[Paul Camuso]: The 38th regular meeting of the Medford City Council will be called to order. The clerk will call the roll.
[Clerk]: Vice President Caraviello. Present. Councilor Dello Russo. Present. Councilor Knight. Present. Councilor McCurran. Present. Councilor Marx. Present. Councilor Penta.
[Paul Camuso]: Present. President Camuso. Present. Six members present, one absent. Please rise to salute to the flank. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Chair recognizes Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. I'd like to motion to suspend rule number 33 to take paper 14756 out of order.
[Paul Camuso]: All in the motion, all those in favor? All those opposed? The ayes have it. Paper 14-756 special permit zoning drive through Fellsway property LLC. It was in the city council on December 9th and it was tabled until this evening. The attorney is here with the client and Mr. Abbruzzese.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. President, members of the council. I'd first like to thank each and every one on the council for the courtesy extended to myself and my client on December 9th. when I wasn't able to be here. I know that at this point some of the councilors are going to have some questions. We have our engineers here and Karen Johnson, representative of the petitioner, to answer any questions that the council may have.
[Paul Camuso]: Any questions for Mr. Bruese? Chair awaits a motion. Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Chair would like to add that Councilor Penta is here. Please record that, clerk.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. We didn't have clear plans with regards to the drive-through. Can you tell me how many cars are going to be able to be queued? I don't know if you have the poster board you had last week with A, B, and C, and maybe we can outline that again. That was my main question last week. Yeah, that's what I wanted.
[39QZXkKLDII_SPEAKER_01]: Good evening, Patrick Dunford, Traffic Engineer with VHB. As I understand it, there was questions regarding the drive-thru operation and the queue storage in particular. If I could just highlight that in the graphic we have in front of me. The drive-thru window is on the side of the Panera building in that tan area in the drive-thru lane. That's where the vehicle would pull up to pick up their goods. Leading up to that, there is a separated drive-thru lane extending around the bottom side of the building away from Riverside Avenue. In total, from the window to the very end where the main drive aisle picks up, you have 220 feet. With typical drive-thru spacing for passenger vehicles, that translates into about 10 cars. Anecdotally, from having looked at the few Panera drive-thru operations that are out there, that's more than adequate to handle what we've seen under their regular conditions. And it's a far more quiet operation than you might find in other drive-thru type uses that you may be more familiar with.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Where are your other locations?
[39QZXkKLDII_SPEAKER_01]: The one I had looked at most recently was in Walpole, Massachusetts. That's located at the Walpole Mall, Route 1, pretty busy arterial in that area, and a very active shopping center, somewhat comparable to the Fellzoy Plaza.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And tenant A is Panera. Tenant B is Karen Johnson.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: Tenant B is Smashburger, which I believe you've already looked at some of their applications pending, Common Vic license, liquor license as well, and tenancy is Noodles, which is a relatively new, fast, casual restaurant concept, one just recently opened in Burlington.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: On average, I guess at the other locations of Panera, what's the average wait time per order?
[39QZXkKLDII_SPEAKER_01]: From what I've seen with the orders, they can range if it's just a single cup of coffee to someone getting it in 30 seconds. Some of the other orders with the sandwiches or more complicated drinks can be a couple of minutes. So it ranges in that 30 second to two minute, maybe two and a half minute window. With that level of activity and that type of turnover, In my time looking at these, actually the most recent being on a rainy day where you typically get your heaviest usage, there was about a four to six car maximum queue. Where on this site, that would put us basically back to the middle tenant and not back to the rear drive aisle. So we have a little bit of a buffer zone in there as far as drive-through storage.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Just my comments, I think what These three restaurants are going to fix up the area that is in blight. Obviously, the demo has been done. My only concern is 10 cars going to be enough for a queue. This is a completely different location than Walpole. This is Wellington Circle, one of the probably busiest intersections in Massachusetts. I mean, you go up to Woburn, and there's a Starbucks drive-through. And I saw the other day it was 17 cars queued. And they're a quick cup of coffee only. I mean, that's where you're buying sandwiches and soups and salads. I do have an extreme concern where whether or not 10 cars is going to be enough, especially where you have Stop and Shop right behind there. The senior citizens are always in and out of that location. I don't know how my Councilors feel, but that would be my only concern. Blocking the way and never mind. I don't think there's enough room to block the riverside, but blocking your own entrance and exit might be a problem, might become a problem.
[39QZXkKLDII_SPEAKER_01]: If I could add to that, hopefully it adds some comfort. Anytime you have a drive-thru use in a property, you have to look at both the drive-thru and the parking supply. Again, I'm very confident from having done several drive-thru type uses, the 10 car storage is more than adequate. However, if someone was to pull into the site, This entire property has a total of 61 parking spaces on the site. Zoning requires only 26, so in anticipation of just making sure that we're not designing this down to the decimal place, we have far exceeded the parking supply where if someone does pull in, and it does tend to be a regular customer base at any sort of food establishment like this, they'll know, based on those wait times that I talked about, that you're probably a lot quicker just getting into the parking lot and walking in. And I'd also add as well, I appreciate the concerns with the Starbucks history. They also have sometimes, if you've seen the complicated drink orders with individuals also getting the sandwiches. The Panera that I looked at, again, it's a pretty active site. did not come anywhere near that level. Um, I don't anticipate this one would either. And also, um, in terms of the morning activity, uh, the coffee oriented activity with the other uses being the smash burger and the noodles, you're not going to find that type of activity at those restaurants in the morning, just in the parking lot. So you're going to be faced with the drive through lane that will be visible from Riverside Ave at the very end. If there ever was an issue, and a pretty ample parking field that'll be there for those that choose to walk in. So it's really the combination of the two that give me confidence that this can work more than acceptably.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I think one positive is that you have the two other exits and entrances, but I don't put it past people to queue up 17, 18 cars for Panera. I mean, I frequent the one in Everett and 12 o'clock in the afternoon, you cannot find a seat, and the line is out the door. So it's an extremely popular restaurant.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: It is, and that's also, I think, a very good point. The distinction between an exclusive sit-down restaurant, which is the Everett location, and a location like this, which combines a pickup window, is that Panera, and they're very smart, they know what they're doing, obviously, they know how to design their menu, they know how to accommodate their customer, they're very service-oriented. And what they've done in the drive-through locations that they're building from the ground up, which is essentially this location, they have created two kitchen lines within the kitchen. So from a production standpoint, the person that walks in and orders at the counter at front, their sandwich, their order is being produced in a separate line. So the drive-thru line, the drive-thru window has its own line. And so that does increase the amount of time dramatically that, rather not increase the amount of time, it decreases the amount of time where they're from the order to the pickup for their food production. Okay, thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Two questions. I'd like to have the city solicitor come to the podium, please. I think point number one, I'm concerned about the legality of what's before us tonight. Um, how so? Well, maybe you can explain how you can continue a public hearing, how you can continue a public hearing.
[Mark Rumley]: Well, if you'd be specific, you mean about this hearing? I believe this was on a few weeks ago and the request was made that, uh, it be continued to another night because somebody was in the hospital. I believe that the hearing was opened and continue to today. Uh, and that people were asked to speak in favor. I didn't watch the meeting, but I heard they spoke in favor or against just one correction.
[Paul Camuso]: Mr. Solicitor, the hearing was opened. given people the opportunity to speak. Then it was open for people in opposition and then the public hearing was closed. So it was a regular paper of the council that was tabled.
[Mark Rumley]: Yes. I recall when this came up, I spoke with the city clerk about it and this was the method that he suggested. And I agree.
[Paul Camuso]: And the chair did his due diligence, as you know, before the meeting on this, knowing the attorney was sick.
[Robert Penta]: Yes, the chair was involved too. But my question is, revolves more around the fact that the hearing was closed. Did it need to be re-advertised again? Cause it was closed cause no decision was made.
[Mark Rumley]: Well, without having watched what occurred that night, I'm told that at least a portion of it was closed for those in favor or those against, but the rest of it was continued to tonight for your deliberation.
[Robert Penta]: I believe the young lady that appeared before the council on that particular night indicated that she was willing to go forward with the meeting. And any further questions, she would refer them to Mr. Abruzzese, who unfortunately was not here that night.
[Mark Rumley]: Right. And I believe that's the reason for the request for a continuance, which I think is a normal courtesy that one would expect.
[Robert Penta]: I'm not worried about the continuance. I'm just talking about the legality of it for any kind of a challenge.
[Mark Rumley]: Cabling it? Well, I can say honestly that in the two or three weeks since this was last before the council, I have not heard one word from anyone, a but or otherwise, objecting to procedurally the protocol that's been implemented for this before the council tonight.
[Robert Penta]: But that's not, I'm not worried about what you heard or what you didn't hear. I'm more concerned.
[Mark Rumley]: The only way it could be, the only way it could be if you use the word legal or illegal is if it was challenged. I haven't had, I don't think first of all that it is illegal, but secondly, I haven't heard an inkling of any type of overture from the public that someone was denied the right to speak or that this matter isn't before this council tonight appropriately.
[Robert Penta]: I really don't think that's the issue. I think, you know, I'm not worried about what the public said to you or didn't say to you. I think I'm just more concerned.
[Mark Rumley]: Let's put it this way. If you're going to ask me about the legality of this procedure, procedure and legality are synonymous for our purposes. Now, if what you want to do is to have me render an opinion about the legality of this proceeding, then what I would have to do is to go back, take a look at all of the documentary um, filings with the clerk that led up to this, take a look at the advertising, watch what occurred at the last meeting. And after discerning all of those facts with certainty, then I would render an opinion. But if you're going to ask me right now, on the basis of your question within seconds later to render an opinion about this legality, I won't do so because it's imprudent.
[Robert Penta]: I didn't expect a dissertation. I just asked a very simple question that the council This is not a normal procedure in the council.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information. Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: If I could, Mr. President, just to help me understand what's going on here. What is the purpose of this questioning?
[Robert Penta]: Oh, it's very simple. When you postpone a public hearing, it's the advertising. If you're postponing it, does it have to be re-advertised because you postponed it?
[Mark Rumley]: This protocol, this process was suggested by the city clerk and I agree with him. This was not a second hearing. This is a continuation of the first hearing. I understand that.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. Clark, what is the procedure on a postponement of a public hearing?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Mr. President?
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information, Councilor Villaruso. The public hearing was not postponed to my understanding.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: The public hearing was completed. It was just laid on the table for a moment.
[Paul Camuso]: The public hearing was closed, and then the paper was laid on the table at the request of a Councilor, because the attorney wasn't present.
[Robert Penta]: I'd like to ask the court the question, please.
[Paul Camuso]: Go ahead.
[Robert Penta]: When hearing is either postponed or laid on the table, what is the procedure? If the hearing comes to an end on that particular night and no decision is made, does it need to be re-advertised? That's the question.
[Clerk]: No, the motion was to table. So that means that's what it is. It's unfinished now.
[Paul Camuso]: Public hearings have been done the same way in the past.
[Clerk]: I think we've had this before in Stop and Shop and 10 years ago, we tabled the public hearings. We had a number that we tabled for the next week or got referred to a committee.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: My understanding was that it was simply to be tabled tonight and to be taken off the table for the purpose of taking a vote. Simple as that.
[Robert Penta]: I'm going to respectfully disagree with you. I believe councilor, Mr. Brucey, I think, excuse me. I think, I think Mr. Point of clarity, it wasn't that it was to give the courtesy for you to come back to answer any questions, not to take a vote. That was the issue. And as the young lady was at the podium, that was her comment last time.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: Well, also to answer any questions that any of the councils may have. I understand that.
[Robert Penta]: The second question, um, is, is this, approval going to the land? Is it going to Panera? Is it going to the people on the real estate? Who's it going to?
[Paul Camuso]: It's the will of the council.
[Robert Penta]: No. I'm asking her the question, please.
[Paul Camuso]: Well, you've been around a long time. You should know.
[Robert Penta]: I want to ask her the question. You don't keep interrupting.
[Paul Camuso]: I'll do as I may, councilor.
[Robert Penta]: Well, you certainly do. You do a good job of interrupting. That's correct. Could you please answer the question?
[Elizabeth Bayle]: Sure. It's going to be a fun year. The application was presented on behalf of the property owner, and I work for the property owner. We are representing that this is the drive-through special permit itself is for the Panera use.
[Robert Penta]: So why isn't Panera itself making the application?
[Elizabeth Bayle]: Because we are responsible for receiving all of the local permits for Panera short of operational permits, which they will come in and obtain themselves.
[Robert Penta]: So if Panera were to leave that place and at some time in the future, that's an allowable spot for another drive-through?
[Elizabeth Bayle]: If that, uh, if they were to leave, I think it all depends from a procedural perspective. I would defer to, obviously, Attorney Abruzzi, but if you issue a special permit that is specific to Panera as the operator, then it would be my understanding that if a new tenant came in, we would have to reapply and then present the information for that tenant. For example, the information that we presented to you from a traffic perspective and a queuing perspective is tenant-specific.
[Robert Penta]: I believe special permits go to the applicant.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: They do. But this council has many times, uh, sought to assign them to the tenant only. And we have no objection if that's what the Councilor is leading to. Did it within the last few months.
[Robert Penta]: I moved that to make that an amendment that it's Panera as the tenant is the only one entitled to this drive through on the motion as amended by Councilor Penta Councilor Marks.
[Paul Camuso]: And then vice president carry on.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. During the site plan review, probably two months back, there was a recommendation, one of several recommendations, to alter the drive-through. Can you just point out on the plan what exactly was altered for the drive-through?
[Elizabeth Bayle]: Sure. Again, Karen Johnson, it was a relatively minor request as it related to the drive-through. just point out that on this plan, the stop bar is now parallel to the left side of the building. Previously a car exiting the pickup window could continue straight heading in the same direction towards Riverside Avenue. And the recommendation was that as you're coming out of the drive through, you have to turn right and come to a stop bar. Again, that's parallel at that point in time. you can make a left turn or a right turn. So that was incorporated into the final plans.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Um, also, um, the, uh, filtration system, uh, as a Panera or yourself agreed to, uh, we mentioned at the last, Smashburger that was a charcoal filtration system, but I'm being told there are other type of filtration systems that may best suit this. So I just want to go on record that yourself open era will provide the filtration system.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: Yes. And I just, uh, this is an issue for some of the other council members that, um, after meeting with some of the neighbors, they raised some concerns, both at the community development board meeting and at followup discussions. And after reviewing with our HVAC engineer and architect for Panera, which is primarily the odors emanating from a Panera will be primarily from baking bread. And so the vents over the ovens for that cooking process will have a charcoal filter.
[Michael Marks]: So we'll have a charcoal filter. Yes. And the other point I had was from neighbors in the area regarding no parking in front of the establishment on Riverside Ave. I realize that's under the city jurisdiction, but I just want you, as the owner of the property, representing the owner of the property, that I, as a member of the council, I'm sure other members agree, that we're gonna push so that there is no parking along the curb on Riverside Ave.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: That is acceptable, and that is also our expectation, as Pat Dunford mentioned earlier, we have more than enough parking onsite to service those uses. And we would discourage our operators and our customers and their employees from parking along Riverside. I just want to be clear though, that it's, it's only, it's only along Riverside because I believe the residents on the opposite side, only on our side of Riverside would there be no parking signs. I believe the residents on the opposite side of Riverside do use that for parking.
[Michael Marks]: Correct. It would only be on the retail side in front of the establishment. And also, uh, during site plan review, one of the recommendations was the exit out of your lot, uh, that there would be signage, which I believe, uh, uh, I see in the plan here, but I only see one sign unless that's just pointing to two separate areas where it says you have to exit, take a right onto commercial street rather than go back to the congested way of getting out onto Riverside Ave.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Can you point to where those signs are located?
[Elizabeth Bayle]: of the title sign and what it would look like. It says exit to Commercial Street with an arrow pointing you down the right side of Ocean State Job Lot, which at that point could obviously connect you to the signalized intersection at Riverside and Commercial. And those signs will be placed at both exit points into the shopping center. So the leaders coming off of that sign show going here and here. at both exit points.
[Michael Marks]: And did you have to have any discussion with Ocean State Job Lot relative to using that's their access driveway, correct? We did.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: We did. We have an agreement, just to be clear on this issue for those of you that didn't participate in the Community Development Board process, Property that are owned by similar entities are where we're proposing the Riverside restaurants here. And this property here are in similar ownership. Ocean State Job Lot owns this piece here, out to here, and out to here. So in order for us to be able to use their area, we had to enter into a side agreement with Ocean State Job Lot, who owns that parcel. And we started this process of communicating with them, trying to come to an understanding about this, even before we closed on the property a little over a year ago. Because we knew that what we wanted to achieve with the Riverside parcel really would require a better disbursement of traffic, if you will. And we've talked about this a number of times with neighbors, with the Community Development Board. We understand that a single access point on Riverside is the minimum necessary. Our tenants would prefer to have two points. There previously were three access points along Riverside. We wanted to get as far away from the main plaza drive and as far away from the signalized intersection as possible with the access for the restaurants. Knowing that, again, better disbursement of the traffic is ideal in this situation, we entered into an agreement which is now recorded on the land record. So it is a permanent agreement with Ocean State.
