related to that. Where was the city's person from the engineer's office? Cassandra never told us about this.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: I can't answer for communications to the council. I'm also, I do not know at what point communications are made regarding these various topics. Um, but I do know at this point is that the project has ended and the contractor has been submitted a final invoice. The contractor did all the work and we are pursuing the engineering firm.
[Robert Penta]: So even though the contractor did all the work, was there a budget for the contractor?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: Yes, there was.
[Robert Penta]: Was there an overrun in the budget for the contractor?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: Yes, there was of $350,000.
[Robert Penta]: Now that was his overrun. Was there a specific dollar amount? And once that dollar amount was met, it had to be renegotiated or was it an open end overrun?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: It did not have to be renegotiated because the bid was a bid for the project with the unit price for the work that would be done. So for instance, with police details, we normally put in a sum. $150,000 is our estimate for what police details will be. The contractor is then reimbursed as police detail costs are incurred for rock and ledge removal of rock and ledge. We have a certain quantity of rock and let's say it's $50 per ton that they remove. So if they, we estimate a quantity of 10 tons, it's $500 in this instance, they found a thousand tons. So the cost was astronomically higher. The duck bank simply was never marked. So when they dug, they found a duck bank.
[Robert Penta]: So this is the same contract that we were going to pay. If I remember correctly, it was Councilor Knighthill alluded to way back when that they were putting this stuff all over the sidewalks and in front of people's homes and their trucks were all over the place and the green pipes were all up and down the street, but no penalty. I just don't understand how you can have a contract that doesn't have a penalty clause in there over and beyond, or if this has to be unanticipated work, a dollar amount and a beginning and an end date.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: What if this was a million dollars? What are we going to do, pay it? There was a dollar amount. That's how we know what the cost overrun amounts were. No.
[Robert Penta]: Was there a time date to go to the dollar amount?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: A time date?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah. In other words, was it a month, two months, three months? I mean, if you're hitting ledge, it's quite obvious you're going to stop your
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: It slowed the progress way down, which is why we incurred additional costs. Police details, we had days and days of additional police detail. Point of information, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor Marks. I believe what's missing here is the engineering firm was hired by the city. That's correct. They're not part of the construction company. So they're the ones that were in error when they arrived at where the ledge was and how much it was going to cost and digging and so forth. I believe that's why the city's pursuing litigation with the engineering company and needing to pay off the actual people that did the work because they're two, the two separate companies. So I think that's what we're missing. Now the two separate companies, the company that did the work, they're not in fault.
[Robert Penta]: Uh, I got no problem with that. I think we were asking for, as we did the last copy of the contract so we could see at them and the engineering contract, we asked for the solicitor to give us a copy of that so we could so we could review that, have a better understanding of it. I guess my part that I just don't understand, because I'm not an expert anywhere in this particular area, but all I know is if you run into a snafu in any type of a contract, what overruns, whatever it might be, I believe that there was a beginning and an ending date and there's a penalty and a reward clause if you go over or beyond or if you don't exceed it. And I don't hear that conversation being said. I agree with Councilor Longo to take it out of free cash. So I would support the amendment to take it out of free cash.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The question has been moved on the motion for approval by Councilor Camuso and with the seventh paper that the paper be taken, the money be taken out of free cash. So we'll take the seventh paper first, a motion by Vice President Lungo-Koehn to take the money out of free cash. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso? Yeah. Councilor Caraviello? No. Councilor Knight? No. Vice President Lungo-Koehn? Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: No vote of four in the negative three in the affirmative. The motion fails to the main motion for approval by councilor Camuso. This is, this is for first reading. So, uh, for passage of this, a simple majority is necessary before the roll call is called. The Vice President of the City Council has been asked to be recognized. Madam Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President DelaRosa. I just want to mark my reasoning for voting no, because I believe this should be taken out of free cash, rather than go out to bond on such an issue.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso? Yes. Councilor Cabrera? Yes. Councilor Nunez? Yes. Vice President Longstreet?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: No.
