[Fred Dello Russo]: The 26th regular meeting of the Medford City Council will come to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso? Present. Councilor Caraviello? Present. Councilor Knight? Present. Vice President Lungo-Koehn? Present. Councilor Marks?
[Unidentified]: Present.
[Clerk]: Councilor Penta? Present. President De La Rucia?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Present. With seven members present, none absent, please rise to salute the flag.
[Clerk]: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Council commendations. The 2015 Medford High School Varsity Baseball Greater Boston League champions will be here tonight to receive a presentation of awards And we invite Councilor Knight up to give out the awards as he was the mover of this motion.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much and thank you very much to the Medford High School Boys Varsity Baseball team for joining us here this evening to accept this accommodation. The Medford High School Boys Baseball team has seen tremendous success in the last several years. They're two or three-time, Michael, is it three-time GBL champion now? Three-time GBL champion three years in a row. So it's my honor and privilege to ask the team to come up here and join me this evening. And we're going to have Andrew Cronin, captain of the team, say a few words about the season and the coaching staff. We're also joined here this evening by head coach Mike Nesta, assistant coach John McGonigal, and assistant coach Erazio Azzarello. Andrew Cronin, ladies and gentlemen, captain of the Medford High School boys baseball team.
[SPEAKER_00]: First of all, we'd like to thank the community for their continuing support throughout all year and throughout all the Medford High School programs. We'd like to thank the city councilors for having us here tonight. We'd also like to thank the superintendent, Mr. Roy Bellson, Mr. Mayor, as well as our coaching staff. We appreciate everything you guys do for us and we hope to have a good season next year.
[Adam Knight]: It's my honor and my privilege to read this City Council commendation into the record on behalf of the Medford City Council. The Medford City Council takes pleasure in awarding this Council commendation to Michael Nesta, head coach, Medford High School varsity baseball team, in recognition of winning the Greater Boston League title and earning a playoff berth in the MIAA Division I North Varsity Boys baseball playoffs for the 2015 season. Signed, Medford City Council President Frederick N. Dello Russo, Medford City Councilor Adam Knight. Thank you very much. Coach Nesta.
[Kelly Mead]: Thank you. I just want to reiterate what captain Andrew Cronin had said previously, the community support, the city council support, the school community support, along with the mayor, superintendent, and the athletic director, Pauli Maloney. We appreciate it. We had a great turnout at our tournament game against Boretka. Unfortunately, we lost, but we appreciate it. And I just want to thank again every city councilor for attending the services of my father and June. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair recognizes Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Mr. President, I'd like to move suspension of the rules for item 15-616 and also the paper in relative to the Garden Club Commission.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. So under the motion for suspension of the rules under Councilor Camuso, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. 15-016 to the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council, City Hall, Medford Mass. Dear Mr. President and Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your Honorable Body confirm the appointment of Losa Julie Janvier of 63 Rockwell Avenue, Medford, as a member of the Medford Housing Authority for a term to expire April 8, 2020. Ms. Janvier, who will serve as the tenant representative, is present this evening. This position has become available as Ms. Heather Merchant has moved out of the city very truly yours, Michael J. McGlynn, et cetera. The mayor sent this along in the agenda over the weekend. And we also received Mr. Genevieve's resume in our packets over the weekend. So go ahead, Councilman.
[Paul Camuso]: Move approval on the appointment. And if we could do two papers after this that are relative to the Medford Housing Authority under suspension while the representative is here.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good.
[Robert Penta]: So on the motion of approval, uh, Councilor Penta, um, Mr. Rumley, can you answer a question please? The city saloon sitter approaches the podium. I was looking at you. I couldn't get the words out of my mouth. I'm saying, I apologize. Um, This young lady that's being appointed now, that's a mayoral appointment, correct? It is, Councilor. And how long has the vacancy been there?
[Mark Rumley]: I really don't know.
[Robert Penta]: Does anybody know how long the vacancy has been?
[Mark Rumley]: I certainly think it's been one full year.
[Robert Penta]: One full year.
[Mark Rumley]: At least that's to my knowledge, because I don't recall any appointment in the last year.
[Robert Penta]: So with that being said, Mr. Solicitor, I know it's not your call, but during this past year, there have been concerns from tenants that there was no tenant representative. So I would hope the young lady becomes very cognizant of all the concerns, whether you agree or disagree, to bring them forward to the board, because there hasn't been anyone there for a year. And that's really what's needed. You need representation. Thank you.
[Mark Rumley]: Very well. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Patu, is all set? Yep. Roll call vote. The motion of approval by Councilor Camuso, A roll call vote has been requested. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. With the vote of 70 affirmative, none negative. Uh, we, uh, can we take the two regarding method? Yes. The motion has been approved. Congratulations. Thank you for your service. Can she actually just stick around, if we could ask her to stick around? And if you would, because we have two papers before us. They're both offered under suspension, one by Councilor Camuso, one offered by Councilor Caraviello. They're both the same, I believe, so be it resolved that the Medford City Council discuss the current problems at Tamponi Manor, and by Councilor Camuso, be it resolved that the conditions at the Medford Housing Authority be discussed. So if Councilor Camuso, you'd like to start.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, congratulations on your appointment. This is the most important appointment, I think, on that board, because it brings a perspective from the tenants. We often hear complaints, but I've been getting a considerable amount of more complaints recently, just to name a few. Tempone Manor recently just had a pretty nasty assault down there. There's the ongoing drug problems in the building. There's people drinking out on the steps of Canal Street when people are traversing the neighborhood, and this is public housing. Willis Ave, all you have to do is pick up the police blotter each week. and see some of the problems that are ongoing down there and walk on court as well. These are quality of life issues, Mr. President. Quality of life issues that will affect the senior citizens down here at our high rises in Medford Square, as well as Bradley Road and all the other units that are under the authority and jurisdiction of the Medford Housing Authority. I think that the leadership, as far as the executive director and the board, have to really get involved with this. and get their hands around this. Not to get too much into specifics, but one of the situations with a recent assault, another assault took place with the same people a year or two ago, and they're still living there. These are our senior citizens and our residents that deserve a better quality of life. So if we could just ask the Executive Director to issue a report to us on what he's doing to clean up these housing developments, it would be greatly appreciated. Very good.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the motion of Councilor Tommaso that the Director of Medford Housing Authority report back to the Council regarding the aforementioned incidents. Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I concur with my colleague here. I've been hearing the complaints coming, but also on top of what Councilor Camuso had mentioned, there's many complaints about dogs, multiple dogs, pit bulls being brought into these apartments where people are literally afraid to walk out the door anymore. And there's also four and five families living in one unit. They're coming in, there's abandoned cars being left on these properties where they're dealing drugs right out of the car. the seniors that live there deserve a better life than what they're getting right now. And I second councilor Camuso's request to have this sent to the Medford housing authority, even though we have no authority over them. But it's something they should be made aware of. And I hope that gets done tonight, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, have received the same complaints and concerns and want to thank my two colleagues for bringing this up tonight. I think it's great that we get a correspondence back from the Director of Medford Housing, but I think it's only appropriate with the seriousness of these particular complaints that the Housing Director appear before the Medford City Council. If you choose executive session, that'd be fine with me or here at the council meeting. I think it's only appropriate that he appear before us, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Maybe if I could suggest I'll call the Committee of the Whole to address this so that we can sit and maybe have more collegial conversation about this.