[Michael Marks]: So if need be, at some point, Can we have it so that cars have to exit coming out of your lot out to the commercial street area through means of barriers or some type of? I'm not asking you to make a definitive now, but if the traffic, as we all anticipate, is going to increase, which we hope it does with these three businesses, that at some point maybe to help alleviate some of the concerns we have with the queuing up, exiting onto Riverside Ave, that may be an alternative.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: You know, I think what we have to take a look at, and Pat Dunford obviously can give you a little bit more discussion on this item, is where is the traffic coming from and what it attributes to the larger problem. And I think we all understand that the larger problem is with the queue at the signal on the Fellsway. And we hope to have a better solution at some point in the future. that would better facilitate the flow in of cars using our main plaza drive and the exit flow out. One thing that we are proposing to do, and it's not in any of your materials, it's something that we have discussed with the neighbors, is just something as simple, and you can actually, you can see it on this plan. Actually, I do have a copy of it, which I can show you. What we'd like to do, and this, of course, would have to go to the Traffic Commission for approval, but is just proposed striping so that you can't block this intersection, because that creates a lot of conflict in this area. And we obviously don't control the signal at the Fells Way. This property had three access points. Historically, we're taking three access points, moving it down to two, and then also, excuse me, moving it down to one, and then also providing two outlets at the rear. And so the agreement with Ocean State is that we have the right to use that. We also have the right to a certain number of parking spaces on their property in this area. There was a tremendous expense to us being able to negotiate that agreement with Ocean State, as you may have guessed. And so at this point in time, it is really critical for the operation of these users to have access off Riverside.
[Michael Marks]: And just one last point. You mentioned at a recent meeting that you were going to also do sidewalks on the opposite side of Riverside Ave to improve pedestrian safety.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: Not the full length of it. And I can... This plan does show a length of improvement of sidewalk and some street trees on the opposite side of Riverside. construction of a new crosswalk so that residents in the area of Riverside and the surrounding neighborhoods around 4th Street area would have a safer way of walking to our location. The new crosswalk will connect you to a new sidewalk system on our side of the property. That is something that we think will help in terms similar to the striping at the intersection, we think that'll help with pedestrian safety, and we think it will help with traffic operations. I'm sure you're aware that we do have the impact fees, which I think on this property are close to $17,000. Yeah, so we, as part of the building permit process, we will have to make that contribution, but this is above and beyond that.
[Michael Marks]: Did you say linkage money?
[Elizabeth Bayle]: Is that what you just mentioned? Right. This is subject to linkage fees.
[Michael Marks]: So do you know what the actual linkage fees are?
[Elizabeth Bayle]: It's it's about 17 17 to 18,000.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: Mr. President, I just want to say that just on that point, I think the biggest impact financially for the city will be meals taxes.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: Exactly. Thank you, Bob. That's an excellent point.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: Obviously, also in addition to the increased real estate tax base, I think the biggest
[Michael Marks]: Oh, by far, but not many communities have linkage, and it's an extra additive when companies come in and do work up to a certain size. So it's a benefit to this community. Mr. President, You know, the neighbors had many concerns. The petitioner was good enough to sit down at a meeting with the neighbors a couple of weeks ago when we had that monsoon rainstorm. Also, during the site plan review, there was a number of questions answered. I know this is not going to be a perfect situation relative to the traffic impact. We've had discussions. Hopefully, someday we'll be able to sit down with the state. In my opinion, The Fells Plaza, you should be able to exit the Fells Plaza on the Fellsway and also be able to cross over the Fellsway and go east, like you go into Haines Square up the Fellsway. That would alleviate all of Riverside Ave or a lot of the traffic on Riverside Ave. Unfortunately, right now, when you come out of the Fellsway, you have to take a right onto the Fellsway and go into Wellington Circle. And for many people in that particular area, that doesn't suit their need when they're coming out of stop and shop or, or, you know, a business establishment. So, uh, I will support this here tonight, Mr. President. I think it's an addition, uh, to, uh, the neighborhood and something that we have to monitor for overall, uh, traffic impact and pedestrian safety in the area, Mr. President.
[Paul Camuso]: And that was a motion for the charcoal filter, correct?
[Michael Marks]: Correct.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. Councilor.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Dello Russo, then Vice President Caraviello.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, I'm very glad that we've got such favorable results here tonight. The proprietors of the property have certainly shown, since they've come to Medved, a willingness to engage and be good neighbors. They've met with neighbors and listened to their concerns and made the appropriate amendations when asked. Now we can be certain that all the renters who are operating the restaurants there will be using exhaust systems that clean the air and remove any odors from it. I'm also very delighted to see, and my question was going to be, did your traffic consultants look into the possibility of creating a do not block the grid type application on Riverside Ave where the plaza empties. And I'm glad that you're looking into it. And I'm glad that you're going to consult with the traffic department so that you can find a way of implementing that and do the appropriate research to present it to the traffic department. I think this is going to be a nice addition. I see you're going to plant trees. Um, can you tell us any type of trees that are going to be there? Will there be any palm trees?
[Elizabeth Bayle]: I'm afraid not. Okay. It's unfortunately not the climate for, for palm trees. Not certainly not tonight and not two weeks ago, but thank you for your positive comments.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, a motion to approve on the motion as amended as amended.
[Richard Caraviello]: Vice President, caveat. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I also want to thank you for stepping up in such a short time after you purchased the property, take over this property. It's been a property of being in 15 years. I think it'll be a great addition to the neighborhood. It'll be obviously a lot better to look at than what was there. Just two questions. I've been to other Panera's in the past. Is there going to be like takeover packing? in the parking lot?
[Elizabeth Bayle]: They have asked for a couple of spaces, yes. So we haven't identified where those will be yet, but they're usually at more of a convenient location to the door. There's a pickup opportunity, and then they're done.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah, then you've got five minutes to run in and get your stuff. And one last question. Do you feel that three handicap spots is enough?
[Elizabeth Bayle]: You know, I'm going to ask Ken, our site civil engineer, that question, because we did We did look at that very closely and we, you know, we tried to position those spaces closer to the ramps, obviously. But Ken, why don't you?
[Richard Caraviello]: I just asked if I see you only, you only have three handicaps boxes in there today. That's adequate.
[39QZXkKLDII_SPEAKER_01]: That's per code for the number of spaces, 60 spaces. We need to provide at least three.
[Richard Caraviello]: If at some point we feel that you would add more, if there was a need for more.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: You know, I may have said this before, but we do, as well as owning and developing our properties, we also manage them, and we have very close relationships with our tenants, the managers of those operations. We check in with them on a regular basis, and we've had situations in the past, for example, our Whole Foods Center in Melrose, where partly because of the population characteristics, we did add some additional handicapped spaces, so we are very in tune what the customers need and responding to them. So, yes, we will do that if necessary.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you very much. Councilor Knight and Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Having reviewed the paperwork, I find everything in order. I feel as though this is a long overdue and much needed revitalization to a site that's been in disrepair for quite some time, Mr. President. So, I'd like to second Councilor Dello Russo's motion to move for approval as amended.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Knight. I'm sorry, Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Thank you, President Camuso. I'm going to just move or ask, I know you have a do not block driveway sign heading into the stop and shop. At the end of the drive-through where you say you can queue up to 10 cars, can we put a do not queue beyond this point sign? I'd like to make that as part of the paper. Do not queue beyond this point. Yeah, so you don't block any of the entrance. Like you do have three entrances, which is great, but I mean, if you start queuing around 15 cars, you're gonna start blocking spots. So if we could put a do not queue beyond this point, I think I'd be okay with it.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: You're talking about the right rear corner of the building?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: The right rear corner, yes, right here. So you don't block this exit and entrance, the top right, yes. Whether people listen to that sign or not, at least, most people probably will, so hopefully that would solve my issue.
[Paul Camuso]: All right. Thank you. Come on. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_00]: Kristen Bartlett, 488 Riverside Avenue, Medford, Massachusetts. Hi, so I actually live right across the street from this development. One of the difficulties that I had spoken about the last time that we were here was my concern about the traffic flow. Thankfully, Karen was able to chat with me a little bit and share some information about what their plan is. I am, again, still very concerned about the Ocean State job lot being used as an exit and entrance. If you are unfamiliar with Medford, why would you drive down Commercial Street to get into a plaza that very clearly has access on Riverside Avenue as well as on the Fellsway? It's not well lit. I would not walk down there late at night. It's not necessarily, in my opinion, a safe area. So if it's not going to be lit correctly, there's not going to be proper signage for it, and needless to say in the morning with the Dunkin' Donuts that is on that corner for Commercial Ave, I have almost gotten into a number of accidents trying to turn down Commercial Street in the morning because the cars are so far back in queue. I understand that that's nothing that this particular development has any control over, but if it's not going to be lit properly, there is not going to be accurate signage, I just think that it's a bad idea. The infrastructure for the area doesn't support that. There are schools right down the street. If I'm a mom, and I am, excuse me, and I'm dropping my daughter off at school, I'm not hopping out of my car, rain, snow, shine, because you have to unstrap them and get them out and go inside as well. They're going to get queued up. Again, living right across the street, the problems that we've had, and this weekend alone, where they've started doing construction, probably Wednesday or Thursday of this week, construction workers are parking in front of our house, so we don't have parking. We're asking the other retail spaces a little bit further up on the street to move their vehicles so that we can park in front of our home, not have our driveway blocked. It's a tough situation, and I understand from a culinary standpoint, restaurant standpoint, I went to school for this, having a drive-through is a great asset, especially in our community. There's no fast food restaurants on that strip, but the drive-through is, and having the exit on Riverside Avenue, without the lights being cued up, I can't get into my driveway to get home at night. Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: On the motion of approval, Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: I'm just going to refer back to some of my original comments. I think when Smashburger had its appearance before the Community Development Board and the discussion was there and now we're into Panera. This is a lot of traffic that's going to be going into this particular area. And I don't think anyone denies the fact that development for the sake of development sometimes just doesn't work. I think we can just look at the development that's taking place in the city of Medford and all the traffic problems that we have. Wellington Circle's a perfect example. You know, and just because real estate is hot right now and you can buy and sell and make a pretty good profit, what is that doing to the people that are here that have to live with all this development, whether it's this young lady who just came up here and spoke or what have you? I understand that the owners of the property, the new owners of the property, they want to do the right thing. But I also understand the traffic. I was down there at 1243 this afternoon, coming off of the Fellsway, going down Riverside Avenue, trying to take a left into the stop and shop. And the cars, they were just queued already back. And this wasn't even prime time. This was just 12 o'clock, 1215, whatever it might be. Point of information, Mr. President.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information. Councilor Dello Russo. Today is December 23rd.
[Robert Penta]: So what does that have to do with it?
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Councilor Dello Russo.
[Robert Penta]: Well, we can go there on any Friday night or any Saturday afternoon. Forget December 23rd, OK? And the traffic is there. So if you're trying to intimate that it's because it's Christmas, nice try, Councilor Dello Russo. The fact of the matter is there's a lot of traffic down there. Now, I feel that there's a compromise to this. I don't see a strong objection from the neighborhood, unfortunately, for that young lady. But the chief of police is here. And chief, maybe you should talk to her and find out what's going on in front of her house where she's trying to do the right thing with her children as a taxpayer. I'd like to move approval with a six-month review after the drive-through is open and to have it come back before the council just to see how this thing is working out. And I think that's a fair compromise. We've done this in an awful lot of other businesses through the years. We've had six months reviews, year reviews, whatever it might be. But this is a big traffic issue that's going to be coming before us. And if it's going to work, and as the young lady said, 10 cars in the queue seems to be OK. The other gentleman said four to six is normally what normally takes place. And you have the ability to put 10, then so be it. So that's what I'm going to move, Mr. President. I have no problem. I'll support it, but with a six-month review.
[Paul Camuso]: All right. On the motion of approval. As amended by Councilor Lungo-Koehn for do not queue beyond this point sign. A motion by Councilor Penter that the permit goes with Panera and not the land. Councilor Marks' motion for a charcoal filter. And Councilor Penter, six month review from the date that the drive-thru opens. The clerk will call the roll.
[Michael Marks]: Before the roll is called, Councilor Marks. If the petitioner wouldn't mind, at a meeting a few weeks ago, I had brought up the issue about these metal drop-off containers that are located in many businesses throughout the community. I know the Fells Plaza has several, and I'm not sure if your property extends all the way to Aldi's, but directly across from Aldi's, there's a couple of metal containers I believe are for books or something, but at any given day, if you go out there, there's old computers, broken TVs. It's really becoming an eyesore, and there's neighbors directly across the street.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: After you mentioned that issue, I did speak with our property manager, and we had all of them removed from our property. Those are on the Alte property, which is now owned by Kimco. We do have an open dialogue with the owners of the property, and I ask the manager, our property manager, to reach out to his contact at CHEMCO and make him aware of it. Because a lot of times what happens is these boxes are dropped on the property, and sometimes the property owner is not aware of it if they're not there on a regular basis. And so I will have him continue to follow up with them on that.
[Michael Marks]: The President And you said CHEMCO?
[Elizabeth Bayle]: Ms. DeParle It's called CHEMCO. The President CHEMCO.
[Michael Marks]: Ms.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: DeParle Is the name of the current owner of the Aldi Shopping Center.
[Michael Marks]: The President Well, I would ask, Mr. President, as a B paper, The council will send a letter to the property owners, Kimco, to respond to the metal containers that are on their property and what their plans are to maintain these particular containers, Mr. President.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. On the B paper, all those in favor? All those opposed? The ayes have it. On the main paper, as amended, the clerk will call the roll.
[Clerk]: Vice President Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Dello Russo. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor McCurran. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Penta. Yes. President Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Yes. By vote of seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the paper passes. Mr. President. Thank you. I'm glad you're feeling better.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, we're into suspension. I'd like to move to take paper 14795 out of order.
[Paul Camuso]: Petition from DJ Debonagno, 470 High Street, Medford Mass, to address the council about business parking in the city.
[mex41hYCPiQ_SPEAKER_17]: Good evening. My name is DJ Dabeningo, proprietor of Dab's Lock, president of the Massachusetts Locksmiths Association from 470 High Street in West Medford. I want to start by thanking the council for giving me the opportunity tonight to address my concerns in regards to a topic on the minds of residents, business owners, and city officials alike. This issue is the fast approaching start of the parking enforcement pay to park program here in Medford. In concept, this is a program that makes sense and is somewhat feasible for the city of Medford. As it stands now, it is completely opposite. You have the city of Medford that goes from zero enforcement with posted signs, and in just 13 days from now, Medford will become a city that will have aggressive enforcement and requiring all those who interact with the majority of our business districts to pay to park to support the local economy. That includes our customers, the business owners, and those who work for the businesses. In all due respect, how can you go from zero to 100% with no middle ground in between on something like parking enforcement? What would have been so wrong with first enforcing the posted time limits? That, my friends, makes no logical sense. Many of the loyal patrons of West Medford were highly confused and agitated to see the newly installed kiosks. Not only were they agitated that they now have to park just to support the local businesses, they were more upset about how the system works, using the vehicle's license plates. On Small Business Saturday, November 30th, I polled 20 people who were in West Medford supporting local businesses and asked them on the top of their heads, did they know their license plate? One person said yes, one person. When I was then asked why I was inquiring, I informed them that in order to start and continue to support the businesses in Medford, they would need to know their license plates to interact with these kiosks starting very soon. That's strike one, agitated customers. My next concern is the time limits which are to be enforced. No considerations were given in regards to the length of time the customers may need to spend in a particular business, whether it be a nail salon, hairdresser, real estate, or insurance office, or funeral home. One hour on the street and two hours in municipal lots is not realistic for every business district. This morning, I was informed by both the Chamber of Commerce and a city councilor that the on-street parking has been increased to two hours. However, it is still not practical for our customers to watch the clock and leave what they are doing to move their vehicle or risk getting a $25 ticket, then being in jeopardy of not obtaining another parking spot as they cannot stay in the same spot for more than a lot of time and just continue to feed the meter. These parking time limits need to be evaluated further or our customers will go elsewhere where there is no time limit. That's strike two. Our customers are now more agitated. The biggest concern I have as it relates to this new parking enforcement program is how it's going to negatively affect small businesses in our city. At a grand opening event I had back in January of 2012, Mayor McGlynn stated, small businesses are the backbone of this community and help build a stronger economy. How are small businesses the backbone of our community when they are given no support from the city administration? The traffic commission had set the new fee for the business parking permits at $400 per year. or $200 per six months. That's a 400% increase over the previous unenforced business permit parking fee. That breaks down to roughly over $33 a month for a non-guaranteed spot, just so business owners and their employees can park at their own businesses. Again, I was informed this morning by the chamber and a city councilor that there are being changes made to the current program. The yearly cost for the business parking permit will remain at $100. But as it stands, there is no consideration given to businesses that have multiple employees, part-time employees, seasonal employees, and temporary help. Some businesses have as many as six to 10 full-time employees, even more part-time employees, and numerous seasonal and temporary employees. The dollars will start to add up real quick. Again, just so we can park in front of our own businesses. Immediately putting this into action in 13 days will cause some businesses to make some very tough decisions. With the purchase of a $100 a year parking permit, businesses should be given the secondary placard for part-time temp or seasonal employees. It is disgusting that the original fee of $400 was given to businesses, not by the city of Medford, but by the representatives of Republic Parking, which is $13 to come up with that required fee. Business owners already pay for electric, gas or oil, insurance, water, sewer, rent or mortgage on their building. maintain company vehicles if they have any, and they have to pay their employees. Some of the food service businesses pay even more. Now the city wants more and more with their hand held out. As it stands, the city has about $15 million in free cash. How is it even remotely feasible to charge businesses registered in the city so much more just to park in front of their own establishments? Many business owners do not live in Medford. In West Medford alone, business proprietors come from East Boston, South Boston, Winchester, in addition to being from Medford. Those individuals had a choice to open up shop in Medford. Don't force them to go elsewhere. No considerations were given to the multitude of delivery vehicles that keep the businesses operating. with the incoming products they need to stay in business. They need a place to park without having to fear being fined for just doing their jobs. There was no consideration given as to creation of loading zones in the business districts, which need to be brought into fruition immediately. Strike three, now you have angry business owners. To date, the representatives from Republic Parking have been more forthcoming and willing to work with small businesses than the city of Medford. They have repeatedly said that they want to work with us to make this favorable for everyone involved. Medford has not done this. They have listened to the concerns from businesses as to what we know will work for our business districts. Medford, again, has not. They are fighting for the interests of the business owners. Medford has not. Do I sense a growing trend here? Bad things come in threes. After the West Medford meeting with Republic last Wednesday, My full intention was to rally the troops, talk to every business owner, and fill this chamber with those to show our disgust with City Hall. Unfortunately, a family member took sick on Friday and passed away Sunday night. In all due respect, my family comes before parking issues in this city, a city which clearly does not feel small business is the backbone of this city's economy. If changes are not immediately made to what's currently set in motion for the January 5th start, the following will immediately impact my business. My temporary worker who comes in once a week will be told to stay home because I cannot justify buying a business permit for their vehicle and I will not ask them to keep an eye on the clock to keep moving their vehicle every one to two hours. That puts undue stress not only on my worker but on his vehicle for constantly moving. My part-time worker who is here until he returns to school in the middle of January, will be told again to stay home because you cannot conduct adequate and professional business if you have to worry about moving your car every one to two hours. It is completely unjustified to buy a business permit when they will be employed for three weeks into the start of this new program and then three months over the summer. I will not be able to park at my own business during normal operating hours as I cannot come up with a spare $100. in time for the January 5th start day, especially right around the Christmas holiday. I am a lifelong resident of Medford. I own a small business. I pay city taxes, and I am an individual that gives back to this community regularly. More should be done for Medford business owners like myself. For every business permit that is purchased, we should be able to have another car parked for free. Please help me to continue to stand for small businesses here in Medford. In closing, tonight I want to leave everyone with this. Don't just to follow and accept these orders from the city is what has to happen. Following orders like a sheep following a shepherd. But we are all in danger of becoming sheep, mindlessly following the herd, never questioning authority. The great American poet Wendell Barry once said, when describing the perils of bowing at the altar of conformity, your mind is to be punched in a card and put away in a little drawer. When they want you to buy something, they will call you. When they want you to be a yes man, they will let you know. So friends, each day, do something that won't compute. Don't be a sheep. Think for yourselves and refuse to accept the status quo. Thank you for listening to my concerns tonight. Happy holidays, Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year.