[Clerk]: Yes. Council Penta? No. President Dello Russo?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. With a vote of five in the affirmative, two in the negative, first reading passes. Ms. Miller, thank you very much.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Papers on to suspension. Motion for suspension of the rules by Council Penta. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. Papers on to suspension in the hand of the clerk. uh, offered by consulate Penta under suspension, be it resolved that an expression of sympathy be forwarded to the family of Mark Spector, who recently passed away. Mark was the owner of Medford Hillside hardware store for years and was in a neighborhood staple to many businesses and residents.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, if anyone knows anything about the, the Medford Hillside up there by Tufts University where Sacred Heart Church used to be. Mark Spector and their Medford Hillside hardware store was well known. He was a very good businessman, but he was also very kind and gentle to his neighbors in the community and to the church when the church was there and as well to Tufts University. So he's certainly going to be missed. It's the second icon up there of a business person. Last year, it was the lady who owned Tasty Gourmet. Um, and now it's Mark Spector. So hopefully, um, they're at peace and their family is somewhat comforted at this particular time.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Please join us in a moment of silence. Papers in the hand of the clerk first. Be it resolved, offered by Councilor Camuso, be it resolved that the surcharge for senior citizens exemption for telephone use be discussed.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you very much. This is just a friendly reminder for anyone over 65 years of age. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we're the only state that has a law that exempts senior citizens from having to pay for a fee to use So, if senior citizens see a fee on their bill for 411 directory assistance calls, it's usually $2.49. If you see that, give a call to Comcast at 855-270-0379. Could you repeat that, please? 1-855-270-0379. And Verizon is 1-800-974-4111. 6-0-0-6, and you can get the forms, fill them out, and you can be exempted that fee. So I know it's not a lot of money, but $2.50 a month for an entire year, it's certainly something for a senior citizen that's on a fixed income, and just want to spread the word on it. I'd like to see more people take advantage of it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Absolutely. Thank you. On the motion approved by Councilor Tommuzo. All those in favour? All those opposed? Citizen would like to speak. Mr. Citizen, please state your name and address for the record.
[Robert Cappucci]: Thank you, Mr. President. Bob Capucci, 71 Evans Street in Medford. I just wanted to talk about the third annual Jingle Bell 5K Walk Run that we just had here in Medford on Saturday. First of all, I want to thank the city of Medford, Lonergan's Insurance, all the folks that work the tables at the registration. other places like Carol's Restaurant, like we were talking about earlier, who hosted the night before the Mustang Spirit Night with Medford's own Vanessa Salvucci, awesome vocal talent. Also had a breakfast there the next morning. And to the police and the city officials that helped keep safety on the streets. And that is actually the reason I wanted to speak tonight before this body. Uh, they closed down Potter Riverside Avenue, but the, the walk run goes behind the McGlynn and Andrew school. And that street wasn't shut down. And, and I was a walker, not a runner. And I was walking next to, uh, a couple of families, uh, uh, Councilor elect, uh, John Falco. I saw in the crowd there that day, uh, because that street was open, There were people making audible complaints and frustration having to pull their five and seven-year-old kid out in front of moving traffic. Next year, if they can also close down that street as well, not that I'm saying that there was an incident or anything, but it would probably be in the city's best interest for a public safety issue to either alter the route or close down that street as well. I forget the name of the street, it's right behind the McGlynn and Andrew School, running alongside Hormel. And also, if I can, a quick shout out to the Medford High Mustangs, who made a valiant effort at Hormel Stadium. Going to miss number 31, especially, DiLorenzo, Anthony, great player. But thank you all for the Jingle Bell Walk Run. It was a great event. I hope more people will come out for it. next year as well. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion, is this on this matter?
[Unidentified]: No, it's not.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Camuso, that the paper be received and placed on file. All those in favor? Opposed? Thank you. Offered by Councilor Knight. Offered by Councilor Knight. Be it resolved, the Medford City Council congratulates Stephen South on his recent appointment to the position of Vice President with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Number 25.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knife. Mr. President, thank you very much. Steve Sealth is a Medford resident. He's a hardworking individual whose efforts were honored by President O'Brien, also another Medford resident here down at Local 25. So I'd like the council to extend the deep condolence, deep congratulations to Mr. Sealth and his family on his recent appointment.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes, a little bit of both. On the motion of congratulations by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Seconded by Councilor... Thank you, Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: I would be absolutely remiss if I did not say a few words about this gentleman. First of all, this is the gentleman who came down to a Medford Public Works building and made intentional lies about me, Robert Penta, as a candidate for mayor in this past election. He basically went down there and said things that were absolutely not true.
[Adam Knight]: Absolutely not true. He does, and it most certainly does.
[Robert Penta]: You're talking about, it most certainly is about your colleague. He didn't do anything good because if he did say anything good, he wouldn't mind his business and he wouldn't spew out lies about a candidate running for office.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I am not.