[Michael Marks]: That's perfect.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. President, there is a meeting over there at the Housing Authority tomorrow night, and I know this is also on their agenda. Thank you. So anybody who wants to go over there can maybe attend over there also. So on the motion of Councilor Camuso, all those in favor?
[Fred Dello Russo]: All those opposed? Motion is carried. To President De La Ruzo and members of the Honorable Medford City Council, from Mayor Michael J. McGlynn, reestablishment of the Medford Community Garden Commission. Dear Mr. President and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your Honorable body approve the following amendment to the revised ordinances of the City of Medford. Your approval of this amendment will provide for the establishment of a community garden commission in the city of Medford. The following is a full text of the proposed amendment.
[Adam Knight]: I will read it now being of the full text of the amendment and recommend a brief synopsis thereof. Very good.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Uh, on the motion of Councilor Knight, I will forego the reading of the three and a half pages of the, uh, of the proposed ordinance and kindly request that the city solicitor, who was here present tonight, give the council a brief synopsis and overview of what is before us. Welcome again, Mr. Solicitor.
[Mark Rumley]: Thank you, Mr. President. The ordinance which is before you tonight is the result of the work of many people, least of which was me. I did a little bit of polishing on the language, But there have been others involved in this much more than I, and I don't have all of their names. I wish I did, but certainly Alicia Hunt and Saira McGiven here at City Hall. And I also work with Michael Lambert. And there's a lot of names I'm leaving out, so I hope they forgive me. But this ordinance deals with a community garden commission. There is one amendment I'm going to propose at the end of my explanation, and I'll try to make the explanation brief. We'll go through it section at a time. Obviously, the be it ordained is a preamble, which is just a short precis as to where this would fit in in the ordinances. And by the way, the division and section numbers, I went over with Mr. Finn before I put it on the council agenda, so that's where those numbers came from. In the first section, it's the establishment, which names it as the Community Garden Commission. The function is to organize, coordinate, set policies, and have oversight. community gardens now established or to be established on property owned, controlled or managed by the city of Medford. I ask that you hold that thought till the end because I'm going to suggest an amendment to that second provision. Next it's jurisdiction. The jurisdiction would be to consider and to approve the amount of fees to be charged for people participating in the community gardens and to provide general oversight on the plots and to make regulations, et cetera. The next section deals with members and terms, and I know I'm going a little quick, so if you want me to slow down, just let me know. Five members, there'd be five regular members of the commission, two alternates, and at least one representative from various community gardens. The initial terms would be staggered in one, two, and three-year terms, so as to make a changeover on every anniversary. Then if there are additional gardens established, section C of this section allows for additional commissioners and or alternates to be appointed by the mayor in the same manner as original appointments. And the last part of that, section D, it says that if a member is absent, then their place can be taken by an alternate member. And in a case where there is repeated absences or an inability or unwillingness to participate, The chairperson of the commission can make a recommendation to the mayor that the person's appointment be terminated, and then the mayor can appoint in a similar fashion to the original appointments. The organization of the commission would be to have a chairman, a vice chairman, chosen from among its membership in its first meeting in November each year. And the vice chairman can sit in the position of the chairman if that's necessary. And a majority of the members would have the ability to call emergency meetings, but of course there must always be compliance with the open meeting laws. Next, the commission would have the ability to, after public notice and after public hearing, to make rules and regulations pertaining to community gardens. And these of course would be filed with the city clerk in the city of Medford. They could also set fees. and to make regulations which are consistent with their purpose and also set the amount and purpose of fees. Next, the application of the fees would be to cover the reasonable and necessary garden expenses which pertain to the community gardens. So they just couldn't be set in an arbitrary fashion, but would have to have some nexus to actual expenses and to costs. And of course they can accept recommendations from the participants in the gardens as to the fees, et cetera. And they have to be equitable and fair to all garden members. Finally, the commission should compile or shall compile an annual report of their activities and submit that report to the mayor and the Medford city council at the end of each calendar year. So that's generally the outline. of that particular ordinance, skipping a lot of words to save time. And there is one amendment I would suggest. It falls in concert with that. The chair recognizes Councilman. I'm sorry.
[Robert Penta]: Yes. That falls in concert with this.
[Mark Rumley]: The revolving account. There would also be related to this, we're asking on a separate paper for the council to approve a revolving account. And a revolving account, as you know, has to be approved by the Medford City Council or by any city council, that is. And the purpose of a revolving account is to designate certain dollars which, when they come in, have to be essentially earmarked, escrowed is another synonym, for a particular purpose. So the request here of the mayor is that the council approve a revolving account to be used for the Medford Garden Commission, and any fees received by the commission from its members or plot holders, or any other donations would be deposited into this particular revolving account, which would provide a source for payment of expenses related to community gardens, including but not limited to equipment, supplies, and maintenance. Also, under this proposal of this revolving account, the Director of the Office of Energy and Environment, would have the authority to approve expenditures, but the expenditures approved could never exceed $10,000 or the balance in the account. So if the balance in the account was $2,000, there could not be approval for more than $2,000. It would be driven by the balance in the account with a ceiling of $10,000. And the director of the Office of Energy and Environment would be required to annually prepare a report disclosing all deposits and expenditures from the account during the fiscal year. And so that's essentially what the revolving account relationship is to the community guidance. And I do have that one amendment.