[SPEAKER_01]: I've been a lifelong resident of Medford, formerly living on Placid Road at my current address. I'm here tonight, not because I'm a business owner, nor I have a family member who owns a business in Medford. I am here because I have a strong interest in the financial prosperity and wellbeing of the local community. I want to preserve the economic stability that many of the local institutions have embedded from conducting business with the residents of Medford. This enforcement plan will not be the asset to residents or local businesses, rather a burden because it's penalizing individuals from privately investing in their own welfare, because it's the city's inability to maintain and create an adequate amount of parking spaces for the public use. This enforcement plan will definitely free up parking spaces because it will drive people away. The City Council members voted to allow a Selective Committee and the Mayor to gather proposals from different parking management companies without allowing the public to hear proposals before the Mayor signed on with one with Republic Parking. Yes, I am well aware that in the Executive Session through Mass General Laws, Chapter 30B, is legal, and yes, the City quietly complied with the rules within the law. I am not arguing that. I'm arguing that the city has used an executive session as a means to bypass and trick the public on a matter that will be a hassle on a daily basis, multiple times a day. My tax dollars are paying for you to represent the interests of the residents of Medford. Tell me how this meter system is in the interest of the people. It does not solve anything relating to parking because the sole issue is the lack of physical space. It does not go directly to business owners who so graciously pay double the amount in commercial taxes compared to the surrounding communities such as Winchester or Arlington. These communities have an abundance of free parking. They have a designated parking lot for communities to pay and park their cars all day while he or she travels through public transportation to go to work in and out of Boston. The meat is itself is not coming out of my taxes but out of my personal pocket. Businesses located in Medford Square, West Medford Square, Haines Square are not corporations. They are mom-and-pop stores. The local businesses are here to support the local community. How can residents support their local community if their own city is charging them to do so in the first place? When the city proposed a new enforcement plan a while back, most residents thought that due to our $16 million surplus, technically $8 million, since the other $8 million is in reserves for water and sewer programs, the city was going to hire traffic enforcers that would patrol and ticket cars that have been on the street for an extended period of time, such as two plus hours. That would be the patroller's job to solely drive around and take the cars that were parked, and ticket the notes, excuse me, and take note of the cars that have been parked there for a long time and ticket them. The city could have kept the money within the community and hire a parking force made up of local residents, or they could have used the money to rebuild a garage that was behind Colleen's slash Salvatore's. The problem would have been solved. Instead, the city agreed to pay $1 million to Republic Parking for the installment of the meters. This corporation has nothing to invest in our community. The headquarter region is in Tennessee, a far cry from a local community. The city officials cannot say that this money that will gain from the meters will be reinvested in the community for the upkeep and of the roads and sidewalks currently. Why? Because one, we have a surplus budget now that can cover those costs. And two, Medford receives money for maintenance from the Massachusetts Office of Transportation because of Route 60, a state highway. running through a large portion of the city. No one expected the city to install meters that are charging $1 an hour, now that I just learned it's $2, to park when just last month an hour was free. This enforcement is too extreme and will not solve the problems of the city's lack of space. If someone wanted to be difficult, he or she has the ability to feed the meter all day without even moving his or her car. This enforcement provides no solution because the public will still be stuck with no parking spaces. What was the purpose to charge the business $300 extra for a permit now that I learned that it went back to the $100 originally? Our city's business districts were designed for street parking. If they weren't, there would have been more strip malls and parking lots, which we know have not been financially sound across many communities in this country. Sure, people coming to Medford to stop in at an attorney's office at Xero, Governor's Ave, will not mind spending the $1 to park if they are coming to Medford for one day to meet with their attorney to sign settlement papers. No, the issue is that residents who use the services of the local businesses on a daily basis will be stuck with this burden. The local businesses serve the community by providing the common the necessary commodities. Eventually, residents will take their money to the CVS in Winchester, for example, and not the CVS in Medford Square, due to the simple judgment of parking. 25 cents for 15 minutes doesn't seem like a lot. However, if I get caught up talking to someone at a Michi's or Colleen's ice cream shop and I go one minute over the meter, I get a $25 fine, when before that, 16 minutes would have been free. You guys may argue that if I'm not sure of how long I'll be, I should insert the highest value. But why would I spend a dollar for only 16 minutes? The city is making a profit off of me for overpaying the meter because of my fear of receiving a fee for being over the allotted time. I request the council to vote on a motion to formally invite the public for a hearing five weeks after the parking enforcement has been in place. It should be mandatory that the mayor and the traffic commission is present during that hearing. Thanks.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. And on behalf of all the members of the council, we want to give you our condolences on your grandpa that passed away, DJ.
[John Costas]: Hello, John Costas, 25 Salem Street. And I'm not here for Chevalier Theater for a change. This whole thing with the parking program, it's kind of a double-edged sword. In some ways, I'm really glad we have it, because we always had a problem with the merchants parking in front of their stores. And now I'm someone that I am sometimes guilty of parking in front of my store for more than an hour. And if I should get a ticket, and I have, I just pay the ticket, because it's my fault. What I'm hoping is going to happen is that my customers are going to have a place to park, because right now we have merchants and the people that work for them park in front of my store all day long. Now, in the old days, the police department, you know, they, two or three times a week, they'd come by and, and, uh, deal with this. And eventually people got the idea. If I park more than two hours in this spot, I will get a ticket. And then the police department said, I guess they don't want to do tickets anymore. So maybe the system we have now isn't that great, but it's something that should be refined. But my big reason for being here is the traffic commission. This traffic commission did the same thing. The last traffic commission did. They made the businesses pay the same amount of money as a commuter. Now, originally, 30, 25 years ago, there was always a very large difference between a commuter and a business. And then 10 or 12 years ago, they decided to lower the commuter down to 100 and raise the businesses up to 100. I personally don't think that a business should be considered at the same rate as a commuter. I think charging $100 for a commuter, even $400 for a commuter, is silly. That's a buck and a quarter a day. The commuters are going to pay $6 a day if they have to park at a regular parking lot. I would like, and I'm glad the commission's here, I would like to see them change the rate. Maybe if they want to raise businesses a little bit, that's fine. But I think $100 or $400 is extremely low for someone to park in Medford Square in a commuter lot to go to Boston where they're going to pay $6. They should pay $1,000 or $1,500 a year And they're still getting a big savings. So I'd like the commission to reconsider the price structure and make a larger difference between the businesses and the commuter. Because I think that the businesses serve as much better in the community than the commuter, because the commuter really doesn't support the square. They park in the lot over here, and they take the bus and go back home again. So thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: As of today, just so you know, commuter passes will only be sold to Medford residents, so people that are actually paying excise taxes in our community. As one member, I can't support that, but I hear your concern.
[John Costas]: I still think it should be. We should make more money off the commuter since they get the most benefit out of it. Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, John. Vice President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think everybody behind this reel has heard the concerns of citizens, I hear them more than others because I work in this community and everywhere I've gone in the past few months, I've gotten pretty much beat up on. I understand that the young lady spoke earlier about re-evaluating in five weeks. I agree with her, maybe in 60 days we should have a re-evaluation period, see where we are, see what changes need to be made. Obviously, there will be some necessary changes. As we said tonight, changes were made today. So hopefully, I'd like to send that out, Mr. President, 60 days, if we could review this with Republic Parking and the mayor. 60 days. 60 days, and send that paper to the mayor.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. Point of information. Councilor Dello Russo. Does this body have any authority over the parking management plan? We do not. We actually supported a resolution to combine the two commissions. They didn't give them the right to set the fee structure probably about a year ago, a year and a half ago through a homeroom petition. So thank you, Mr. President. Uh, councilor Penta. No, I'll let him speak. Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Councilor Lungo-Koehn. I'll run the meeting. Councilor Lungo-Koehn has the floor.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. First of all, um, last Thursday after the meeting that took place for West Medford, I met with the, uh, not only the project manager, but the district manager, I spent an hour with them at a local business establishment in West Medford. And we went at it through a whole bunch of issues as it relates to what's going on. The first one, let's talk about the first one, um, which is the Winthrop street that goes on place that road up to the main entrance to the cemetery. in on Boston Avenue, up by the park and garage where Tufts University has theirs. Now, they can sit there all day long for $5. So first come, first serve, you get $5, it's the best deal of the day. But you go to Medford Square or any one of the squares, you're going to have to put that quarter in that machine every 15 minutes. And you're going to be subject to whatever the penalty is going to be if, in fact, you don't feed the meter. So in my conversation with them, Their answer was, listen, I'm just telling you what City Hall told us to do. So that's number one. Number two, raising it from one hour to the two hours, that defeats the whole purpose of traffic enforcement. Just because business people might be complaining over the fact that we're going to be getting an extra hour, that's not what they were asking for. All business was asking for in this council, and as the report for which the chief is sitting in the back of the room, dated, I believe, September 2009, your introductory sentence, was a traffic enforcement plan for the city of Medford. Those people who were violating traffic enforcement during the time periods that the traffic time allowed you, whether it was one hour, two hours, whatever it might be, get a ticket. This wasn't out there to put money in a meter. It was revenue enhancement, revenue enforcement. Thirdly, as we continue on, why can't commuters pay more than a business person? The small business person in this community is the bloodline, is the lifeline within this community. You start cutting down their walk-in customers, you start cutting into their daily operating finances as a result of worrying about what they're going to have to pay for a permit, or making sure that there's money in the meter, or making sure that they can keep their part-time employee, that's going to hurt them. It's going to hurt them an awful lot. So I agree with the fact that commuters should be paying more. And for so many years, we've had people from Winchester hustle their way over to Medford, parking in spots, never mind never getting tagged, never even buying a pass. But those that do buy a pass, as recorded downstairs, so be it. I think that's an issue that needs to be looked at. Now we heard a little while ago in one of the newspaper comments, I don't know if the reporter is here, When he was speaking to the gentleman who was the president of the chamber, that gentleman of the chamber indicated that all four sections of the city are not the same, and they should be treated and looked upon as that. And then subsequent to that, there was a follow-up story in the newspaper, and for which the gentleman appeared before the council, and saying he never said that, to the reporter right underneath the press, and basically said, you know, we're all gonna work together, and we come up with a plan, and we're working with the mayor. Well, never once during this whole process from 2009 till today, 2014, has any one of the four squares individually and independently met with any group of people from the city of Medford as it relates to their business operation, what do you think we should do, how should we do it, give us your input, and let us see how we can negotiate something that's amicable and peaceful for everybody, if in fact we're gonna go forward with that. That's yet to happen. The gentleman that owns the lock company hit it right in the head. He has to let go a part-time employee. And if he lets that part-time employee go, unfortunately, because he can't afford to pay the $400 rate as it was, now it's been reduced. We'll get to that next. But the fact of the matter is, he lets that employee go. That means he loses a walk-in customer. That means he loses a sale. That means he loses some type of potential profit, which means that's going to impede upon his financial capability. to keep on going, if in fact he's got a business that's just marginal, or he's making a decent salary. But why should he be penalized for making a decent salary when he's given good service or service to the community? Now we get today this memo, the first memo that came out today from the Chamber of Commerce. Great news. We have wonderful news here. Things have been changed. The executive director says, I wrote a letter, penned it to the mayor and to the traffic commission, and lo and behold, on the same day, a report comes back that the $400 that I'm assuming that the traffic commission initiated, because that's what the republic said, has now been reduced to $100. Well, there's been no public advertising or posting in the clerk's office of a meeting by the Traffic Commission. And if the Mayor arbitrarily just did this because of a meeting that took place, that's wrong. And that shows you're right there with the power of this whole thing and where it's coming from City Hall. And then you get another email from another taxpayer in the community who has a concern. Your concerns will be taken up at the next Traffic Commission meeting. So you tell me, Mr. Businessperson, and anyone who might be watching out there, what this is all about. You can't have it one day, you go from 400 down to $100. Medford City Council's never been advised on any of this, never been brought into a discussion. The Medford City Council for years has been talking about this. The Channel 7 news that took place this past February, where the mayor blamed the council for not giving them the money for residential parking permits was absolutely wrong, it was a lie. This Medford City Council has supported the police department in all those issues, including that particular matter. Then we continue on, Mr. President, relative to the fact about just how lazy people are. A perfect opportunity for the Medford business people to park behind Route 16 in St. Joseph's parking lot on a daily basis, and they wouldn't have to be worried about getting tagged of their employees. All they would have to do was walk across the street. And if it's a lighting problem that needs to be straightened out, isn't that a lot easier to do than worrying about a merchant parking in front of his store, or worrying about his employees parking in front of the store, or worrying about the city's not going to get the revenue that it's supposed to be getting? Wrong. It's there. It's a municipal parking lot owned by the city. And when the city first took that over, I believe there was a transit trolley, because I was on it with another Councilor, and we picked up merchants in the square, and they went behind there, and they thought it was well. So when the wintertime comes, if it snows, gets out, or it's raining, you put an umbrella on, and hopefully the city would do what it's supposed to do. It plows and shovels, you know, their own municipal parking lot that they have over there. All businesses aren't the same in this community. You can go to one section of the city as compared to another. But isn't it interesting, when you go to the South Medford area, and you're certain blocks of businesses that have nothing, no signage, no kiosks, and you try to compare them to other parts of the community that have signage and kiosks, then you ask the question, as I did, and the answer was, we're being told what City Hall told us to do. We put these kiosks where we were supposed to put them. Well, that's not going to bode well, because you are going to have businesses now fighting against businesses, because while one business has to toe the mark, another one doesn't because of no signage and no kiosks. And that's going to be a real problem once this thing gets itself implemented. The unfortunate part is, and I don't know how the chamber ever got themselves hooked into this thing, it's not the chamber's problem, it's not the chamber's business. It's the city of Medford's problem, it's the mayor's problem, it's his program, it's his plan, and these public meetings should be taking place here. Not in the quiet zone of a chamber office, where in one meeting there was four people, another meeting there was 10, another meeting there was 12. That's not the true representation of all the communities, all the business people in this community. You can agree or disagree on what I'm saying, but the true fact of the matter is this whole parking initiative started in May in an executive session when the Medford City Council was asked, because of three people, three people who came in, and I have everything here, and I've got the tape, and I've got the minutes of the meeting, three people came in and they said they can only do a 10-year proposal. And the council went along with the 10-year proposal with one proviso. You go forward and negotiate with that person, but you also come back and tell us what it would cost if the city of Medford was going to do it, and then we will make the decision. And that decision never took place. The mayor just went forward with the one that he presented back in May at that point in time, which happened to be Republic, and he went forward with that. This is a City of Medford Mayor McGlynn Traffic Enhancement Program. But if you want some relief, and you want your voices heard, the only place that can seem to do it is to come before this City Council, and hopefully, hopefully he will listen. But I'm just astonished how in a period of less than 24 hours, you can go from a $400 fee down to $100. And you're only going to do it for a year, which means after a year, something's going to happen and change. But no vote ever took place. No commission meeting ever took place. No parking board ever discussed this. Chief, am I saying the right or the wrong thing? Did you meet between yesterday to today to reduce from $400 to $100?
[Leo Sacco]: Leo Sacco, police chief in the city of Medford, and I live at 227 Elm Street in Medford. There was not a meeting. I did poll the members based on the input that we received from the business community that there was obviously a concern with the raise in the business rates for the business permits. Our next meeting is scheduled for January 13th and may be moved up a week earlier. And that will be published and will be a public record for the city clerk to post.
[Robert Penta]: With all due respect, Chief, this is such a huge major change. Why wouldn't there have ever been a public meeting? and have this on a public agenda. I mean, anybody can call up. We can call amongst ourselves and pull ourselves.
[Leo Sacco]: December 9th, it was a public meeting, and that's when the rates were discussed, and that was posted with the city.
[Robert Penta]: And $400.