[Robert Penta]: I am talking about somebody, talking about somebody who had no right saying what they did. I am not, Mr. President. Your city solicitor is well aware of this. He even wrote a commentary as he relates to it. You just can't go around talking about people and telling lies. And that's just what the gentleman did.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Now, if he wants to come here and apologize, I'll accept his apology. On the motion of approval by Councilor Knight, a roll call vote has been requested. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Joe Viglione]: I'd like to speak on this.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Camuso?
[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Mayes? Yes. Vice-President O'Connor?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Markswell? No. Councilor Penta? Absolutely not.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. With a vote of five in the affirmative, none in the negative, the measure passes.
[Joe Viglione]: Sir. Good evening. My name is Joe Villione, 59 Garfield Ave. And I don't think it's appropriate to bring up things, bringing pals up and endorsing them and thanking them. This is about the city of Medford and the problems we have. And Mr. Knight is out of order.
[Adam Knight]: With the clouds of negativity that sometimes surround this room, I think it's very important that we point out some of the good things that are also happening in this community, Mr. President. And quite frankly, I think being appointed a vice president of an international union is very important, very important to his family, very important to the people that work in that union, very important to the people that work in that union and live in this community, Mr. President. I bring the matter forward because it's a momentous occasion, not for any other reason. And for people to paint it another way is totally inaccurate, totally inappropriate, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, we're talking about acknowledgements and, and, and acknowledging people for what they did. This gentleman is part of the same union who came to this city of Medford and harassed people and bullied people.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor. That's it. That's it. Councilor Marks, you asked to be recognized. The records.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Camuso. I would be remiss if I didn't congratulate the gentleman on his appointment as vice president. And sometimes people forget a community like Medford has over 500 members of the local 25. We disposed of the matter.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Oh, OK.
[Michael Ruggiero]: I'm sorry.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much. The gentleman at this podium will speak.
[Michael Ruggiero]: Hello, Mr. President. My name is Michael Wajiro. I just want to make a quick announcement. First off, I wanted to thank all of the wonderful people that put up these beautiful trees. It's quite beautiful and on a different note. I wanted to mention something really quick. I have right here, I've been circulating a petition to review our charter. Both of the incoming candidates and our incoming administration wants to review the charter. I just want to, I ask everyone to participate now in this conversation. Um, there's going to be a meeting at the library on December 10th at six 30. Everyone is welcome to attend. Um, so we can all discuss this as an open and forum possible. So thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Council members. Mr. President, I just want to thank Mike Ruggiero. He's spent countless hours knocking doors, going around, uh, city events, trying to get signatures for a charter review, which I think everyone behind this railing and every resident in this community feels is appropriate that, uh, there'd be a review of our charter that was enacted some 28 years ago. And I just wanted to personally thank him. Uh, he seems to be a one man band and, uh, and, uh, I know this is going to be helpful in moving this issue forward.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The right. Thank you. Councilor. The records of the meeting of November 21st were passed to Councilor Camuso. Mr. Camuso, did you have a moment to inspect those records and how do you find them? On the motion of Councilor Camuso for approval of the records. All those in favor? All those opposed? Mr. President.
[Adam Knight]: We may have a piece of unfinished business reporting the committee paper out today that we had the committee of the whole on for a public hearing. Oh yes. Uh, Councilor Knight. Um, we did have a committee of the whole meeting this afternoon at five 30 relative to setting the FY 16 tax rate, Mr. President. And, um, I believe, uh, it was the finding of the committee to have several questions answered, but to put this on for a public hearing next week.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. So we have the public hearing on the 8th of December next, uh, Tuesday here in the council chambers at 7 PM. Correct. Very good. Thank you. Councilor. My apologies. Counsel Max.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could also, as part of the site plan review of the project that took place on Riverside Ave, the Panera, the Smashburger, and the noodles, part of the site plan review and approval by this council was to repair the sidewalks adjacent to the project. They poured beautiful sidewalks on the side of the proposed plan, but we're supposed to fix the crosswalk. Um, and also, uh, fix the sidewalks on the other side of the street. So if we can ask that of site plan review, uh, to see where that sits, it may be the city solicitor to see where that sits.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. On the motion for adjournment by council. So all those in favor.
|
total time: 18.36 minutes total words: 1410  |
total time: 3.72 minutes total words: 407  |
total time: 22.45 minutes total words: 1685  |
total time: 2.52 minutes total words: 233  |
|
total time: 6.87 minutes total words: 679  |
total time: 9.01 minutes total words: 696  |
total time: 4.35 minutes total words: 358  |
total time: 17.83 minutes total words: 857  |
|
total time: 2.39 minutes total words: 250  |
|||