[Robert Penta]: Very good. Councilor Knight. You have the amendment, you said?
[Mark Rumley]: Yeah, I do have it. Councilor has the floor.
[Robert Penta]: Why don't we let him finish his presentation?
[Mark Rumley]: Yeah, okay. So it was one sentence we would have added on. And on yours, it'll be in section 2-550 under function and purpose. Right now, as proposed to the council, it says this. The function and purpose of the commission is to organize, coordinate, set policies, and provide oversight for various community gardens now established and to be established prospectively on property owned, controlled, and managed by the city of Bedford. That's what it presently says. I would change the period at the end of that sentence to a comma and add these words. Mr. Finn, you ready? All right. With the specific exception of the community garden that presently exists at Riverbend Park in Medford, period. And so I know that I can hear your silent question, why? And the answer to that question why is the garden which exists at Riverbend Park, although I'm not a participant in it, I know that it's been up and running for some time. They have in effect rules and regulations and processes and procedures that pertain to the utilization of that garden. And the request has been that they be accepted from this, except that it may not be under the parameters of the umbrella of this particular ordinance, because they seem to have, they've been doing this for a few years now. Their processes and procedures are already in place. And I suppose if you needed an analogy, it would be essentially as having them grandfathered in. And those are the proposals before the council tonight.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. Rumley, thank you. And I think we also need to give a word of thanks to the members of the Medford Community Garden Volunteer Commission that were able to put this together. One question that I have for you, Mr. Rumley, would be the fact that we have these five total members in the alternates. And because they're going to be appointed to serve on this commission, they would be considered city employees, correct?
[Mark Rumley]: Yes, to the same extent other boards and commission members now are indeed city employees. But there's a footnote on that. They're city employees because they operate under the city government. But they're not employees in the sense of being on payroll and entitled to benefits and all the rest. For example, under Section 268A of the Massachusetts General Laws, conflict of interest rules apply to all municipal employees. And all municipal employees include even those people on boards or commissions. So while they're considered municipal employees, for purposes of the conflict of interest law and other provisions. They're not city employees the way others, such as myself, would be considered, who are on the regular payroll and appointed.
[Adam Knight]: And also, Mr. Rumley, in looking at this, I think that it's very thorough. They've done a great job putting this together. would expect that this has your stamp of approval on it, considering that you're here presenting it to us this evening in terms of legality?
[Mark Rumley]: The answer is yes, it does. It's also, as I said earlier, I don't want to claim that it was my exclusive labor, because it certainly was not. All I had to do was polish up a little bit and change and recraft a couple of things. But it's the people that have put their, literally, their backs and their sweat into it that came up with the original drafts.
[Adam Knight]: And I've witnessed them putting their backs in sweat and into the creation of the garden down on Winthrop Street. I've also seen a lot of excitement relative to the McNally Park Community Gardens down there. Mr. President, I think this is a great piece of legislation and I would move for approval as amended.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. On that motion, I think we have Councilor Penta, were you still in the queue here? Yes. Go ahead.
[Robert Penta]: Mark. Yes. the folks that are involved with the community gardens do wonderful work. And it's these folks as individuals and a lot of them don't have the space at their own personal residence where they could have this type of a garden. But I have some concern over this as it relates to number one, I'm passing this tonight without knowing and having a lot of the representatives, you know, and some of the terms here is called plotters. But one of the things that stands out at me is the mayor has all five appointments. And since you're asking the council to make a vote of acceptance, not you, but the administration is, uh, I think the council should have one representative of their choice. And I think the, the plotters or the garden people, they should have a representative as well. Um, and leave all five exclusively to the mirror. I think at this point in time, I think would not be fair. That's, that's number one. Number two, it's called the river bend garden folks. And you're right. Exempting them. They've done a wonderful job for 12 years down there. And everything down there really works well. And they probably have set the tempo as to what's going on. So I guess the question is, what are they doing so right that we need a commission to say we've got to correct something going forward? I don't know. These are questions that I think, you know, and the committee will hold. Second of all, I have no idea where the $10,000 figure came from.
[Mark Rumley]: Oh, I can tell you that. Yes, that's entirely and completely a creature of my legislative hand. I just put it there as a cap, figuring that, generally speaking, $10,000 oftentimes in procurement and in other areas of law seems to be that initial ceiling. And whether it was $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000 is simply a matter of preference, not really a matter of law.
[Robert Penta]: But the Riverbend folks, didn't have any kind of a cap. They just adjusted themselves and paid for whatever their expenses were and have been through the years. And if I'm reading this correctly, it indicates over here, um, that not only are these, uh, plot families, um, plot holders along with donations, and they're also going to be charged a fee and inclusive of that. Um, the question is if, if I had my particular garden down there and I was working on it, now I'm going to be charged the fee. And then, If we are putting all of these together, and I believe it says, um, and line over here, it says each community garden or group of gardens in the case of gardens, plural of eight or fewer plots, she'll have at least one representative on the commission.
[Mark Rumley]: Yes.
[Robert Penta]: So if they have one representative on the commission, the question then becomes if they have one representative on the commission and the mayor has all five, how do you, how do you get to that one member on the commission? I don't know. But, Just put that aside as a separate thought. I'm just concerned over the fact that it's another tax and a fee on people who are doing something voluntarily, who are willing to take a parcel of land, cultivate it, grow it into a garden, for the purposes of which they so choose. I believe it's on a first come, first served basis. And I guess the Riverbend folks are the best example to show you this, that through the last 12 years, they paid for all their expenses themselves, and they've shared it. Now, the question then becomes, if, in fact, we get all these plotters, as they're called, to have to pay an annual fee or whatever it might be, and it goes into a pool, who then makes the determination if one of these locations needs an upgrading and wants an upgrading? And if I'm in the river bend or X bend, whatever it might be, and I feel that I don't want that money to go there, I want it to stay right here in my own section, how are we going to address this and handle this?
[Mark Rumley]: That would be by the commission. which would have no form or function without this ordinance.