[Leo Sacco]: $400 for a year. Right. $200 for six months. But to go from $400 to $100, that took place yesterday. No, the $100, no. It's been brewing for the past week with some of the input that we've received from the public folks who have met with the Chamber of Commerce people and the business people from the different districts. uh, the chamber hosted those meetings and facilitated those meetings. And based on the, uh, the input that we received from those meetings and from the public, uh, determination was made that we did not have to implement the higher rate at this time. I did receive some, uh, communication from several council members that had some good ideas about where we should be going with the business rate and placards and things of that nature. Uh, So tell me something similar to what Debs had mentioned here earlier. So the fact of the matter is I totally agree with, uh, you know, four to five weeks out that we review what's in place. Otherwise we're never going to get this thing off the ground. And this has been a mandate from this council that almost one meeting after another said that this parking management program has to go. I'm not in it for the finances. I'm in it for the parking management. We don't have 132 offices anymore. We have 106. That was the reason. I mean, we've made pitches to the mayor's office. If you hire more people, maybe it could be done. But as the chief, I can never say that we could totally commit active duty police officers to performing the parking enforcement function. They always get called away for something else.
[Robert Penta]: But chief, Medford city council asked to come in with an alternative if the city was going to do it. Forget the police department. It could have been private people, could have been retired people, whatever it might have been. You were part of that committee that went to five of the surrounding cities and towns.
[Leo Sacco]: That's right. And those cities and towns all said that they could not believe that an urban city like the city of Medford, this close to Boston, had free parking on every one of its public streets. They couldn't believe it.
[Robert Penta]: but when you go to Malden, Winchester, and Arlington with this free parking, because of the... Well, they may be looking into it, but the fact that... Point of information, Winchester's putting in meters.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yes, Winchester is putting in meters within the next couple of months.
[Robert Penta]: The difference is, and we're going to get into the issue of meters, but I didn't want to, but the difference is a kiosk and a meter, they're like night and day. People can see the meter and they can understand that. Well, when you're driving down the street and you've got to figure out five car lengths ahead and look at it, a kiosk, and then you have to remember what your registration number is and it's raining out and you've got a couple of kids in the car, you're a senior citizen or whatever it might be. It's not a simple meter issue.
[Leo Sacco]: please councilor, don't sell the public shot. I mean, there'll be a learning curve. We understand that. But I think once they get beyond that point, they'll be able to manage those.
[Robert Penta]: I think it's a hurt to the business community too. We're not, listen, we're not Newbury street in Boston.
[Leo Sacco]: What I just heard, what I heard from the business community right now is someone wants to be able to park in front of his store. Someone wants to have his employees park in front of his store. That's the whole idea. We want parking management. We want people to go to his store.
[Robert Penta]: We can also have traffic enforcement, and if that's the case, then why did you increase it from one hour to two? Why not just keep the one, nobody's arguing about increasing the time.
[Leo Sacco]: Again, it was a situation, no, we did have several complaints. You can buy 15 minutes, but at least you have a two hour max. If a person goes into the hairdresser, they're not out in one hour.
[Robert Penta]: Chief, there are spots in the city where there's signs that say, one hour parking. Now it's going to be increased to two. The signs are already up.
[Leo Sacco]: That's right, but it's.
[Robert Penta]: The signs are already up. Are you going to change all the signs?
[Leo Sacco]: Well, many of them are already two hours. A lot of them are one hour.
[Robert Penta]: There's a lot of one hour parking. And how do you justify a $5 all day parking on Playstead Road and on Boston Avenue?
[Leo Sacco]: Because we evaluated. Tufts University, the parking garage at Tufts University is $8 for the day. We want people to park on these streets. We want them to pay the $5 for the day. This is something that's going to begin and build to expand. The fee will go up if we see that the load is there. I mean, this is all something new. So we want to encourage people to pay for the $5 for the day.
[Robert Penta]: Well, then if that's the case, why don't you just have every parking meter in the city go to $5 a day? How can you turn around and behind car lanes and that parking lot?
[Leo Sacco]: Not everybody needs, say, $5.
[Robert Penta]: And in that parking lot, Chief, As the gentleman said, Mr. Nash, who said from the company, we'll give a $25 ticket. And they'll sit there all day, and they'll only get one ticket. Well, what have they accomplished? They go to Boston. They don't have to pay $40. Yes, they do.
[SPEAKER_16]: No.
[Robert Penta]: Want to make a bet? Speak to Mr. Nash. I'll give you his number.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: We specifically asked that. Point of information. Point of information. We specifically asked that question. They said they'd get multiple tickets if they were there for eight hours in a one-hour spot.
[Leo Sacco]: They could. It doesn't happen that often. I think initially they probably do just the one ticket for the day, but you know, if you get a series of those tickets and if they go unpaid, then you have to tow and hold. So, I mean, eventually they get caught up with, I mean, it's not, you know, it's certainly not a perfect science and this is, this is fertile territory. This is new territory for this whole parking enforcement plan.
[Robert Penta]: And with that being said.
[Leo Sacco]: And we know that as we go forward, there'll be some tweaking that will need to happen.
[Robert Penta]: But with that being said, Chief, and you're a reasonable person. And I think seven members are reasonable over here. This should have all been discussed ahead of time. There should have been public meetings to listen to all and what possibly could be the concerns. That gentleman in the back who started this thing tonight, he shouldn't have had to got himself all worked up over the fact that it started at a $400 clip, and then all of a sudden, within 24 hours, it's reduced to $100 because enough people were complaining. That young lady shouldn't have to come up here and be worried about not only the business and the enhancement and where the money's going. This only started off as a revenue, Not an enhanced—revenue enforcement.
[Fred Dello Russo]: And if the city did its own enforcement— Point of information, Councilor Dello Russo. I don't understand what revenue enforcement means. If the Council could define that for us, please. I'm looking for information.
[Robert Penta]: No, revenue enforcement is very simple. If their sign says one hour parking, and that's all there is, you get a ticket. Enforcement enhancement would mean you'd have to go and put the money in the meter for whatever it might be. And as I said to you before, there were certain elements on Main Street and South Medford that have absolutely nothing. And they are businesses that have absolutely nothing. No signage, no kiosks.
[Leo Sacco]: There are certain elements citywide that did not receive.
[Robert Penta]: Then how does that work, Chief? All businesses are supposed to be the same.
[Leo Sacco]: Because they don't have a substantial business block. What are you talking about? They don't have a substantial business block.
[Paul Camuso]: There's a lot of places. I'll take you to South Medford and I'll give you a block.
[Leo Sacco]: I know exactly what you're talking about. Thank you. But they don't have that substantial business block. But as I said just a few minutes ago. This is built to expand. If we see that, you know, we know what's going to happen. People that used to park all day where the meters are now or the kiosks are, they will now move. So we'll have some displacement and then we'll have to address that issue.
[Robert Penta]: With all due respect, I will show you two business blocks that one has more multiple businesses than the other. They have nothing. And the other one has a kiosk right in front of their business. This council voted on the map. No, the map subject to the- The map we voted on. Excuse me, Paul. The map subject to the gentleman- It's council, just as I respect- It was the Walker report that they're going by and what the mayor's office is telling him these are the spots to put them in.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor, we voted on the map. The map we voted on had St. Joseph's and it was an inaccuracy in the chief work to get it taken out. We voted on the map. Don't mislead me. I'm not misleading anybody.
[Robert Penta]: I'm just telling you it's unfair where the kiosk and the meters are going. There are certain parts of this city that don't have them, Chief, and you know what I'm talking about. And there are other parts of the city that do have them.
[Leo Sacco]: Before anyone is misled, there are no ulterior motives.
[Robert Penta]: I'm not saying that there is, but it doesn't seem to be fair for certain business blocks to have them and other business blocks not to have them. Councilor, if you want to expand the program, bring a motion forward. Nappies. There's a bunch of businesses. Well, let me ask you this, if you're so concerned. Everybody that works here in City Hall, why is City Hall being exempt? They're working here. The kiosks are right out here. They should put kiosks in here? The kiosks are right out here. Absolutely. Absolutely.
[Paul Camuso]: I saw them when I drove in.
[Robert Penta]: No, the kiosk is the parking lot behind. Every employee here is like every employee that works for a business. If they have to pay, then employees at City Hall should have to pay. If it's going to be treated the same. It's not. It's not misinformation. And you're talking from the chair again. I've got one more meeting.
[Paul Camuso]: I'm going to talk as much as I want. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: You're the rudest person I've ever met from that chair, you know that? Do you have any more questions for the Chief?
[Paul Camuso]: Because we have many Councilors that want to participate. Councilor Lungo-Koehn, and then the gentleman behind you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Camuso. While the chief's here, just to address the main concern that I think DJ from Dabbs Locks brought up, is the part-time or seasonal business passes, is that something that could be, I think that's something that we can work out.
[Leo Sacco]: That was one of the reasons why, you know, as the chair of the Traffic Commission, that I did recommend that we go back to the 100, and now it gives us some time to evaluate going forward. I mean, I'm going to admit that it was my recommendation to the traffic commission that it go 200 for six months and 400 for the year. So based on my recommendation to them, I felt it was only right that it be my recommendation that we go back to the 100 and we will have a meeting on that. If we don't change it to an earlier time, it'll be January 13th. So it'll become official at that point. But the fact of the matter is we do realize that there are other options that we should be looking at rather than the rush to judgment and just blanket everyone with that higher fee.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, I would just make a recommendation to the Traffic Commission as well as the administration that the seasonal passes and the part-time passes be looked into. I think it's something that can be managed, whether it's an employee that just works Mondays and pays a $25 fee versus an employee who works three months out of the year and pays $35. I think we can create a fee structure to make it manageable and help the business community.
[Leo Sacco]: I agree, but I also ask the business community to look at their employees, if they're going to be working all day and not need to go out on their vehicle for deliveries or whatever, that they find alternate parking and that they walk. They're not going to be able to park right in that square. They need to find alternate parking that's free, and they'll have to walk. I mean, we can't cater to every single whim. I mean, we can try to do the best we can. but we need people to be cooperative as well. I mean, there are other options if people are willing to, to, uh, to walk a little, a little bit.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Lunko. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the chief being up here tonight. I served on the committee with the chief and, uh, I can tell you, uh, as one member on the committee back, uh, that was appointed by the mayor back in 2000 and, eight is that our mission was to take a look at how other communities operate, uh, their parking enforcement and to, uh, secondly, see if parking enforcement was necessary in the community. And overwhelmingly, if anyone read the report that was issued back in September, 2009, The issue was the fact that we were doing very little parking enforcement, and our major number one issue was to provide consistent in-house parking enforcement citywide. That was our number one objective. And it was to not outsource, but to have, as was mentioned earlier, maybe crossing guards, retired police officers, civilians go out there and do the ticketing. I think what we're experiencing now, Chief, and this is really no reflection on you, is that we're looking at surrounding communities. For instance, we hear Somerville mentioned. Somerville has had a parking program in effect for almost 30 years. And as you mentioned, they've improved upon their parking program. And they're very aggressive in some of them. And by no means do I think method should be that way. But I do believe we should have started off with baby steps. We should have done some consistent enforcement. Look at that. A year later, say maybe we can introduce pay for parking. Maybe at some point we'll look at city-wide permits. Maybe at some point we'll look about taking it in-house and outsourcing certain aspects of the program. I think we could have looked at this rather than all of a sudden go for a Cadillac approach from day one. You know, when the program was first mentioned, there was a lot of talk by this council saying, you know what, whatever happens, there has to be a good four or five-week grace period where they give out fake tickets and residents are aware of what's going on and so forth. And now I read from the administration, the ambassador program in the districts one week prior to implementation to guide consumers. So one week prior to the middle of January, when this is supposed to start, there are going to be some ambassadors with red coats and badges, I guess, walking around our business districts, introducing people in their busy life to the kiosk and how to operate them. but I don't find anywhere in the mayor's proposal where it says there'll be a grace period. And I think I speak for all my council members that that was a key issue in this community. Uh, you know, if we're going to move forward on this program, uh, I think that's vital. And, um, you know, it was mentioned that, um, you know, this is new territory and it is new territory. And I agree with some of the speakers. because we haven't had the public input like we should have had in this community. And I'm not just talking about business owners, I'm talking about residents. We've been hearing from business owners the last several months. Wait till the residents find out. Wait till the residents who are going to the corner store to get a newspaper find out they have to feed a kiosk and put their plate in there. And if they put the wrong plate number, It doesn't spit it out, right, Chief? If I plug in a wrong digit on my plate number... It's not going to know what your plate number is. Right. It's up to you to put the right number in. I'm going to get a ticket thinking I did the right thing, and then I'm going to have to appeal the ticket. And just my last point, because I've talked ad nauseum on this subject. You know, the one part of this program that you'd say, you know what? We don't want any politics involved in this because every city we went to, they said, you know what? Keep this free from city hall. Make it a standalone. Don't have any involvement with city hall. We outsourced every part of this program except for the hearings. The mayor's administrator will take care of the hearings. The one aspect you'd say, you know what? We don't want any involvement in this. That's the one aspect the mayor kept. And during budget time, we said, Mr. Mayor, you're going to go from 20 tickets a year to 2,000. Do you still think that administrator who has several other roles in the city is going to be able to keep up with all the demand and increase for public hearings? We asked that an additional part-time person be on to take care of the hearings, and the mayor denied that. The mayor said he didn't believe that there'd be an additional increase in the need for hearings. I think that's false. I think there's going to be a big need. I think people are going to be outraged. Honestly, chief, even though we're going to have a picture of their plate when the car drives by, takes a picture of the plate. But you could be pulled over for a number of different reasons on the roadside. And I think it's going to increase the hearings tenfold in this community. And honestly, I don't think the city's quite ready for a full-fledged enforcement program that involves kiosks on the roads, that involves an outside company that's going to be very aggressive. I heard at the meetings that the chamber had, and I appreciate they had that, but the gentleman there was saying, We're going to work with the businesses. We're going to make sure this is going to be so laid back and so easy. And then his henchmen, who was three feet from him, that didn't open his mouth, was counting the dollars. Because they're going to be very aggressive. You better bet your bottom dollar, their revenue is based on what they take in.
[Leo Sacco]: All I can tell you, Councilor, the meetings I've attended, it's been stressed to them over and over that we don't want them hiding behind a tree and jumping out and dropping a ticket on somebody. And I think they're getting the message. We're not going to know until it actually begins.
[Michael Marks]: Money talks, Chief. Money talks. When they have their operation, they hire the employees, they put up that money that was fronted for the kiosk is on Republic, the employees, their health insurance. And once the cost gets established and once residents and business owners know that there's going to be ticketing out there, in my opinion, people are going to stay away from the areas. And then revenue is going to go down, Chief, and it's going to be a self-fulfilling process. And they're going to be out there hiding behind barrels, looking to get money any way they can to comply with the contract. So I disagree with you on that. If it was in-house, we can control it. We could say, you know what? let's not do this, let's not do that. Once you outsource, especially in a 10 year contract, you're at their mercy, chief, you're at their mercy.
[Leo Sacco]: The problem with, with in-house, and I know you realize this, the cost of benefits, the hiring of the staff, when other city entities, the police, the fire, the public works crew, they're not hiring enough bodies to maintain and to keep up with the retirements. I know that that's where it came from, that that's why it did not stay in-house, that it was outsourced. Plus, this is a parking management company that's a nationwide company, a nationwide leader in the field, and it's felt that they would do the right thing. As far as the hearings, I don't think there's a person that could handle the hearings better than the person that's been doing them right now. And if there's an allegation that there's going to be interference at that level, I don't see that happening. Will there be increased hearings? Initially, there will be. But we've seen in the past, whenever enforcement really gets going, compliance rates go up. So after the first surge, the compliance rates will go up, and I don't think the hearings will be there. This is going to address the multitude of problems. I mean, the business parking in the business districts, but also the resident permit parking, the people that have to call every single day to have a non-permitted vehicle tagged. This is going to be on a regular, routine basis. These streets are going to get hit. Chief, based on the number of calls that we've been receiving at the police station over the last couple of weeks, people are getting the message this is for real. And it's amazing what they're asking for, for the variances and the exceptions that they're asking for, that only means that they were getting away with an awful lot for a long period of time. I guess I have to say at this point, people were complaining that enforcement wasn't happening. We're starting a new day. It's going to happen. And there's that, you know, I think the key is that it won't be overly aggressive, but there's such flagrant violations out there. They're going to be dealt with. But I also agree. I have to, before I forget everything that the points you brought up, the, the other issue was the, uh, the grace period. I know that they're talking about two weeks, but I also know that they mentioned that if it doesn't seem to be people aren't learning how to use the kiosk, there's some confusion that's going on. It's going to go beyond that. The permit parking, until they get the permit parking squared away for the new decals or whether it's going to be virtual, whether it's just registering your license plate, that's going to take a little while. In the police department, even when we had 132 officers, the month of January was pretty much a grace period every year, so people could get all of them.
[Michael Marks]: I haven't seen that in the mayor's proposal, but if you say it's in there.
[Leo Sacco]: I'm not saying it's a month, but I think I've encouraged that it's going to take more than two weeks.
[Michael Marks]: Right. And just to get back, if you look at the contract that was signed, two thirds of the revenue is derived from tickets. The actually paying on the meters is just a secondary thing. It really is. It's a secondary thing. The lion's share of their revenue is going to be by ticketing. And the only way they're going to get that lion's share of the revenue is to be aggressive. They don't care if you go up and pay a quarter, run the store, and come back out. That has no bearing on them at all. They're in the business of issuing tickets, Chief. They're in the business of issuing tickets. And when I hear someone from the company say, oh, we're not going to work with everyone, don't worry about it. That's a red flag to me. And you know, I don't want to say it's going to happen, but you know, because I hope it doesn't chief, but let me tell you this, this is not what we bargained for.
[Leo Sacco]: I can tell you it won't be like some of them to that degree. It will not be like that, like some of them. But if there's a violation, it's a violation of someone is in violation. I mean, I see that. My thoughts are that Boston Avenue from University Avenue down to Harvard Street and College Avenue from Boston Ave back to Stanley Ave, that's where people are parking all day for free right now. They're there for the entire day. That's where the enforcement's going to take place. That's where the violations will occur. And obviously, that's where the city's going to gain some revenue. Basically, there have been free spaces for too long.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, too, if we could just find out the money from the resident permit parking, business permit parking, and commuter resident permit parking, does that go into the general fund? Or does Republic get a cut on the money that's derived from that? I guess there's the regular business permit parking, then there's resident commuter. permit parking, and then there's regular permit parking. But that money, does Republic get a cut on whatever they bring in? And just my last point, I had a gentleman that sent me an email just this morning, and he was trying to get a resident permit parking sticker. He went to the police station. He was told to go to City Hall. He had his $10 check in his hand. At City Hall, they handed him a sheet of paper with a logo that said PAC method, and it said learn more about pay by phone, and he had to go back home to pay by phone. And there has to be better outreach, Chief. We use reverse 911 to notify residents when it's going to rain in this community. That's how often we use it, Chief. And then we get bashed if we don't use it. So I don't know what to tell you. But the big issues, Chief, the big issues like this, no mention at all. No mention at all, reverse 9-1-1. It is coming.
[Leo Sacco]: It is coming. I know. It's coming too late, Chief. But it's not coming this week with Christmas. It's coming next week. It's coming next week.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Chief. Thank you. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Chief, thank you for being here this evening. I think it's safe to say that come January, this plan is going to roll out, correct? And moving forward, you know, I think that there are a lot of things that could have been done differently. There are a lot of different approaches that we could have taken to, you know, share information, to notify the public, to keep people informed. However, the stark reality of the matter is that this has happened, and this has happened in January. This has happened in just a couple of short weeks. So I guess my question to you chief is, um, it is the control and the oversight responsibility of the traffic and parking commission to set the regulations, to set where the parking spots are, to set what the rates are, correct? Correct. And the parking and the traffic and parking commission tend to meet monthly.
[Leo Sacco]: Is that correct? That's correct. And when do they meet you? The second Tuesday of every month at 2 PM at the Academy building, 90 main street.
[Adam Knight]: And Chief, at these Traffic and Parking Commission meetings recently, I've seen the minutes and I've seen a lot of mention about this program and the rollout of this program. Moving forward, do you anticipate any changes based upon what we've heard here today? I know that the business community has been outspoken in terms of what their wants, needs, and desires are, and it seems like the commission's responded somewhat. As Councilor Mark said, when this rolls out, the residents are going to have a whole new set of concerns. So, you know, my question to you, I guess, would be, is once a month enough during the rollout? And what can we do to improve the dialogue between the administration, the council, and the Traffic and Parking Commission going forward to address residents' concerns as they arise?
[Leo Sacco]: Well, as it happens right now, Alva Erickson's my administrative assistant. She is the secretary to the Traffic Commission. She feels calls. And I would say probably 90% of the calls that she's been getting and has been getting over a longer period of time a traffic and parking related, which are traffic commission issues. So I hate to give them more work, but that's where the first phone call needs to go to. If there are issues, if there were concerns that maybe we just, we just didn't see and they can bring it to her attention. We'll get it on the agenda and she'll tell them what the mechanism is. If there's a petition that's required and we'll get it on the traffic commission agenda. I think monthly will be okay, but we'll certainly adjust that if we see that there's substantial issues that need to be addressed going forward. And we plan to have regular contact with Republic Parking, the Park Medford office. I'll have the traffic officers checking with them probably on a daily basis, and I expect them to check with us. They're not familiar with all the variances and the exemptions that we've granted over the years for people on permanent parking streets that corner homes that are able to get the permit for the side street beside their house, or people that have no parking and we allow them a permit for a side street that is a permanent parking street. So there's a lot that this company has to take on that they're not totally familiar with. And, you know, I've been saying it right along, We have great hopes that this parking management company will do a great job for us. But we can't pin all our hopes on it. There are going to be bumps in the road. And we're just going to have to address them as we go along. I don't see anything being tragic about it. I think we can turn around and rectify it. And some of it may be just a phone call and take care of a problem. It won't require a commission meeting to take a vote on something. If it's a common sense thing, we'll correct it.
[Adam Knight]: Excellent. Thank you, Chief. Appreciate it.
[Paul Camuso]: We have three motions. First one is vice president care of yellow Councilor. Pet chief.
[Robert Penta]: Um, two things. You guys went from 100 to 400 and then you had a telephone call to reduce it down to one.
[Leo Sacco]: No, I did not have a telephone call to reduce it down. I had discussions with, with individuals from the business community, receive several emails from the traffic commission.
[Robert Penta]: I'm talking about how did you get to 100? How'd you go from 400 to 100?
[Leo Sacco]: Well, that's what it is today.
[Robert Penta]: But you got that with a phone call. There was no public meeting, so there was no traffic commission meeting.
[Leo Sacco]: No, but I don't need a traffic commission meeting to talk to someone in the business community that has a concern.
[Robert Penta]: No, I understand that. I understand that. That's where it came from. But to make a change like that.
[Leo Sacco]: It's not an official change yet. OK? It's not an official change.
[Robert Penta]: So my question to you is this. Why would you want to make the change when If you can look at this and say, OK, it's $400. Maybe it's a little excessive. Maybe you can make it three or two. But if you're going to make the change for the business person, why can't you just allow all their people to work for them, give them stickers, and just let them come under that one fee?
[Leo Sacco]: Because today, if they were to get it under the existing system, every one of their employees would have to have a business permit. They would have to pay $100. I'm not trying to change what's in place. I'm just trying to keep it the same for the first year.
[Robert Penta]: No, I'm saying, if you get the $100, say you were going to charge the $400, and all the employees that work for that particular company, they have a sticker that gives them the privilege.
[Leo Sacco]: So you're saying $400, and if they have 20 employees, they're all?
[Robert Penta]: They have one employee, they have 10 employees, or whatever it might be. Is that a motion? No. I'm asking him a question. I'm just confused.
[Paul Camuso]: I didn't know if you wanted to raise it to $400.
[Leo Sacco]: I simply stated in return just the fact that It was just easier to maintain what's in place today than to recreate or recalibrate what's already been passed.
[Robert Penta]: So then how are we going to justify, if you're going to do that, going from $400 down to $100, so all these outer towners that are coming here, they're going to still be able to pay $100 a year? No. Or what are they going to pay?
[Leo Sacco]: No, if they come, if they park in the commuter parking areas, they're paying $5 a day. If they work 20 days a month, that's $100 a month. 12 months a year, that's $1,200. All the people that park in the residential commuter permit will be the $100. So the resident, based on all of the information that we've received over the years, the residents of the city want to have first dibs on those parking spaces on Playstead. The only way we could do that is to create the residential permit parking, commuter parking pass. And that was going to be the same rate as the business permit. So it's a Metro resident. The most they would be paying in any calendar year would have been $400, whereas the person that's from out of town that may occupy that same space is paying $5 for the full day. If they're there every single day that they work, if they work 20 days out of the month, that's $100 for the month.
[Robert Penta]: But you just got through saying you have out-of-towners, you have residential people, and you have business people. So how many out-of-towners do we have parking?
[Leo Sacco]: I have no idea. There's 50-some-odd spaces there, and I would say the bulk of them are out-of-town because they were all there between probably 6 in the morning and 8 in the morning, and those spaces are filled.
[Robert Penta]: So if they're out-of-towners, can't they be charged more for being out-of-towners?
[Leo Sacco]: Well, they're paying $5 a day.
[Robert Penta]: $5 a day.
[Leo Sacco]: That's a bargain. They're not getting a permit.
[Robert Penta]: That's a bargain, $5 a day. Why can't they be charged?
[Leo Sacco]: Well, again, we have to start someplace. It will grow. It will expand. We try to keep it within reason.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, but we discussed this before. This is not the first time that this has been discussed on the Council of Outer Towners coming in. So if you're telling me that I can park at the end of Placeton Road for $5 a day as compared to downtown West Medford or downtown Medford Square, and every 15 minutes I've got to put a quarter in there, I'm going to get a ticket. That's what the kiosks are there for. Well, yeah, if you're packing in the square. So I'll go hustle down the street and get the bus that takes me directly to Boston from West Medford, or from Medford Square, or Governors Avenue, $100. What have we accomplished?
[Leo Sacco]: But that's the only place that there's commuter parking, except for the little spot over here at the end of the Hyatt lot by 101 George B. Hassett. That's a commuter area as well. For Placestead Road, it's the only other commuter area. You can't park and be a commuter or any place else and receive a commuter pass. You're not going to pay $5. And Tufts University would be the only other place. College Avenue, Boston Avenue.
[Robert Penta]: But what about up and down Governor's Avenue? No.
[Leo Sacco]: There's no meters on Governor's Avenue.
[Robert Penta]: There are no kiosks.
[Leo Sacco]: Is there going to be signs there? There are signs today. There are signs up there today. Two hours. I've been there for years.
[Robert Penta]: But where's the enforcement?
[Leo Sacco]: It's coming.
[Robert Penta]: What about the parking lot in Medford Square next to the electric company?
[Leo Sacco]: That's business permit or two hours.
[Paul Camuso]: Chief, you got all the answers tonight.
[Leo Sacco]: I'm impressed. I've been living with this thing for a while. I didn't have all the answers earlier. I had to do some homework.
[Robert Penta]: I'm going to just end. This is the only part that I don't understand. You started in a direction, and now you're just going back and starting from scratch. I thought the whole idea was to be a revenue enforcement, number one.
[Leo Sacco]: Well, it's parking management. I'm looking at it from parking management. Turnover of parking.
[Robert Penta]: Whatever you want to call it. Turnover of parking. Whatever you want. Turnover of the parking spaces, OK? I haven't heard anybody from the chamber, anybody, talk about that parking lot on Route 16 being a viable spot for all business people and all employees to park over there.
[Leo Sacco]: This is what I said earlier about people looking for alternate locations. They're out there if people are willing to take the effort. If you have a business in High Street and Medford Square, you should not be parked in front of your business. You're taking away a customer's spot.
[Robert Penta]: I don't want to embarrass my colleague, but when we had this conversation a while ago regarding a parking garage, remember? What did you say? I'm lazy. I want to park right out in front. And that way there, I don't want to walk. Well, you know something, you can't have it both ways. If you're a business owner and you have employees and you know you have a spot that you can go to and it's a little bit of a walk, at least for this part of the square, that's number one. Number two, all the other squares are different. They don't have that same unique opportunity to have that huge parking lot all day long to park as an owner and employee.
[Leo Sacco]: But I also have to say, I mean, we've looked at these different areas. I can tell you, I know because West Medford is here, I think You know, all of the folks involved in this parking management piece have tried to bend over backwards to accommodate the business employee. We actually created spaces that didn't exist for business permits. There's a section of High Street between, I want to say maybe Hammond Place and Brooks Street that was going to be marked either one hour or two hour and business permit. Those are spaces that are not too far removed from the center of the square, and employees could park there. Also, along, place that road along the park after 10 a.m., it's wide open. After 10 a.m., there's no parking there between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. in the morning to eliminate the commuters that would park all the way along the park up to Century Street Extension. But after 10 a.m., any employee can park there all day. It's a short walk to the square.
[Robert Penta]: But who makes the determination what section and location of businesses in the city are going to be having a kiosk or a sign?
[Leo Sacco]: Who makes that determination? That was based on the report. That was based on the Walker report. There's also business spaces. And I'll say for one person, I was against the idea of putting business permit spaces in the parking lot behind the stores in West Medford square. I thought that that's those spaces, you know, we're looking to, to, make the businesses solvent and let them make money, but they wanted to have business spaces in that lot. I don't know how many spaces are in that lot, but there are not a lot. And if you give 10 spaces to business employees, but that was the decision and that's what we'll run with.
[Robert Penta]: But who made that decision?
[Leo Sacco]: But that was, because I guess it exists today. So if it exists today, they didn't want to change it. But I have to say, we've tried to accommodate all the different issues. South Medford has the Yale Street parking lot. I've spoken with some business owners there. Their employees can get a permit, can park in the Yale Street parking lot.
[Robert Penta]: But you have other establishments from Main Street all the way almost back to Medford Square that are businesses that have nothing.
[Leo Sacco]: Yeah, but we also have the same thing on Salem Street. We also have the same thing on the further end of High Street.
[Robert Penta]: Well, but how do you do it if it's a business person, Chief?
[Leo Sacco]: Because you have to start somewhere.
[Robert Penta]: If it's a business person, and I have the same type of a business as you, and one part of the city is competing, and I don't have nothing in front of me, and you do, I'm not going to sit there. I'm not going to sit there.
[Leo Sacco]: Well, that's what, eventually it can grow if we see that there's enough need for this. I mean, we've had some things that were on the map on locations and we took them away and we said, look, you can't put them right there if you're not going to do the next block up. But based on what's there, all of the areas that have been covered with either a meter or a kiosk have been pretty much confined business districts. Not, not the outlying, you know, one or two stores and we're not throwing a meter in front of the barbershop and the, and the convenience store because they were, they were set alone from the rest of the business area.
[Robert Penta]: Well, speaking with the two gentlemen and I'll conclude on particular issues that they brought up, they were told this is where you go from city hall and these are the places cause they've heard it from other locations, from other folks. Why aren't they having it? So they're being told what to do from city hall. And that's not fair. Who's being told what to do from city hall? Republic, where to put the signs, where to put the meters. Of course.
[Leo Sacco]: Well, there was, everything was based off of the original plan.
[Robert Penta]: You're talking about the Walker report. We're not talking about the Walker report as they've gone around and they've heard all these complaints.
[Leo Sacco]: And I walked the square with Mr. Nash, every one of the business districts, the Hillside and South Medford, Haines Square, Medford Square and West Medford Square. And they already had the map plotted out where they wanted to make corrections. We're not talking about the map.
[Robert Penta]: The whole idea was to listen to the business people for which they're listening to. And when they bring up corollaries or comparisons, they want to know how come in one part of the city someone has another part of the city and another one doesn't have it. That's all. I would suggest you make a motion and bring it forward if you think there should be additional meetings. You know, I think that the chief and the traffic, what do they call yourself now? The traffic committee? Commission? It's still a traffic commission. Commission is still the same name. They should entertain any complaint, or any concern, not a complaint, any concern that a business person has as a, you know, if the whole thing- One information, Mr. President. Chief, have you- One information, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Have you received any complaints or any concerns about locations and one business having one and one business not?
[Leo Sacco]: Is there any- No, I've heard some things- A question about disparities and- No, I haven't heard so much of the disparities as, you know, placement of the kiosk concern that it was right at their front door and- you know, slight movement out of the way might have been.
[Adam Knight]: But in terms of Joe pizza versus Espresso's pizza versus Amici's pizza, have you heard any concern about a business owner being very concerned about being treated differently or unfairly? No, I have not. Okay.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: I disagree.
[Leo Sacco]: I haven't heard it.
[Adam Knight]: Point of clarification. Point of clarification. I was speaking to the chief in terms of as the chair of the pocket commission who has the oversight authority of the plan, who would be the official receptacle for any complaints. as the chair of the committee. So the chair.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. Thank you, chief. Thank you. Gentleman behind you.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: Good evening, Anthony D'Antonio. I'm going to make it brief. I got an octopus and buccalus soaking in water, and all. I got to change the water. When's that going to be coming over tomorrow? Listen, seriously, this parking thing is wrong from day one. Councilor Knight, you made a very interesting statement. You said you had it in your hands. We're discussing this thing. We could have made the change if we could have done this and that. What happened? Nothing happened. We could have gone to Chevalier or the McGlynn School or something that had a huge citywide meeting like they did for the Green Line and have the questions answered. This is too quick for too much. I think the repercussions from this are going to be grand and I'm still against citizens in Medford having to pay for parking permit. We pay taxes. We pay an excise tax that should have been talked about many, many years ago. And it's on our backs to pay an excise tax. If you pay an excise tax, we should get a sticker that says you're a Medford resident. It gives you the ability to park anywhere. I don't even know if charging citizens to park in their own streets is legal. I don't know. Is it? Does anybody know that? But this whole thing, As far as your question with them about did they have any discussion of preferences about if they had a parking area there, I think the citizens and the business owners of Medford show a lot of respect, especially to Chief Sacco. So they're not going to embarrass him in front of this person. But the thing you have to understand is Republic is a public company. They sit in that boardroom and they see those numbers, just like when Staple says, okay, close that store, close this store. They're going to say, hey, start kicking the numbers up and you're going to see stuff, stuff happen. I mean, this is wrong. It's just wrong. Store owners, a group of guys got together and they resolved this whole thing. Very simple. And to put it down in a little more micro, um, causal that the problem we have in the city of Medford, with the parking is actually enforcement. It's not the chief's fault. It's the fact that most of the money goes to the school department and we can't put 20 police officers that we need in the street. We need to have police officers on the street. We need to have the right amount of people in the fire department. It's very important, especially in today's time with what's going on. So we have to find a way to cut here and put here. And then this problem may start to go away without bringing in a private enterprise that's going to show you what a private enterprise is all about. And I just think it's so hard for the business owners now to try to keep their heads afloat, their heads above water. And now this is a detriment. This is like being punished to go and shop. So anyway, next time around, you know, let's have a, let's do this right the next time. Thank you. Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: Good evening. Name and address.