[Robert Penta]: So having no form of function without the ordinance right now, if you go to the one on Winthrop Street, they're basically working on their own. If you go to McNally Park, they're basically working on their own. I think it's a good idea to have some kind of oversight, but to have it this controlled and taxing. To me, it's like another tax. on somebody wanting to do something. It's a fee.
[Mark Rumley]: I know that you're using the word in its most benign form. But I also know that you know it's not a tax.
[Robert Penta]: It's a fee.
[Mark Rumley]: It's a fee.
[Robert Penta]: It's another fee. So you're asking someone who never had to pay a fee before, now they're going to have to pay a fee, over and beyond expenses.
[Mark Rumley]: Yes, but before, you couldn't just walk onto a municipal property and plant vegetables.
[Robert Penta]: No, I understand that. But you've also been allowed to do this. And for the last 12 years, there's a group.
[Mark Rumley]: Right, and because that's successful, And because the interest in participating in community guidance is discernible and growing, it's necessary at this juncture of its growth to ensure that its proper growth take place with some degree. I wouldn't call this to be Stalinistic regulation. This is very flexible. With some degree of regulation so that it can grow properly and orderly. I don't think it's going to discourage participation. I think the opposite. I think it's going to increase participation.
[Robert Penta]: But how do you get a fee? How do we get to this issue of a fee? Who's going to make the determination of the fee?
[Mark Rumley]: Well, there's always going to be a cost, isn't there, to a human endeavor. There's always going to be a cost to a task. So there may be a need for soil. I'm not a great gardener. My wife is. But there's going to be a need for soil and maybe water or shovels, et cetera, that are necessary. I'm sure that others will be much more familiar with what the needs are.
[Robert Penta]: But if you already have a group of people that are doing that on their own, what I don't understand is you're saying going from them forward, it's going to come under a commission.
[Mark Rumley]: Just to give it some order. But also, and I think I know that I'm preaching to the choir here, an ordinance doesn't become etched in granite and never change. If it's necessary to recraft, change, or to tweak, I'm sure that that will bubble up to the surface at the right time. But I think it's good at this point where we have a garden at Winthrop Street, and there's one the next street over from my house at McNally Park, and I'm finding that tot lot with that garden very, very well utilized. I see that every time I drive away from my house. It's good to have some structure so that Maybe there'll be an addition. Maybe there'll be something else that'll be necessary. Another park will come online, more community gardens. I understand your concerns because I know what they are. You don't want to put additional burdens on people that want to engage in an extremely productive and community-based initiative. I'm with you on that. But in order to allow them to do so in a fashion which is going to be progressive, it's going to need some structure. That's really it.
[Robert Penta]: The only real thing, lastly, the only real thing is the $10,000. If I was a plotter, and I was to see this ordinance, and I was to see it's going to be up to and not exceeding $10,000, does that mean at any point in time, at any one of these developments, any future development, if an assessment had to be to carry the next person forward, but in my small little world, whether it's on Winthrop Street or wherever, I'm going to be charged an additional amount of money to get to that point? Because if I understand this correctly, their fees and whatever, it all goes into a pool, correct? Yes. And in that pool, whatever the location might need that's making the request, that's where the money's going to go if the commission votes on it. That's correct, too. Correct. So, like I said, if I'm in my own little world and I don't want it to go there, I want it to keep it on my one subscription, whatever it might be. Councilor, I could tell you this.
[Mark Rumley]: If you feel a different number outside of $10,000 would be more prudent and would be more productive and useful. As I said, that $10,000 came off of my hand with a pen saying, this sounds reasonable. but I'm open to any suggestions.
[Robert Penta]: To me, a realistic figure would probably be $3,000 to start, because I'm quite sure this is all a minimal. $3,000 is fine by me. I would move, Mr. President, that $10,000 be reduced to $3,000. And let's just see where this gets itself going and how the cost factor goes.
[Mark Rumley]: Then another — it might be necessary, as I said. Ordinances are fluid. If $3,000 doesn't work, we may know that fairly quickly. Right. Also, it would mean that if there are expenditures over $3,000, We can't go into a deficit on this, obviously, because the cap on spending would be the number that you put. So if I could be so bold as to make a suggestion, perhaps the launching figure might be, to address the concerns that you have, maybe a more prudent launching figure would be $5,000. Fair enough.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the motion of Council Penta to adjust this to 5,000. Vice President Mugler-Curran has been patiently waiting. Point of information, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: I appreciate what Councilor Penta had to offer. However, I know there are people here from the Garden Club, and it may be interesting to find out what the current expenditures are, the number of plots, and based on that information, because if we have a figure of 10,000 that's currently in the ordinance, to go down to 3,000 if they're already expending 5,000, It doesn't make any sense to me, so.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The chair was gonna invite the Garden Club members up to speak. That's fine. Thank you, Councilor Marks, for your point of information. Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'll yield if you wanna, if anybody from the Garden Club wants to come up and answer that.
[Fred Dello Russo]: We have a number of the councilors awaiting, and then we'll invite the Garden Club members up.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thanks, sorry. I had a question, City Solicitor Rumley, on section 2-556, the annual report. and how it coordinates with the revolving account, which is number five in the revolving account. So the director of office and energy and environment has to report, has to disclose all deposits expenditures from the revolving account. That section doesn't say to who, where the section in the ordinance 2-556 says that the garden club has to report to the mayor and the Medford City Council. I think it would be probably helpful to change it to 2-556 to report to the Mayor, to the City Council, and to the Office of Energy and Environment, and then have the Office of Energy and Environment have to report to the Mayor and the City Council.
[Mark Rumley]: Well, that's entirely different from what I thought you were going to say. I thought you, if you don't mind me saying so, what I thought you were going to say is how come the annual report is made by the commission each December and the fiscal report is made at the end of the fiscal year? Because we had the, I had the commission doing its annual report in December, figuring that that was the best time to do a report dealing with gardens because it would be the beginning of the winter. But whoever gets the report and submits the report, if it should go to the mayor, the council, anyone, that's all fluid. You can certainly, if you want to amend it to include those other entities, fine by me.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I think so. I mean, I think when we meet in our budget hearings in June, when we talk about the next fiscal fiscal year's budget, we, you know, we go over each commission's line item budget. So it'll be good to have the annual report, the report from the office of energy and environment before us.