[Joe Viglione]: Good evening. Joe Villione, 59 Garfield Ave, Medford. Merry Christmas city council. We just went through a 10 year contract with a company and so the mayor wants another 10 year contract. Yet with the new access station, he's going to ask for three. Haven't we learned the error of Medford's ways? It's much too risky. The mayor is being inconsistent when he gives a 10-year contract out, but the previous 10-year contract he did failed. It's republic access to the roadways. That's what it is, republic access. They're going to take your pictures. We had no TV station even discuss this, so no one in the community knows. Reverse 9-1-1, as Councilor Mark cited. My point here tonight is parking meters versus parking enforcement. The Council President mentioned an area near my home. where vehicles park in the bus stop all the time. And they're in the crosswalk. Tonight, Chief Sacco, tonight I nearly got run over again, but I can't even bother you with it, because it's a daily occurrence. They speed on Salem Street. It's a 20-mile-an-hour zone right after Nappy's, 20-mile-an-hour zone, but they think it's a raceway to Revere. It is the raceway. And I live there, Councilor Del Russo. I'm in my computers right near the window. I've seen car crash after car crash. I have videotape right on my phone. of the fire department there, God bless them, at two in the morning, they did an amazing job. Two car crashes in front of the dance studio, a year apart, hitting that same tree. God bless that tree. It saved the dance studio. The woman sent me a note. She only saw a tire mark in front of the store. So my point is this. The kiosks can't stop the cars from all the bus stops all around Medford. We need people to do that, and why can't we hire local people, pay local people, instead of sending our money south to Nashville? That makes no sense to me, and I know that there's some on the council that agree with that. We're sending our money south, we should be hiring people, we should tear up the contract, and you know, I read an article in the paper by a councilor, it said something about business owners considering litigation, I think, an injunction against the mayor, two things, and I'll leave right now. an injunction against the mayor to stop it, or let it happen and let's vote the mayor out finally. This is his Waterloo. Napoleon is here at Waterloo. Mayor McGlynn, goodbye.
[Paul Camuso]: Joseph, Merry Christmas.
[Joe Viglione]: To you too, Paul.
[Sorrell]: Name and address for the record. John Sproul, 20 Metcalf Street, Miffin. In my opinion, this parking program will not be a success I don't want to appear pessimistic, but the fact is that this city council should never, never have given the mayor the right to make a 10-year contract. I don't know what you were thinking when you did that.
[Robert Penta]: Point of clarification. Point of clarification. John, the council never voted for that. The council only voted for the mayor to negotiate up to 10 years and then come back to the council for a final vote in comparison to if the city was going to do it.
[Sorrell]: Then what you're saying is that his signing a 10-year contract is illegal. He did not get this, according to you, Councilor Pena. He did not get the council's permission to do that, yet he went ahead and did it. He got the permission.
[Paul Camuso]: John, the records will indicate the city solicitor's here. Council voted 7-0 to give the mayor the signatory authority to move forward with a 10-year contract.
[Robert Penta]: Absolutely not true. That's not what the council voted for. Mr. Solicitor. That's not true.
[Paul Camuso]: Mr. Solicitor.
[Robert Penta]: Absolutely not true.
[Mark Rumley]: Excuse me. Mark Rumley, I'm city solicitor. I reside at 50 Woodrow Avenue in Medford. Council resolution 14-472, act enacted on May 20th, 2014 says it is the intention of the city to enter into a 10 year agreement with a successful proposal. General laws chapter 30 B section 12 requires city council approval for a contract that exceed three years. I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body pursuant to the provisions of chapter 30 B section 12 approve and authorize the city of Medford to enter into an agreement with a successful proposal for a term of up to 10 years. What was the vote on that Councilor?
[Paul Camuso]: Seven zero of this. The people that sit behind this rail. Yes. Of this council. Thank you for the clarification. Anyone want to give facts now? John point of further.
[Robert Penta]: I believe that's not the intent. I believe the intent of the council. Where's the official minutes of the meeting? That's not no that was the resolution that was the mayor's document. That's the mayor's resolution was not amended It was most certainly was council cover yellow when I asked you the question Was it not your opinion that the final vote was have to come before the council?
[Mark Rumley]: Thank you. What was said was that you would see a draft of the contract before it was signed and that was done. I reminded you that night that that promise was fulfilled because I'm the one that made that promise to you. Thank you for following through on that solicitor.
[Robert Penta]: No, the amendment is right here. The amendment is by myself. It's amended by myself that the mayor and to prefer to end the meeting with the council to explain the program in depth prior to the final decision. And we did. We did not.
[Mark Rumley]: We did not. We did. It may not have been adequate for you, but we did do that. No, the only vote that you got was back in May. We had a meeting, Councilor. May 20th, a 7-0 vote, allowing us to enter into this contract, a contract which you were informed of before it was signed. went into an executive session. What you're doing is entirely disingenuous to say that you would do it. That's your opinion. This is a sham. In my opinion, it's a sham. Why don't you just level with the people? No, I am leveling with the people. Why don't you level with the people? I am leveling with the people.
[Paul Camuso]: Mr. Councilor.
[Mark Rumley]: Yes, the difference is my opinion is correct. Well, you seem to think everything you do is correct. Well, we voted for it.
[Robert Penta]: I think the official records, I think the official records tell it. 7-0. Before a final decision is made, he was supposed to come back to the council. We did.
[Paul Camuso]: Father viewing public.
[Mark Rumley]: 7-0.
[Paul Camuso]: Mr. Solicitor. 14-472. Mr. Councilor, Mr. Solicitor, we had a meeting of the committee of the whole where we were presented, members were here that are in the audience this evening were at that meeting and they participated in that meeting. It was packed and it was in the room right over here. That's correct. You had a point of information. Your point is over.
[Robert Penta]: You got a meeting in September when the council met him there. We also got a three page piece of document that says not for publication. It was confidential meeting. That was a different meeting.
[Paul Camuso]: Name and address for the record. doing it for 30 years, maybe it's over. That's right, I have a half a brain like you don't. Name and address for the record. John Starrar, still. You might be right behind me, councillor, for all you know.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. The clarification is this. We met in May, and we took a vote as seven members of the council to allow the mayor to go forward to negotiate what Republic at that time was one of three. And we were told not to say a word to anyone about anything. And then in September, we had a meeting when the first draft of the contract came back before us. And part of that resolution in May was that it would be explained to us prior to the final decision. The Medford City Council never took a vote after May.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor, you just corrected yourself. Thank you. That we would have a meeting, nothing to do with another vote.
[Robert Penta]: Name and address.
[Sorrell]: Name and address, sir. John Sterella, 20 Metcalf Street. Thank you. The fact remains that the city council did finally give the mayor permission. At least that's the way he interpreted it. He went ahead. He could have signed a contract for three years. That was in there for a purpose so that this city would not be committed for 10 years. 10 years is a long time, but What happens now is that it's only a seven year contract with a three year addendum.
[Robert Penta]: That's how it gets up to 10. That's right.
[Sorrell]: Okay. That's right. But, but, but the fact remains that the, uh, uh, this parking program is just another tax to the people. It increases revenue. And that's what the purpose of all of this is. What we really need is a, um, parking enforcement program. And that could be done at no cost at all. In fact, I discussed this with the mayor at one time. Down in the city of Delray Beach in Florida, where I went, they have a program there where war veterans who are retired are happy to enforce parking. And they get a uniform. They don't get paid. They do it for nothing. And the mayor could have gone ahead with that. He never did follow through. I wish he had. If we need more police, we ought to have more police. That's primary. But we don't have to have police. There are people who are happy to serve this city at no cost at all.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Mr. Torello. Name and address for the record, sir.
[2pAQFYhyG5g_SPEAKER_26]: Hi. Vince Master Mateo, 10 Schoolhouse Road. Hi. Yeah, I'm just here. I found out about the meters, I believe, Saturday night when I was driving home, I saw a few places where there's some garbage bags over the meters, and I found out, obviously, that we're getting meters, that this is a new thing happening. I just want to let you know, I'm part of a silent majority of the West Medford residents that everyone that I know wants nothing to do with this at all. If you guys, if this is about a revenue thing, which obviously it sounds like it is, could you just find another way? Could we discuss with the people, with the residents, another way to gain the revenue that you guys need? Would that be possible? And also, to your point, Robert Penta, I did call the mayor's office the other day. I was disgusted when I heard what was going on. I talked to probably about, I don't know, maybe between 30 and 60 local residents that are absolutely outraged at this. And I called the mayor's office, and I asked, who was responsible for this decision? And I asked, was it the city council? Were the council members? And she said, no, it was just the mayor. Okay. So, so that's what I got right from the phone call that I called mayor's office.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And he, I mean, so I don't know what council angle, current point of clarification information. I, it may be Councilor Marks would be best to answer this, but just what was said earlier as with regards to possibly veterans or Julian and other cities and towns, the council has made probably 10 different resolutions. Council Marks has sat on a committee, gave recommendations to the mayor. I think when we made the resolution, it was to hire retired police officers to do parking enforcement.
[2pAQFYhyG5g_SPEAKER_26]: Yeah, that's much better than paying a million dollars to a Tennessee company, correct?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: That's not what the mayor wanted to do. This is what he wanted to do. We wanted parking enforcement. We gave recommendations for many different things. I mean, we sat in meetings. to discuss, ask questions. We tried to give recommendations. I mean, he wanted the kiosk. We questioned meters rather than kiosks once we knew that's the type of program he wanted. So.
[2pAQFYhyG5g_SPEAKER_26]: What about a solution of maybe having local, like if you're a West Metro resident, get a sticker so, and you can drive down there and park wherever you'd like and not have to pay the kiosk?
[Paul Camuso]: It's something you'd have to bring up with the mayor, because we gave him the authority to sign the 10-year contract.
[2pAQFYhyG5g_SPEAKER_26]: OK, but his office just told me the other day, two days ago, that's who can make those decisions.
[Paul Camuso]: I'm just being upfront and telling you the truth.
[2pAQFYhyG5g_SPEAKER_26]: No, no, I know. I'm just speaking for the residents. I know you heard from the business owners, because there's a whole slew of people that are coming behind me. I'm just telling you, it's like, this is a compelling event. And people are upset about it. They've had enough. And I just hope you guys just represent the people. That's all I ask. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Just if I could, because the gentleman has a great point. And since 2009, when the Parking Advisory Committee made their recommendations, to today, the mayor has created his own committee to work on parking enforcement. And that was members of him, his administration. So that's who devised this plan. This was no one but the mayor and his department heads that put together this plan. If you look at the parking enforcement advisory committee, this plan is apples and the mayor's plan is oranges. Two completely different plans. completely different plans, of which much of what you mentioned about local in-house enforcement and so forth was addressed in our plan. Just bare bones enforcement of existing signs. That was in our current plan. Over the past four years, the mayor has, and he's the chief executive officer, so if you're looking for someone to make change to the plan, You're speaking to the wrong people. We're a legislative body. We open, uh, we have a public meeting, right? Well, just say we're a public meeting. People can come up and speak, but if you want to affect change, it's the mayor. And we've tried, believe me, countless times to get the mayor to one of our meetings, uh, so he can speak before the people. But the mayor under the city charter is not required to do so. So I've been on the council 14 years. He has never come before the podium in 14 years. But that's his prerogative. But my suggestion is that if people are upset, they should contact the mayor's office. When I voted for allowing the mayor, because state law said he can only enter into a contract up to three years, the three bids that came back were all for 10 years, or seven, or 10, I forget what it was. They were all past the three years. My vote was to allow him to enter into a contract. The language in the contract is the mayor's. I would not have support much of the language that was in there. Did anyone behind this reel vote to raise the business permit packet from $100 to $400? Did anyone vote to bring Republic or a private outside company to come in and do the work? We did not vote on any portion of this proposal. So when people say to the council, we did not vote on any part of this proposal. This is the mayor's proposal. And I hope it works well for him. But from what I'm hearing from the residents, they wish there was more input. They wish there was a time that we had that we could sit down and iron over some of the issues.
[Paul Camuso]: And I'd like your point about the reverse 911 call. Just come up so the people at home can hear you.
[2pAQFYhyG5g_SPEAKER_26]: Thank you. I like your point about the reverse 911 call. I mean, if the wind's blowing too hard out, we get a reverse 911 call. There's so many easy ways to address this. So again, just the people know. And I appreciate all your service up here. This is actually the first time I've been to a city hall meeting, and it's a nice. Nice event to be here. Obviously, I didn't want to be here, to be honest with you, but I just didn't want to look at these meters anymore. And the agony of going down just to West Medford really quickly to go grab a sub or go grab a pizza and worry about getting a $25 ticket, it changes the whole complexity of our wonderful area of Medford that I'm proud to be a member here and a resident here. I've been here for 14 years. There's a ton of young people moving in, and it's something nice that I know everyone says, well, Somerville's doing it, Winchester does it, I don't really, I'm not a big fan of Somerville, I'm not a big fan of Winchester. I love the way Medford is, and I'd like to keep it that way, and there's a lot of things here that I just think would be important for all, and like I said, anything you guys can do, I will do my best as a resident to talk to the mayor, Anything anyone can do to get rid of these, I mean, if we need sawsaws, whatever, I'm here to help. Anyway, thank you for your time. I really do appreciate it. And thanks again for your point about the reverse 911 call, and I also appreciate your support, too. Thank you very much. Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas.
[mex41hYCPiQ_SPEAKER_17]: 2 quick things, and I'll stop talking tonight. On what Councilor Marks was saying earlier, what would it require to change the city charter to get the mayor here for the meetings? Because if this is his parking program, he should have to answer for it. Because I'm coming here with legitimate gripes, legitimate heartfelt concerns, that are gonna cause undue hardships to my business, make me lay off friends of mine who work for me, who basically do me a favor and don't ask for a dime raise, or anything out of the ordinary. If they need a day off, they get it. But I still haven't gotten an answer. I wasn't expecting one from you guys tonight, but I haven't gotten an answer what I need to do about my temporary parking permits. We are two days from Christmas. I can tell you right now, I cannot afford even a permit for myself, and there's nothing in place for temporary, part-time, or seasonal employees. CB Scoops in my West Medford district, not to point her out, but over the summer, she has four or five kids at night or during the afternoon working there, waiting on customers because the line is out the door. What are 16, 17, and 18-year-olds supposed to do for a three-month time span? So my first thing is asking about changing the charter to actually get the mayor here. If it's his program, he should have the answer for it. is the businesses in West Medford is quite different from all the other squares. We have a lot of drop-off, pick-up. We have a dog groomer right next to mine, literally dropping the pooch off, picking the pooch up. You have a dry cleaner across the street, dropping off your clothes, picking up. You're in there no more than a minute to two minutes. Why should you have to spend two to three minutes to interact with this instrument just so you could park and drop off? No considerations were made to drop-off zones. We have one 30-minute spot in Medford in front of one eatery place. We have seven places where you can get something to eat, where you can call your order in and pick it up. You're in there less than two minutes unless they're busy, which is good for them. Still no considerations towards loading zones. How are these deliveries supposed to come? With the Depot Square, she has fish that comes in directly from Ipswich as soon as they catch it and kill it. With big trucks, where are they supposed to park except double parking or parking in the handicapped spot? Republic's answer, they'll get a ticket. After how many tickets do you think they're still going to come back to Medford? No consideration was given to loading zones. So please keep that in mind. And if there's anything I can do to help to get the mayor here. Please let me know. But if this is his program, and you guys can't answer for it, and you voted something, and he went completely in a different direction, then he should be the one to answer for it, not the seven of you. So I mean, I've always been a big supporter of McGlynn. I had him at an anniversary celebration this past March. He came in, spent the afternoon with my office. But I can tell you that the support is dwindling after this issue, because it's an undue hardship 13 days before this project is set to go into place, I need to come up with all this money around the holiday season and now mourning the loss of a family member. So, you know, please tell me where I need to do and where I went wrong by choosing to open a shop in Medford. I could have gone to Stoneham or any other local community where I could have paid more for a monthly rent but had off-street parking for both me, my employees, and my customers where there would be no consideration for pay to park because it would have been in a little strip mall. Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: DJ, just so you know, you are being heard. The Chamber of Commerce has worked very, very, very diligently, and I think we've seen results in that with the press release that went out today. So it's not going to be $400 come January 15th. It's $100. The business permit and the commuter permit is staying the same, which people already should be paying down. in the business lot, either that or they're parking illegally already.
[mex41hYCPiQ_SPEAKER_17]: Absolutely. My, my response was, you know, if this, if the $400 was going to stick come January 5th, I would pull down my blinds, put a big sign on the door. You want to know when I'll reopen call city hall. Cause as soon as it's affordable for me to come to my business and my workers to be here, we will reopen for business.
[Paul Camuso]: But as far as the business permit, there is no change. As you know, a hundred dollars up until now.
[mex41hYCPiQ_SPEAKER_17]: Yeah.
[Paul Camuso]: The police, as the chief said, I've been very busy with other stuff, but technically if you don't have a sticker right now in that parking lot, you should be ticketed and towed. Sure.
[mex41hYCPiQ_SPEAKER_17]: So, but is there, is there any thing in motion or is there anything I can do?
[Paul Camuso]: 60 days, as the chief mentioned earlier, this is going to be a work in progress. This is probably very fluid, right? Chief. And uh, as needs come up,
[mex41hYCPiQ_SPEAKER_17]: I just don't see to buy a $100 permit for a vehicle that's going to be with me for three weeks, if that, and then three months over the summer. That's not fair.
[Paul Camuso]: But that's currently right now. No, I understand. If your people are parking in that lot without a permit on their vehicle right now, they're illegally parked. All right. As well as the businesses in Medford Square are doing the same thing as the Governor's Avalon. People are used to lax enforcement around here.
[mex41hYCPiQ_SPEAKER_17]: That's fine. And it was one of my considerations when I opened my business in West Medford, was the parking, was the price on the rent, the location, the walk around traffic. But it was one of the mitigating factors. Had I known that two years later there would be this kind of cost assimilated extra to my business, I would have gone elsewhere, where these issues wouldn't have been an issue.