[Mark Rumley]: That's why I had put that in for the fiscal year, as opposed to December for the dollar report. so that it could mimic the fiscal year. So the fiscal year report comes at the end of the fiscal year. The garden report comes at the end of the seasons of gardening.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: But if we could put the language in with the revolving count that the mayor, that the Office of Energy and Environment report, just like it's... That's absolutely fine. ...report to the mayor and to the Medford City Council by the end of the fiscal year. then it's more fluid and we know we're going to get a report from both the club and the Office of Energy and Environment. We know we're going to get the breakdown of fees and donations, expenditures. We know we're going to get both reports. I'd be happy to-. I think your suggestions are very helpful. So I'd make that part of the committee report.
[Fred Dello Russo]: May I take this opportunity to point out that before us for discussion right now, is 15-518, the ordinance itself. 15-619 is the issue of the revolving account, which is not before us for discussion.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And then my last point, Councilor Penta touched on it, but I too, I know five appointments from the mayor's office. I too feel that, you know, most of our commissions are, the majority does come from the mayor's office, but the council does have appointments. You always have, Just like with the housing authority, we have a member of somebody who's actually living in the housing authority as a member. So I would recommend that somebody from the actual, you know, garden club definitely, you know, it'd be mandated that they be a member as well.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So with those two amendments.
[Clerk]: You changed the five-member
[Robert Penta]: Mayor, two members of the mayor, one from the council and one from the clubs.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So as proposed, it's broken down this way. In a staggering of terms, one, two and three year terms as follows. Two members for a term of three years, two members for a term of two years, one member for a term of one year. So what we have to do is to determine who is going to have appointments in each of those three categories.
[Robert Penta]: All right.
[Clerk]: So you want three members from the mayor?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: How do you want to amend it? One member for a three year term be, um, be a city council appointment. Oh, we can do two. So one member of the city council would have the two year term.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I believe Councilor Lungo-Koehn has the chair.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I agree with that. Yeah, one person from two-member term.
[Robert Penta]: One member from the club is in the three-year term.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, and then one member from the club be able to appoint a member for a three-year term. And then the mayor has the last three.
[Fred Dello Russo]: They're all three-year terms.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: No. No, three years, two years, one year.
[Fred Dello Russo]: They're all three-year terms.
[Mark Rumley]: If I may to the Council, every term is three years. Only the original terms are staggered. That's so that they're staggered throughout. It's kind of like walking up a flight of stairs, one, two, three. But once you get to the third stair, you're home. It's three-year terms for everybody. So you have two members for a three-year term, two for a two-year term, and two for one, but that only happens once.
[Robert Penta]: And then it revolves out. At the outset, the council gets one two-year term, because we read every two years. The Guiding Club gets one three-year term, and the mayor gets two three-year terms, and he gets the one-year term. Starting off, that's what you said.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: From the outset, yeah.
[Robert Penta]: At the outset. Point of clarification, Mr. President?
[Adam Knight]: Point of clarification, Councilor Knight. Would the gentleman clarify whether or not he means the council gets one as an individual member of the council, or as a council appointee? Council appointee. Council appointee. Thank you for the clarification.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Madam Vice President. That's my questions for now. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Vice President. Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. Um, the first thing is, um, if you'd allow me just to briefly discuss the $10,000, this is money that's coming in. That's going to be user fees slash money from the gardeners to cap it at $3,000. If they're putting their own money into this revolving account, which is not appropriated through the city budget process, I don't see why we should be capping it at $3,000. We should give them at least the $10,000, the same that the artists are allowed to spend at a bare minimum, the same that the parks and recreation has in a revolving account. But to limit it, I don't see that being proactive for this startup. I'd also like to make an amendment if the council is amenable to The amendment that the city solicitor made to have the Riverbend Park not part of this, I would think it would be prudent for this council to do it for three calendar years after the start-up. At some point, they should not be running their separate and distinct operation. It should encompass under the Garden Club, I'm sorry, the Garden Commission at some point. Mr. Lasky and that crew has done a phenomenal job down there, but I just have a hard time keeping one entity separate and distinct in the long term in the city where everything else is going to fall under this. It's similar to a school. We can't say, well, all the schools are going to fall under the school committee except one school. We're going to keep that under the council. It just doesn't make sense. Would the city administration be amenable to a three-year phase out? So your amendment to make it so that the Riverbend Park is not part of this, that it would not be part of this for the initial three years. After three years, which is 36 months from now, they will become part of this ordinance as of that effective date.
[Mark Rumley]: I think it would be unfair of me to make that affirmation without speaking to people at the Riverbend Park. I just don't think it would be right. All right. The second thing is that being said, unfortunately, my second point, the second thing is when you enact an ordinance, when you say that at a certain point in the future, this will happen, what you're doing is you're preordaining knowledge of what's going to happen in three years. Who knows? You never know what's going to happen. But if a need arises in three years, you can address it because that's what you do.
[Paul Camuso]: But we also could put the language that effective upon its passage that that particular portion expires on a specific date, 36 months from the date of passage. I just don't think it's fair, to be quite honest, and I think that the people that are already at Riverbend Park should have the opportunity to continue, but at some point, it should encompass all of the gardens in the city.
[Mark Rumley]: I know that you want to be fair. It's just about equity. No, I respect fairness and equity as much as the next person. So much so that I will tell you that I spoke at length today with a person that participates significantly at Riverbend Park, who was very comforted by the fact that it was being accepted from this because of all the past history that they have. And if I was to say right now, well, no matter what my conversation was with those people this afternoon, I'm going to, three years from now, pull them into the ordinance, then I wouldn't be acting fairly. So I can't do that.
[Paul Camuso]: Unfortunately, it's, um, the paper before us is your amendment that you added. Um, unfortunately it's the vote of the council this evening, which will send it back to the mayor for enactment. And I, as one member of the council, uh, I just can't, um, I just have a hard time, segregate in one current garden. I appreciate everything that they've done. That's why I'm giving them, I think, reasonable as three years. And then they'll come under the auspices of this. I just look at all the parks in the community. If we take one park away from the park board and now call it a separate park, It just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense. So I'm going to make that motion in whatever way it goes that we either suspend it or give them 36 months. I feel more comfortable doing it with the 36 months. And I disagree with the city solicitor in this particular matter, because language is written all the time. Matter of fact, we go back to the mills tax that was done here, and we put a date on it where the mills tax would be reviewed after several years and come back to this council. It happens all the time. At the state level, the MBTA now has a control board, and it expires certain regulations within the control board, expired at a certain date upon the effective passage of the legislation. So I respectfully disagree with the solicitor in this particular matter. I think that we can do it upon its passage. It's 36 months from the date of its passage. And I just think it's in the equity of fairness and just doing the right thing for the future gardeners that are out there.
[Mark Rumley]: Just to respond to the example given of the meals tax, there is a significant and objective difference between the assessment of a dollar amount or a percentage dealing with meals and rooms, et cetera, and the participation in an effort like community gardens, which deals with people, their creativity, their relaxation, their contentment, and their ability to utilize soil that otherwise wouldn't be at their disposal. And the last point I'd make about it is, in the meals tax, there's no person that was talked to in the afternoon. I spoke to a representative from Riverbend Park this afternoon. It is not their consensus that they wanted to be exempt from this. So I said I would propose the amendment. I had the acquiescence of the mayor. and I have no authority to back off of that amendment. Okay.
[Paul Camuso]: But the city council has the right to either accept it, amend it. We've made other amendments this evening, uh, to the paper. So, uh, with all due respect, if the mayor's paper, um, I think there's a fairer way to do it. I'm going to make that amendment and whatever way my colleagues see fit. Uh, that's it. So an amendment that upon the effective passage of this paper, that the garden club at river Bend park, uh, stays separate and distinct for 36 months from the date of its passage. And then at that point, the 37th month, it would fall under the domain of the Garden Commission, which, and quite honestly, I hope Riverbend Park helps this commission, because they've done a fabulous job down there. This is an incentive to make the whole thing work by including them as well. So I make that amendment.
[Fred Dello Russo]: As amended by Councilor Camuso. Chair recognizes Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Solicitor, can I answer your question? First of all, I'd like to commend the commission, the guiding community for the great work. And I, for one, would hope they expand into other areas, especially that big lot on Grove Street and maybe on the other side of the river. Um, when these groups, uh, let's say when they, when they start to expand going down the line, it says here that, um, that, uh, there are provision we've made. Um, how, how would, how would the membership be made on, uh, on going forward by the size of the garden?
[Mark Rumley]: Uh, well, yes, if there was, if there was small, I believe it says if there's eight or less, uh, eight or less plots, that would be a smaller garden. Groups of gardens of less than eight would have one representative, but more than eight would have one. I think that the plots right now, as I understand it, Winthrop Street has anywhere from 13 to 17 plots, and they're about at half capacity. I could be wrong about that. And McNally has four. So they're fairly small right now.
[Richard Caraviello]: There's more people that are interested in them, and I hope they grow and get full, and we expand it into different areas of the community.
[Mark Rumley]: Sure. I think those are fine sentiments.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I'm not sure if this is an appropriate question to the city solicitor or maybe someone from the guiding club, but the way I understand it right now, the Riverbend Park for many years had a waiting list. And I'm glad to see this program expand to other parks. We do have 26 parks in the city, many of which are underutilized. But currently, I guess I'd like to find out if there is a waiting list, just say at the Riverbend Park. And under this particular ordinance, if I was on the waiting list at Riverbend Park and not knowing anything about fees or anything else at that park, And an opening came up at McNally or Winthrop Street. Am I eligible to fill that opening? Would I have to pay the fee that's dictated by the commission based on Winthrop Street and McNally?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor, why don't we invite this representative of the group to come up and address the Council. Is there a president or a leader of your group that wishes to address us? And then we kindly invite all of you who wish to speak on this when it's appropriate. But the Councilor seems to have agreed to it. interjected you in here, so we'll allow you all to speak now.
[Amanda Bowen]: My name's Amanda Bowen at the moment. I'm the president of our loosely formed group. I just wanted to clarify that the Medford Garden Club has provided membership for our organization, but the Garden Club is a separate entity. We're calling ourselves the Medford, I don't know what, we've called ourselves a number of different things, but we're headed toward commission, we hope.
[Michael Marks]: What is that again? I'm sorry, I didn't get the last.
[Amanda Bowen]: We have called ourselves a variety of things, but we are distinct from the Garden Club. The Garden Club is a separate entity, which focuses on gardens in general, and we are focused on community gardens, gardens for the community.
[Michael Marks]: That's what we're doing. But if you're following their, from what we just heard, their rules and regulations and trying to mirror exactly what they're doing, then why wouldn't it be a combined effort? And why would there be a separation?
[Amanda Bowen]: Riverbend has worked very well for a long time, and they feel strongly that they have done a good job and supported themselves. And so they are, I think, if I had to conjecture, I would say that they're waiting to see how things work out. with the other ones, and I don't think there's any worry that eventually they will be part of the fold. But at the moment, they've been a model for us. We've also been looking at community gardens in all the surrounding communities to get ideas about how to run this.
[Michael Marks]: So there'll be an ability to cross-pollinate memberships?
[Amanda Bowen]: Oh, absolutely. I mean, we're talking to them all the time. And Fred Lasky, as a representative of Riverbend, is in our group that meets once a month. So he comes and talks to us about what they do.
[Michael Marks]: OK. And just if you could, just because I've seen the McNally and also the Winthrop, how many plots are at Winthrop?
[Amanda Bowen]: Winthrop, we have 18 now, and we should have 36 after our next build, which is happening at the end of the month.
[Michael Marks]: And McNally Park?
[Amanda Bowen]: McNally is four, and that's all that was built as part of that park renovation.
[Michael Marks]: Four. And are they roughly the same square footage?
[Amanda Bowen]: Yeah. I mean, they, they, they, I think McNally might be a little bit smaller each plot, but they're, they're roughly the same size. Yeah.
[Michael Marks]: And as an organization, how do you control the use of water within any of these sites?
[Amanda Bowen]: You know, I'm not the best person to answer that, but I think that the city has provided us with water at Winthrop. And so, um, and they've had a little trouble getting it to work properly. But the fact is, the city is providing the water.