[Paul Camuso]: So just, just so everyone knows, including yourself, all the members of the council, I think we're asked a similar question when the city solicitor and the mayor presented this, everyone thinks it's an automatic 10 years. It's similar to the trash and recycling program that happened when this place was filled to the rafters. We still heard some complaints. We worked on it as we moved forward. But most importantly, there is a clause that we can get out of this by purchasing the equipment.
[mex41hYCPiQ_SPEAKER_17]: Yep.
[Paul Camuso]: And our city solicitor, as you know, is top notch.
[mex41hYCPiQ_SPEAKER_17]: Oh, absolutely.
[Paul Camuso]: And if for some reason they want to overturn this at some point, there'll be a dollar value, but it can be done. But tell your employees they've been lucky they haven't got ticketed in that lot without their pocket permits up to this point.
[mex41hYCPiQ_SPEAKER_17]: I just don't see it feasible to purchase a permit for a vehicle that's not a full-time employee. that's, you know, a friend of mine since we were six coming in one day a week, cause that's what his schedule permits. So thank you. Thank you. Merry Christmas again.
[Paul Camuso]: Um, if I could just make one announcement from the chair to park Medford is up and running. You can actually get the application on your smartphones. Um, it's a pretty interesting website. I was fooling around with it tonight before the meeting. So, uh,
[Robert Penta]: Go ahead. Some people don't have smartphones. Some people don't even have a phone. Some people don't even have computers. They probably don't have a car then either. Right? Some people don't go to the library. Can somebody come to City Hall and get the permit? That's the question.
[Paul Camuso]: Somebody can go to 577 Main Street on Medford Chief. 575 Main Street. There'll be a fully operational business meeting place. And this was worked on in the contract. as well as the Chamber of Commerce and everyone else involved wanted to make sure that there was a place where people can go on a full-time basis. So people are actually going to be able to get the answers quicker now than currently coming to City Hall where the tax office and everyone else has been doing it. So hopefully that's helpful, Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: I started to allude to it when I was talking about it. Why does Medford have to start at 7 in the morning to 7 at night, when Boston starts at 8 in the morning? And some of them, all the other Saturdays, why are we 7?
[Leo Sacco]: I think we stayed consistent with some of the posting that's already out there. That's the only reason. I don't know if it's actually going to begin at 7 in the morning.
[Robert Penta]: Well, could you make a recommendation to start at 8 instead of 7?
[Leo Sacco]: I mean, the signs say 7 AM to 7 PM. I know it's 7 AM, 7 PM, Monday through Saturday.
[Robert Penta]: That's absurd, 7 o'clock. It's bad enough these businesses are hurting. This hurts them even more, 7 in the morning.
[Leo Sacco]: I can't say that it's going to begin right at 7. I think they just went according to the times posted on the signs.
[Robert Penta]: You know, it's bad enough that the rubbish is all over the square. The people put them out ahead of time and that can't be enforced.
[Leo Sacco]: And now we have this. I mean, the problem with the rubbish in the square is, you know, years ago they did do the overnight pickup, but people complained about that. And then now, so now they're coming through at nine and 10 o'clock in the morning causing gridlock on Salem street. So that's, that's part of the problem with the trash, but the parking, just to correct that, uh, Mr. President, I said 575, it's 557 Main Street. 557 Main Street. Yes, right at the corner of Main Street and Dexter Street in South Method. Excellent. Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: All right, we have one. On the motion for approval with the seasonal passes from Councilor Lungo-Koehn, Councilor Caraviello to look at the program 60 days after its inception, and Councilor Marks to get a listing of all the commuter, commuter residential, permit parking, if it goes into the general fund, and if not, what fund it goes to. Is that correct, Councilor Marks? All those in favor?
[Robert Penta]: Wait, I want to amend it. Wait, whoa, whoa, whoa. Councilor Penta. Did you say 60 days?
[Paul Camuso]: That's what the council is stating.
[Robert Penta]: I'd like to amend it to 30, get a report in 30 days because... 30 days, they're not even going to be ticketing. Huh? 30 days after it starts, after the program starts.
[Paul Camuso]: After the 30-day grace period.
[Robert Penta]: Oh, all right, all right, I'm sorry. I thought you, I thought you, okay, okay.
[-Ufepi4QYj4_SPEAKER_20]: On the motion of approval, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. Vice President, Caraviello. On the suspension, Mr. President, if we could take 14788 and 14795, excuse me, and 794. 14794, petition for a common victualized license by Leonard Tekja.
[Paul Camuso]: Did I say that right?
[SPEAKER_09]: That's okay. Teja.
[Paul Camuso]: Teja. All right. 76 4th Street, Medford, Mass. For the Lighthouse, 20 High Street, Medford, Mass. Chair recognizes Vice President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I reviewed the gentleman's papers. They all seem to be in order. And I'm happy that the restaurant will be staying open with a new owner.
[SPEAKER_09]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Is the menu going to change? Do you have new food? Everything's going to stay the same?
[SPEAKER_09]: For now, just smile and food. Smile and food. Thank you. Later on, maybe down the road. But for now, just, you know, I mean, I'm honored to have this dream come true in Medford, where I live. So just keep it going, that's all.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. Another Medford resident? Yes. Give him back to his city. Good luck. Thank you so much.
[SPEAKER_09]: Good luck. Mr. President.
[Paul Camuso]: Mr. President. Have a nice holiday.
[SPEAKER_09]: Have a nice holiday.
[Adam Knight]: To all of you. In reviewing the paperwork, I see here that it indicates that you're a sole proprietor and that you will have no employees working for you.
[SPEAKER_09]: That was mistakenly done. I mean, the accountant is in the process of taking care of that. I will have, at least for now, one employee in addition to the business growing or so. We can add another one or two, depending. As I said, but as of right now, I addressed that with my accountant person, which he'll take care of that in the process of the workers' comp and all that stuff. Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: On the motion for approval, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. Good luck.
[SPEAKER_09]: Thank you so much. Have a nice holidays.
[Paul Camuso]: Also, while we're in the suspension, 14-788. This is the appropriate funds and authorize the mayor on the grant to preserve land for public park known as the Crystal Campbell Memorial Peace Guard.
[Laurel Siegel]: Thank you, Mr. President, members of the Medford City Council. Lauren DiLorenzo, Director of the Office of Community Development here at City Hall 85 George B. Hassett Drive. Before you hear again tonight, asking for your support, please. For us to be able to accept a combination of federal earmarks, private foundations, and private contributions to construct the park which we are in naming the Crystal Campbell Memorial Peace Garden at the grounds of the Medford Senior Center. The purpose of the park is to honor the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings and, of course, the connection to the city of Medford and to this area. In particular, Crystal Campbell, Martin Richard, Lingzi Liu, Sean Collier, all those others who were injured, and also the first responders, the people who were compassionate that day and stepped out of their own concerns for themselves. to help others. We've worked very hard to put forward a package that did not require any funding by the taxpayers of the city of Medford. I'm asking for your support for this program so we can build this park. I believe that you'll be proud of it. I think that you'll be able to use it. We'll be able to contemplate. We can recreate there. It will also serve a solemn purpose. You know, there's a picture of Martin Richard, a very young boy, with his teeth. And that is the picture that will bring me to tears. Not only me, I'm sure a lot of people. But that young boy had teeth of a man. Those are teeth a young boy is to grow into, to serve him, to bring him to manhood. And that didn't happen that day. And it really is a failure of all of us that that young boy did not achieve manhood. And you know, I have my own Martin Richard. I have a son. I have a son who had buck teeth like that. I had a son who had two sets of braces by the time he was 10. When I see that boy, I see my son. My son's going to college. I'm able to see my son this holiday. These kids did not go home. They had parents. They had sisters. They had brothers. Some of the people that we work with in this community have also suffered injuries as that event. I'm asking you to please support us in this adventure by approving this appropriation. Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Lauren. And if I may, from the chair, we have a paper before us that gave the annual, um, price for mulching and the fountain service, and it's $3,000 per year. Does the council ask for that? And then the electricity costs for the fountain to operate in the lighting is estimated at $1,500 per year. So thank you for answering these important questions before the council has voted on this. Thank you. Councilor Dello Russo. Move approval. Second. Seconded by Councilor Knight.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And, um, Yes, indeed, the maintenance issue was one concern. Moving forward on a project without a maintenance plan made no sense, and I'm glad we were able to table the paper to get a report back from the administration. However, as I stated, I believe it was last week, that I would support a modest plan to memorialize the Marathon bombing victims. I see this Peace Garden as a great option on remembering, as a remembrance area. However, in this day and age, especially in this economy, with all the many needs that we have in our community, uh, from street sidewalk repairs to a new police station, to an updated public library, uh, to, uh, the boys and girls club that has to close their art room because there's mold. So a hundred kids on a daily basis can't use the art room. Uh, we also spoke a couple of weeks ago about repurposing, which is 150 yards, uh, from this, uh, proposed site. the transportation shelter, um, uh, which, uh, would, uh, go hand in hand with, uh, in the proximity of, uh, this particular peace garden. And, um, I, at this point, um, I understand the fact that there was mentioned of no taxpayer dollars going into this. Um, however, uh, the Cummings grant, the, uh, wind resorts, 250,000, uh, even the park grant that we're voting on tonight, could have been used for other purposes in our community. We could have sought this funding for many other purposes in our community that are needed. And that's not to understate the need to memorialize the victims of that tragic incident that took place and many thousands of people that were impacted both mentally and physically by that occurrence. I, in all good faith, could not vote for the Peace Garden in this particular $299,000 park grant because it's my job to look in the community, see what the needs are, and try to address the needs. And in my opinion, $1,298,000 on apostle land which I've stated both at committee whole meetings and publicly, I don't believe that the intersection of Riverside and Shipway is the appropriate place to have, if we're going to put a Peace Garden, an area to reflect, a solemn area. That's a very high traveled area. Just last week, I was coming up to the city council meeting And someone drove up on the median strip right here on Riverside Ave. We take the turn to go to City Hall, take the right. They drove right up onto the road over there. This is a high-traveled area. And in my opinion, I believe as a community, which was already mentioned, actually, there was behind the Columbus School, the softball field named after Krista Campbell, And I think, in my opinion, we could have done a tasteful memorial plaque somewhere in the community to recognize the victims of the Marathon bombing. And if the administration would like to call back the 250,000 from Wynn Resorts and use it towards possibly the mold issue at the Boys and Girls Club. Use it towards improvements on our roads, the potholes that we're seeing throughout our city. Use it towards the repurposing of the transportation shelter, Mr. President. I have been inundated from that one article in the local paper about the transportation shelter with repurposes, repurpose uses from residents of this community. The gentleman from the paper actually told me that he put it on his website and also has received a number of people responding back. And I would like to see that also take some attention, Mr. President, which is in the heart of our downtown business district, before we move on $1,298,000. So, if the administration is willing to take the $250,000 from Wynn Resorts and apply it to other needs, I mentioned and other members of the council have, I could support this here tonight. If not, Mr. President, I will not support this park grant because I believe it should be spent on local existing parks currently in our community need updating. I know there's been some improvement throughout the city and parks, but as we know, we have, I believe it's 24 parks in this community. They always need updating on the taut lots, uh, in the basketball courts and, uh, throughout the parks. for themselves, the ball fields, and so forth. So that would be my motion tonight, Mr. President, to take the $250,000 out of this particular proposal. I'll approve the $299,000 for the park grant. And I'm sure wind management, this is part of a million dollars they want to give the city. Wind resorts, I mean. This is part of a million dollars they want to give the city. I'm sure they wouldn't mind where we spent the million dollars. Any community needs. My motion is to take the $250,000, have the administration take that money back out of the proposal. That would mean lowering the proposal by $250,000. You know, we heard last week, I think it was Lungo-Koehn, that questioned the upkeep of the fountains. I've questioned the upkeep of the fountains. I believe Mrs. Pop mentioned that it was $250,000, roughly, the cost for the water fountain, the fountains that are going to take place. So I think if the administration wanted to move forward, we can remove the water fountain, we can remove the estimated roughly $3,000 in yearly outside costs to maintain the fountains, and move forward with a memorial that is what the mayor deems worthy, but on a smaller scale, and also be able to accomplish some of the many other needs we have in our community, Mr. President. So that's what I would offer, Mr. President, $250,000, if the administration agrees upon it, be removed, the project be lowered by $250,000 with the removal of the fountains, and that money be repurposed back into the needs of the community, Mr. President. Ms. Dillon.
[Laurel Siegel]: Mr. President, first of all, let me clarify for the record that the $250,000 that was part of the wind contract is in addition to the $1 million. It's not part of that, so it does not affect the $1 million and the purposes for which that will be given to the city. Second of all, this project- Point of information, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor. You know, last week, I think it was Councilor Caraviello that asked the question, and we got a different answer last week, so that's fine.
[Laurel Siegel]: Would you like me to bring the city solicitor up? He's the one who executed the contract with the mayor. In fact, I'm going to ask him to come up.
[Michael Marks]: You can ask him to come up.
[Laurel Siegel]: I'm just telling you that- Let's clarify the record. I believe that that was a misspoken sentence.
[Mark Rumley]: It might have been. That's fine. We all misspeak. That's fine.
[Laurel Siegel]: Yeah, he gave the answer, so.
[Mark Rumley]: I gave the answer, and I said that the contract that we have with Wynn was the place where that $250,000 was dedicated. But I didn't say that it was part of the million dollars. No, I didn't. And you can look at the tape. I believe so, but that's all right. So let's be clear then, for once for all, for the entire citizenry, the $250,000 which is being paid by through that contract is not part of the $1 million per year, which would be coming to the city from the casino.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President, then, uh, whether it's a million or a million, 250,000, the fact of the matter is that money could be used for any purpose in the community.
[Laurel Siegel]: If I may address that, please. I believe I had the floor. Thank you. So, as I was continuing to say on that, is that, no, actually, that's not correct. And I think we've gone over this before. The money here is allocated for a specific purpose. Each of the park grants are allocated for this project. The Cummings Foundation is allocated for this project. And so, isn't the wind pressure what's allocated for this project?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just a point of information, Mr. President.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: No one said this money wasn't allocated for a particular purpose. I know you applied for a grant for this particular purpose. What I'm saying is, you could have applied for the PAC grant to improve renovations to other existing PACs. We did apply. We have received. I know you did. I know you did.
[Laurel Siegel]: And the state is the one who allocated this funding for this park. They wanted to give it to this park.
[Michael Marks]: And what I'm saying is, with the $250,000, the mayor could have went and said, I want to spend it on X, Y, and Z. He opted to spend it on the Peace Guard. That's his prerogative. So I don't want people to believe that When resorts came to the mayor and said, we're only giving you $250 for the Peace Gardener, you get nothing. That is not the case. That is not the case.
[Laurel Siegel]: I think the paper before you is to approve a funding package for a grant that has been designed, is going ahead in construction, and will not be able to go ahead without full funding. It is contingent on federal earmarks, state earmarks, and park grant that requires the entire project to be funded. The paper's before you. This grant agreement must be executed by December 31st. This paper and approval has to be in to the state by that date in order for the city to receive those funds. If it's not, they will lose those funds. I've spoken about this project as much as I can. If the council wants to be, you know, object to this particular project, that's his prerogative to do so. I'm asking the rest of the councils to please support this application and move it forward the way that it is and the amount that it's funded. Thank you. Mr. President?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn and then Councilor De La Rucia. Thank you, President Camuso. I was actually going to go on the same lines as Councilor Marks with regards to just the fountain. I think this project is going to be beautiful. I think the Office of Community Development has worked tremendously hard on it, but I do also feel that $1.3 million is excessive. And that's not to say these victims don't deserve it. Who's to say they don't deserve something that's worth $2, $3, $4 million? But I think we really need to scale back on the project to a point, I think that fountain is going to cause a lot of expense in the years to come. It's $250,000, I thought it was $257,000 just to build the fountain. Never mind the sole cost of the maintenance plan, which we did receive a memorandum on the maintenance. The majority of the maintenance is going to come with the fountain. The fountain's going to break eventually. Pieces are going to break. It's going to cost the city a great deal of money, $5, $10, every year. And I think that's one thing that maybe I would like to move Councilor Marks's paper first and reduce this project by possibly a fountain.
[Laurel Siegel]: May I respond to Councilor Lungelkorn's comments? You are right that fountains require more maintenance in a piece of open space. I will tell you we did have a meeting with several of the departments, Board of Health, DPW, and Water Department, and others, and Pam Kelly from the Council on Aging. And I will say that everybody who sat around that table, and I know we're not going to be here indefinitely ourselves, but everybody who sat around that table wanted to participate and have all spoken in support to maintain this to the best of their ability to do so. The mayor has been working diligently to acquire funds to fund a maintenance account. He's committed to that. I understand the concerns that you have. This is a simply run water spray fountain. It doesn't go very high. It's a few feet high. It has a great enclosure over it. There will not be any walking in it. It's not a technical pool where people have to have the water quality in order that they are going to drink it. But it also has to be clean and meet public safety standards. So there is some maintenance that is revolved around that. It would be operational for the season. It will not be operational in the wintertime. But other communities do have spray pools as part of projects. And they are maintained. And as I said, we had a meeting, and the people who work for you are committed to taking care of it. Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If I may ask, when would the grand opening to this be?
[Laurel Siegel]: Well, first, let's go to bid. And that's the other comment that I want to make, is that those costs that we have are estimates. Of course, the construction costs will come in, and it may be much better than what we have as an estimate. But we have to estimate to make sure that the project can be awarded as it goes ahead. If we do all the things that we're supposed to do, the state is going to put this project out to bid, and bids should be hopefully received by April. And we'll begin construction around May, June. So that's the time frame that we're working toward, and that's one of the reasons why we have these time frames where we have specific actions that need to be taken so that we can move it forward and get into this next construction season.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So it should be complete September, October?