[Michael Marks]: Is it metered?
[Amanda Bowen]: I don't believe so.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Would the club be opposed to it? Point of information, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: It is my understanding that McNally Park is metered, and it's metered as part of the general park maintenance meter, not just exclusively to the community garden, but it's metered as part of hot maintenance.
[Amanda Bowen]: It's coming off a water line, which is there.
[Adam Knight]: That's at McNally. I can't speak to Winthrop.
[Amanda Bowen]: It's coming off a water line, which is there for irrigation at the condensation.
[Michael Marks]: I just think maybe for future reference, it may be worthwhile for your group or even this council recommend that a meter be put in just to safeguard the group and to make sure that it'll be a way of tracking year after year to see what's currently used. Because as you know, that is considered unaccounted for water. And we all pay for that as rate payers. And I think it's a great use and it's worthwhile, but I think there needs to be a way of seeing what's being used and also the ability to control it. But I applaud everyone for their work on an ordinance. As you can see, I'm sure a lot of time and effort went into this. And it's easy to pick it apart, but I know there's a lot of work that went into this. And I look forward to the eventual expanding of this program. I remember the days of the Victory Gardens on Grove Street, and there had to be 100 plots in there, and it was real bustling. And I would love to see this expanded in other neighborhoods where people can walk down and do their own garden.
[Amanda Bowen]: And we certainly hope to go move beyond just Winthrop and McMahon.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you for your involvement.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. And the council invites those of you who've been involved in this to just line up to present to the council, and especially if you want to speak particularly to the content of the ordinance and your participation in drafting it would be most helpful for our deliberations. So if you want to come on up and please state your name and address for the welcome, for the record and welcome.
[SPEAKER_31]: My name is Lisa Risley. Most people know me as Riz. I live at 93 Cedar Road North up in North Medford, the Heights, whatever they want to call it. I'm the treasurer for the Friends Group. And we are officially known, we are 501.3C group, bless you. We've been formed for about a year now, so we do have tax-exempt status. We have been raising money. So we are known as the Friends of Medford Community Gardens. Winthrop Street is a miracle, with many thanks to Fred Lasky for his assistance, his help, and able advising. that was pulled off in a month. Winthrop was built, Councilman Penta, you raised concerns about the fees. Winthrop was built by paying $6,000 in expenditures. That was what it cost to build that garden. And a lot of volunteer labor, hard labor. And people who just said, we're gonna do this, this is our neighborhood, and we are going to build it. That money, came from a $5,000 gift from Go Green Medford, and money raised in donations, sales of silly little flappy flowers. Anybody wants to buy one to support? Let me know, $5, I'm the treasurer, I keep all this stuff. As for accounting, every single fee that is collected, we charge $25 for a plot. I have a long experience as an accounting for in academia. My background, I was the bookkeeper for an academic library. I had five separate collections with budgets, so I'm used to juggling a lot of figures. Every garden has its own spreadsheet. Right now, it's two gardens. There's one for McNally, one for Winthrop. And every $25 that comes in is recorded in the appropriate thing, and that is the account for that garden. The people making up the decision as to how that money is spent are the people who are gardening there. If they say, we need a hose, get a hose. That's fine. Make sure I have a receipt. I'm sorry. Again, I worked in academia. I know you cannot do anything without a receipt or a purchase order. I am not writing a check to anybody unless I have receipts for every single cent spent. I'm a little... Anal retentive that way, but then again, I want us to be covered. I don't want any problems. I don't want any questions. This is important because right now, we're at the beginning. We're all getting along. We're all good. Everything's happy. We want to keep it this way. We want to stay good neighbors. So the gardeners are deciding. There is a provision when people apply for a garden plot. We want to know if someone is in hard times. You know, if you're, I'm sorry, if you're in one of the housing developments here and you're having a hard time just covering your food bill, we're not going to take money out of your pocket. We're not going to take food. We want to know and make provisions for people. Ideally, I know that we've been told that there is a plan that hopefully as all of our parks come online for revamping that they're going to put new community garden beds in the We'd love to see that happen. We've had chats with Mike Nestor in the Parks Department about all of these little green spaces that aren't big enough for parks, but we could put a raised bed there. We would love to do that. There's a lot of us who are experienced gardeners, and we want to see everybody who wants that opportunity get it, and do it as effectively as possible. We have experienced grant writers in the Friends Group who are working on this. Riverbend was built, yes, by the people there, but they had help from neighborhood organizations and businesses in the neighborhood. We're reaching out to those businesses. Riverbend, I'm not challenging the amendment at all. Their request to remain a separate entity, I completely respect and understand. We respect it. We get it. They've worked hard and it's like, oh my God, don't pull us in. It's cool, but our intent is that all of Medford, we're all, we're working for all of Medford. We're working for every neighborhood. So we want to make sure it goes forward.
[SPEAKER_30]: Just a quick question. When you say $25 for a plot, is that like a yearly fee?
[Fred Dello Russo]: That's the yearly fee.
[SPEAKER_30]: And they decide how that money is being spent, not us. So that's the way you create an expense account.
[SPEAKER_31]: They have, and they have their own, and my spreadsheets are, there's a donation spreadsheet. There's the general fund, that's where the donations go to. There's, you know, the plot funds. And there's an accounting of every dime that has gone out, every check that's been written. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: And if I could, I apologize for speaking from the chair, but will that then, pending approval of everything, be rolled into the revolving account?
[SPEAKER_31]: That is to be, sir, that's to be decided. The revolving account is, something that, at this point, I'm not a commissioner, so I'm not going to say, you know, yes, this money is going here. That needs to be negotiated. That needs to be figured out. Again, we are an official 501.3 organization, 3C organization, just like the Friends of the Public Library, and we will be happy to continue to operate as the Friends Group, you know, no matter what happens here, because we need to see this happen.
[Michael Marks]: A question for the speaker from Councilor Marks. You may not know, but what is the current waiting list at Riverbend? Do you know?