[Laurel Siegel]: Yeah, September, October.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor? For now, thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, I'm somewhat surprised at some of the remarks and concerns I'm having tonight, but that's fine. This commemorates the victims of a heinous terrorist attack that happened within arm's reach of our community. It memorializes a citizen of Medford who was an innocent victim of that dastardly terrorist attack, the first such attack to succeed by hideous terrorists in the United States since September of 11th. Medford has a moral obligation to go along with this project. The eyes of not just the city, the state, but the nation look upon this. And we've received the encouragement of state officials to proceed with this. This is very significant. And I failed to see how people who were around and lived in this region in the aftermath of that attack can want to diminish something like this. I agree.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: The moral obligation that we have as a community is to recognize every single person, however they die, dastardly or not. We have many, many veterans that have died and they have never received this type of a recognition and they will probably die in the future defending our country, defending another person's land.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Crystal Campbell was a regular citizen. She wasn't a veteran. She wasn't a member of our armed services. She wasn't a military soldier in a foreign land. She was an individual who went to go watch the Boston Marathon, which is one of our most historic events that we have here in the city of Medford, and she was tragically murdered by terrorists.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you for your point.
[Robert Penta]: We're talking about moral obligations in this Council Knight, you can have yours, I have mine. And I feel that my moral obligation is to make sure that every single person, however they die in this, whether they lived in Medford or not, or whether they worked in Medford, however they died, they receive like and type recognition. And you know, Councilor De La Rosa, you're amazed. How can you be amazed? You have your opinion, other people have their opinion. Maybe they don't see it the same way as you. Maybe the water fountain is something that we really don't need. You know, for $250,000, you know, You're still getting the park, you're still getting the ballads, you're still getting the recognition for not only the members that ran and Crystal Campbell and all of those. You're doing that. At the same time, it's kind of like interesting how the mayor can just go around and take a picture, and you were in the picture, we've had this conversation, for whatever the reason is, and presupposes the city council's gonna vote for this back in October. Pictures in the local newspaper, standing there with the big check for $299,000. We never even discussed this for a vote, never mind whether we wanted to do it or we didn't want to do it. And we talk about the money used for PACs. Most recently, I don't know how a guy does this. He went to a, I believe, a Schreyer Auditorium meeting most recently. Excuse me, the mayor went to the Schreyer Auditorium and he committed $5,000 to them to celebrate their anniversary that's coming up. Where was the vote on the council on that?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Point of information.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So am I to understand that these people are going to be re-victimized because of someone's dislike of the mayor?
[Robert Penta]: What does that have to do with dislikes of the air? You've got a financial obligation in this community to make sure how the money is spent. And for the man to go and make a commitment, whether it be $5,000 or $299,000 on behalf of this council, is wrong. It's absolutely wrong. It's unnecessary, and it's wrong. If any one of the members of this council went ahead and did that, you know where we'd be right now? We'd be brought up on charges. That's the way we'd be.
[Laurel Siegel]: You're speaking about a check ceremony that's at the state. It's a symbolic ceremony for the state.
[Robert Penta]: You may have known about it, Lauren, but none of us knew about it.
[Laurel Siegel]: It's a symbolic gesture. It was a cardboard check. It was a picture-taking opportunity. The state wants to fund this project. They also believe in this project.
[Robert Penta]: They want to fund it, but this hasn't been discussed over here to find out what's going on.
[Laurel Siegel]: The money's not going someplace else. The money is to this project from the state.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor Marks. Mr. President, the picture that was taken back on October 27th of this year was with the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, and this was submitted to the paper as a press release from the mayor's office. The paper didn't write an article about it. The mayor submitted a press release stating Mayor McGlynn was pleased to accept $299,000 in grant funding.
[Laurel Siegel]: It was a cardboard check. It cannot be deposited. It's a symbolic gesture dependent on the execution of a grant agreement, which is before you tonight.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, so the mayor wanted to come out in front of the issue and accept a check that wasn't approved by the grant by the grant states approved by the city council. It's not the city council saying we want to approve this. The grant is saying you can't accept funding until the city council approves it. Now we're almost near Christmas, and we're being asked to vote on the grant that the mayor accepted, offered a press release. And, you know, Mr. President, just if I could, Mr. President, You know, the mayor started working on this in April of 2013. He worked 11 months with him and whoever else in his office, didn't make any mention to anyone that he was moving forward on a project this size, didn't make any mention that he was trying to memorialize the victims of the bombing. And in April of 2014, came out right around there, came out with his plan. to have a memorial across the street and the funding and so forth. At the time he mentioned he didn't let this out because he didn't have the funding yet. So he was looking, scurrying around to find money. He went to Wynn Resort, old faithful. He knows that the city has an agreement with them. And he asked them for money for this memorial. He started looking for grant funding. And he was successful in finding it. I give him credit for that. But that doesn't mean that I'm on board because the mayor did all this work behind the scenes. That doesn't mean he's just going to get my buy-in. Are we going to have a memorial for the woman that was struck a couple of weeks ago on Winthrop Street?
[Paul Camuso]: Can we start talking about tragedies though?
[Michael Marks]: Well, no, no. It was mentioned about tragedies and how we want to recognize one of our own. There are countless residents in this community that are struck and killed on our roads. Do I hear an outcry of creating memorials throughout the community for residents that are killed on our streets? I don't, Mr. President, and no one's trying to belittle this or make this less of anything. And how dare people accuse other people of not being of higher authority or great morals because they don't support what the mayor put forward. That's a smokescreen. And if those people want to come out with their money, let them put their money where their mouth is. These business owners in the community, let them put their money where their mouth is and make large donations. If they're that concerned, Mr. President. Talk is cheap, Mr. President.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor, you're factually incorrect. The mayor has presented this plan before. There was a press conference. It's been in the local newspaper. This is not a mystery about this project. It's been discussed. It has not been a secret for one year.
[Robert Penta]: But Lauren, with all fairness to everybody, he may have had his press, but this has never been presented until last week. But the council never took a vote on it, whether they forwarded it or against it.
[Laurel Siegel]: He may not have taken a vote, but it's been publicly presented.
[Robert Penta]: He's talked to several members of this council, including myself on this particular matter. Well, maybe he talked to you, but he didn't talk to me.
[Paul Camuso]: Well, pick up the phone, and I'm sure you will.
[Robert Penta]: Why should I have to pick up the phone? This is his project, not mine. Well, I'm proud to be part of it. That's all I can say. So let's get back to the issue. Excuse me. You had a point of information. Yeah, I do. I'm talking. Get back to the issue now. Go ahead.
[Laurel Siegel]: I'm asking for your support on this proposal. We could debate these opinions all night long. The project is the project. The project is designed with a fountain in it. In order to reduce the project budget requires a redesign, requires the agencies to agree to a redesign, and I don't think that's going to happen. So the project is before you.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Knight, point of, no, no, go with your clarification.
[Robert Penta]: Why do you say, you're asking us for a vote. That's right. And if the vote is $250,000 less than what this is.
[Laurel Siegel]: I'm telling you the project won't go ahead. The project is not fully funded as it's designed.
[Robert Penta]: Well, if the mayor says this is part of, this is not part of the million dollars, this is an, an excess of it, then let them go to win to get the other $250,000. All we're saying is, all I'm saying is- Why would you do that?
[Laurel Siegel]: You already have another million dollars.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor, you made your point of clarification. I will vote for the park grant, but I'm not going to vote for the $250,000 because of other issues. You can place that pocket that's in desperate, desperate need of upgrading. And nothing, there's not a dime going over there.
[Paul Camuso]: Your point of clarification. That's my point of clarification. Yes, it is. And I'm trying to give you as much leeway as I can, but Councilor Knight has been patiently waiting.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Lauren, it's my understanding that the PAC grant application process is almost backwards, where you have to have an actual project in place, and this is what it is.
[Laurel Siegel]: It does. This has happened before. Usually, Clota, from my office, is the person who's represented the applications before you. They submit the application. They tell you where they're going to get funded. They did do that ceremony with the picture-taking and the checks. There were other communities that were there in addition to the city of Medford. And then they require you to submit the documentation, which includes a grant agreement, and the approval from the city council authorizing the full funding of that portion of the project. And that's what's before you tonight.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. Mr. President, I stated it last week, and I'll state it again. I think this is a good project. It's a project that I'm going to support. I feel as though it's going to be a draw to the square. It's going to give people a reason to come down to Medford Square and frequent our local businesses. It's also going to provide the residents of the two housing authority buildings, the two affordable housing buildings there, a nice place to respite. It's going to revitalize our waterfront. It's going to provide us with access to our waterfront for once. And we've heard the council talk time and time again about one of our most underutilized assets here in the city of Medford being the waterfront. Here we are. We're in a process right now of opening up an opportunity to utilize our waterfront. We're also looking at the plan and the improvements that the plan is going to bring. The plan is going to help improve ADA compliance at the senior center and ADA compliance at certain egresses. It's also going to allow for multimodal transportation, Mr. President. It's going to open it up to a bikeway. So, I really think it's a great project. It beautifies an existing location. And more than that, I think that it's going to be a project of national significance. And I think if we're in a position right now to do a project of national significance, that we need to do it the right way. And I'm going to wholeheartedly support this paper as filed, Mr. President.
[Paul Camuso]: We have a motion for approval. And we have a second motion from Councilor Marks to deduct $250,000 from the petition that's before us for the Crystal Campbell Peace Garden. And that is the funding from Wynn Resorts. We're going to call that vote first. A yes vote is to eliminate the fountains. A yes vote will be to eliminate the fountains and the $250,000 for the Crystal Campbell Memorial Peace Garden. A no vote will then bring the final vote back to this council. So this is on Councilor Marks' first paper. A yes vote is to eliminate the fountain. All those in favor? Roll call. Roll call has been requested by Councilor Penta. The clerk will call the roll.
[Clerk]: First person.
[Paul Camuso]: No. By a vote of three in the affirmative, four in the negative, the motion fails. We now have the paper before us to fund the crystal Campbell memorial peace garden as presented by the mayor without cutting out the fountains at this site. And roll call has been requested, Councilor Penta. Would you want to speak? You want to speak or you want?
[Robert Penta]: Go ahead. I'm not afraid of making a no vote on this particular matter tonight because I'm just, I don't know when it's going to stop in this community, but I am never going to have my vote be presupposed by the mayor of this community on anything. He's presupposed this council on linkage on this particular matter. He has presupposed this council on taking money from free cash without offering us any opportunity of our input. He has taken money by raising water and sewer rates, again, without no input from this council. We have so many issues within this community. that need to be looked at that have really presented itself with some taxpayer concerns, whether it's the new parking meters or whatever it might be, the buildings. Our own building right here, it could collapse at any day. We don't even know if it's going to happen. Well over a year old, not taking care of your own house that you live in. I just can't see it. And if the Campbell family is looking, I apologize if you think that this is a vote against your daughter, but it is not a vote against your daughter. I'm looking at the fiscal and the financial responsibility that I have before here. As I said to you before, I've got no problem in cutting this in half. As I said last week, I think there's a leftover $500,000, and you could build a beautiful memorial over there. But, you know, this is just another Huge event that the mayor is going to pull off, and it's just another place where he's going to put his stone there with his name here, Michael McGlynn, and memory of, and this and that. And that's great, if that's what he needs. If that's what he needs to survive. I don't need that to survive.
[Fred Dello Russo]: All I need, all I need is to know that I'm- I'm a little confused. So it's not about fiscal responsibility. It's about you being mad at the mayor. Well, you keep saying that the mayor, the mayor, the mayor, he's forever in this room. He doesn't even come to these meetings, and you bring him into this room constantly. But I don't understand. Why is this? With the words that come out of your mouth, I don't see fiscal responsibility.
[Robert Penta]: I hear— Let me turn that on. Sorry. They've done their patriotic duty. Go look in front of Medford High School. You got a plaque over there that hasn't seen an ounce of restoration. An ounce of restoration. Look at all the names of the people on there from World War II that have died, that have never seen their names restored, that gave the ultimate sacrifice. This girl unfortunately died. She was murdered by a terrorist, and I hope he gets his due when he goes. but to spend a million three at this point in time, at that particular location with that kind of money, knowing, knowing that 250,000 of that could be used for anything else in this community.
[Paul Camuso]: Can I just, I listen, I understand where you're coming from. It's a financial decision to you at this point. I think everyone made their points. In the interest of holiday spirit and this isn't tragic, I'm just trying to do right by the body and take a vote to move forward.
[Robert Penta]: One last thing. Lauren, we went to the meeting and the mayor said the phone was coming off the hook. The phone was ringing. He only got $4,375 in miscellaneous contributions. $250,000 he took from when? The only other outside contribution was from Cummings, $100,000 that he earmarked. So where is all this money that the phone was ringing off the hook?
[Laurel Siegel]: Well, I have to say, to be fair, Councilor, The mayor has done all of this to receive all of this money. He has personally gone and spoken to people. He has asked. He has solicited. There are business people in the community that we've talked about before, representatives of unions, who want to do some volunteer work over there. made it his mission to go forth and collect this money and present it to you without having to go into your general fund or anything else like that. So you may believe that this number should be whatever it is. But he, personally, has done this work to get this money before you. So I don't really think that it's fair to say he hasn't.
[Robert Penta]: So he got the $4,375. That's what he would have gotten?
[Laurel Siegel]: The Cummings Grant Foundation would not have happened without the mayor asking for that.
[Robert Penta]: When did the mayor ever come before the council and say, listen, I'd like to do this in memory of Christine Campbell. I'd like to make an application. Would you guys support it? He has never one of these things here. He's coming for the council.
[Laurel Siegel]: He didn't have to go to the council for that.
[Robert Penta]: Well, that's the whole thing. He doesn't have to. He has to go to council now to accept this. So if he doesn't have to, then we don't have to either.
[Laurel Siegel]: He's here now to do what the council's role is, and that is to approve the expenditure of the funds. And that's why we're here. I don't, I don't, he, this project is not over. We are still accepting donations if people would like to contribute. But I have to say, this isn't the spirit of which I can't imagine what people want to contribute with this kind of atmosphere in this own Place the City Hall. This is kind of negativity that's happening. It's not the way to fundraise I'll tell you this doesn't make me won't feel very comfortable about about this being a positive community in which to do development and which to move ahead I mean as Council night I said we've talked about clippership linear pockets part of the master plan part of the goals that we've been all been working on we can personalize this if you want to but it's not positive and I think it's detrimental and it really you know, I We are each responsible for our own decisions that we make and for the actions that we take, and it's before you right now. I'm not going to say anything else.
[Paul Camuso]: And before the roll is called, Councilor Lungo-Koehnan and Councilor Marks, but I'm glad they picked that location because it's not only going to be great for the seniors. This young woman lived about a hundred yards from the site. So there's some significance in my vote with that piece. Councilor Lengelkern and Councilor Larkin.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Camuso. I just make a motion to request that the mayor, like he had mentioned, I believe it was at a meeting at the senior center when this was discussed, he's going to continue to fundraise. He's going to request funds from individuals within the community as well. I think a lot of people would still be willing to donate to this project. And I hope that those funds are put into an account. I would motion that those funds be put into an account for the continued maintenance that will have to go on on the site, especially with the fountain. This is a tough vote. I do believe that all councilors have good intentions. And there are questions about the fiscal responsibility in the extent of the project. I don't think they come from any place besides being concerned about every single taxpayer within the community. I, too, feel that the 1.3 is extensive, but it's going to be a wonderful project. And it's an extremely, obviously, hard project to vote against, especially some of us who knew the victims. So I just ask that that motion be applied tonight.
[Adam Knight]: Point of information, Mr. President. I'm a little confused about the motion. The council is opposed to the project, but she wants to add a contingency to the project.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I never said I was opposed to the project.
[Adam Knight]: Well, you just voted to reduce the funding. I didn't vote against it.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: You voted to reduce the funding. I agreed.
[Adam Knight]: You voted to reduce the funding. Does that mean I'm going to vote for or against the program? I don't know. That's what I'm trying to clarify right now.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So don't put words in my mouth. Don't stipulate how I'm going to vote. We have moved on.
[Adam Knight]: Before when you were opposed to the project, that wasn't on.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: No, I never said I was opposed to the project. I think it's extensive. I think it's a wonderful project, but it's extensive, $1.3 million when we have potholes all over the city.
[Adam Knight]: No, I'm just trying to understand the amendment to the paper.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: The amendment is to continue to fundraise like the mayor said he was going to, and that that money that is collected go towards the maintenance in the future.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Isn't it ironic that An hour ago, we were talking about parking enforcement in the community and the lack of communication from the administration and why we're experiencing the, um, concern from business owners and residents at this particular stage for parking enforcement. And here we are with a project that the mayor kept secret for 11 months. No communication with the council at all. Now he needs a vote, and everyone's questioning why we're asking questions. Last week, I made the mention about a maintenance plan. I was told, no, no, we need a vote tonight. We'll get you the maintenance plan next week we're meeting. We'll get you a vote next, we'll get the maintenance plan next week. It's amazing that all this surrounds the lack of communication. And, you know, if members of the council over here feel, hey, They're going to get presented items, and they're just going to vote whatever the mayor presents. That's your prerogative. But I, if I ask questions or have concerns, I don't think anyone should take exception to other members asking questions. I really don't, Mr. President. And if it gets voted up, down, then so be it. I go on to the next issue, Mr. President. But I feel strongly, as I said last week, that a modest memorial is the way to go in our community. a modest memorial. And with the needs that we have and the needs that are out there in the community, as I mentioned, when you have people calling you up about
|
total time: 11.97 minutes total words: 1342  |
total time: 4.51 minutes total words: 547  |
total time: 7.9 minutes total words: 792  |
total time: 31.61 minutes total words: 2866  |
|
total time: 3.91 minutes total words: 311  |
total time: 29.91 minutes total words: 1583  |
total time: 1.84 minutes total words: 208  |
|