[SPEAKER_31]: Riverbend, I'm unaware. I know it is revolving because people move, people leave. They don't always tell them that they're being taken off the waiting list. I've heard both sides of it. So, I mean, I've heard from Riverbend folks. It's like, oh, no, it's not a big deal. And I've heard from people, oh, I could never get in. So, for me, I take everything with a grain of salt. So, I think it's somewhere in the middle. that there might be people who've waited for a long time, and there might be people who weren't following up. So that's a question for the Riverbend folks. Our waiting list is not that extensive right now because people are just learning we're there. I would love to see our waiting list be like 100 people so I could come to you guys and say, please.
[Michael Marks]: Are there any provisions that would have people maybe have a lot for a year, two year, three year, and have to turn it over?
[SPEAKER_31]: That has been, actually Winthrop is, I believe, divided at this point. I'm wrong. Because the license at first was only for one year, everybody only has their plot for one year, the decision will be made as to whether or not we're going to split for people only having like a three year or five year. That's been a big, it's been a very big and contentious discussion. So I cannot answer your question completely, but that is, And can people split a plot? Yes. Yes, we have two folks who are sharing one of the McNally plots.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. You're welcome. Councilor Knight?
[Adam Knight]: I'm sorry, sir. No, thank you. Thank you for coming this evening, and thank you for your work. Certainly, this is the fruits of your labor and the labor of the Friends Group.
[SPEAKER_31]: I'm one of the noobs. I'm just the administrator. I'm not one of the heavy lifters.
[Adam Knight]: One of the questions that I have, and it might not be appropriate for you because you are an administrator, would be, you know, we see the community gardens right now. They're bustling. We have a lot of growth down there. You know, you walk down Winthrop Street and you have eight feet worth of tomato plants well over my head. At the end of the season, what's going to happen? Is that stuff going to be left there to compost? Is it going to be pulled out? What's the direction that we're looking at in terms of when we're out of season versus when we're in season? It looks great when it's in bloom, but what happens when it's not in bloom?
[SPEAKER_31]: Every gardener signs a waiver, a liability waiver. So they accept their own personal responsibility. Every gardener also signs the rules. And it's a very set thing of you will tend your plot, you will weed your plot. The garden will close at the end of the season. Everyone is expected to clear their waste. Compost will happen. I am not in the Winthrop Garden, but I know the wonderful people that run it, and they are avid gardeners. They don't want rats. They don't want waste. They don't want an eyesore because it is. You go past it on Route 16 and you can see it. So there are very, there are rules that every gardener must agree to. And if you do not follow those rules and they're common sense, they're not draconian, like it's, you will be responsible. You will remain tamed. If you have a problem, tell us. We're a neighborhood community. We're going to work together and everything will be maintained. So there will not be an ICER at the end of the season.
[Adam Knight]: I think it might even be premature to ask, because at this point in time, if we establish the commission, they have the right to establish the regulations. And I guess I was more concerned about what the practice is now and what's going to happen at the end of this season. Once we establish the commission, the commission has the right to set these regulations.
[SPEAKER_31]: This was well thought out. The folks that have been working on this for two plus years, this stuff was well thought out long beforehand. They wanted to be sure that these kind of concerns were going to be addressed immediately.
[Adam Knight]: I think that you guys have done an excellent job. certainly circling the wagons and paying close attention to detail and thinking of, you know, a lot of issues and items that might come up that aren't necessarily something that you'd see in the day-to-day operations. You've done a great job. You've done a great job, and that's why I support the ordinance.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Penta. I find this very intriguing. I'm a very nuts and bolts guy when it comes to dollars and cents. Absolutely. So please just explain to me, you said it costs $6,000 to get to Winthrop Street. Yes. Is that shared by the 13 folks that are there now?
[SPEAKER_31]: The building cost was not. The building cost was covered by Go Green Medford's grant. No, I'm sorry. What? Green Medford, I'm sorry. We had been given money at the beginning of when we opened the account in October. We had $5,100 seed money and raised the additional funds to cover. So that $6,000 came from donations.
[Robert Penta]: OK, so now with that being said, and you folks that are out there working it, what do you actually think it's going to cost to get through this first year?
[SPEAKER_31]: We're finding that out. Right now, it's about paying for a hose. it's about paying for the splitter. If I may, just momentarily. Susan and Elise, money is going towards equipment that you guys need, yes?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, and it's minimal.
[SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, it's... There's also going to the splitters, which basically you're able to do them without getting a fence. Yeah.
[Robert Penta]: All right. Now, taking what you just said into consideration, Mr. Clerk—I mean, Mr. Solicitor. Mr. Solicitor, could you come here real quick? Because she's getting to the nub of my question. When we talked about the original dollar amount of $10,000, and now we have it down to $5,000, and just hearing the young lady in the back of the hall just basically say what they're purchasing and buying. Does this mean that the fees that this new ordinance is going to have is going to cover all that so you folks don't have to pay for that or not? No. So I guess my question is, what is this money going to be used for for the fees?
[Mark Rumley]: Well, it says right in the ordinance that it would be used for the expenses of the garden. It has to be related to the expenses of the garden. And if that figure, by the way, were $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000, the expenditures could be no more than 4,300, if only 4,300 were raised. So that's why I thought a softer figure was 10.
[Robert Penta]: I guess I'm just confused because if you folks are donating all your own time, effort, and money into all of this, I think, can you just explain it better?
[SPEAKER_31]: You guys know what you're doing. Councilman Penta, if I may, one of the things that we will need to replenish soil, okay? We will need to help provide soil amendments. That's what some of this money is going to go towards.
[SPEAKER_01]: As a group, we've expended $6,000 to build it. So for me to pay $25 to build to garden, I'm a gardener at McNally Park in one of the four beds there. I love it. My kids love it. We enjoy spending time with the other community members there. But it's a huge benefit to me, and I'm happy to pay $25 to have access. We're going to probably end up making bulk compost orders, if you want a number on something. Compost might not seem like it costs very much, but when you have 36 beds each, four by 16, it adds up. So those are the kinds of things that fees go toward.
[Robert Penta]: That's what I think people need to hear. Thank you for that. I appreciate that.
[SPEAKER_01]: Anybody else have a question for a current gardener?
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. That's good.
[SPEAKER_01]: No? OK. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Penta. Hi. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Michael Ruggiero]: My name is Michael Ruggiero. I live on 18 Pembroke Street. I just want to speak to one item. I think this is an overall a great idea. I commend the mayor's office and the community garden group that have done some great work. I wish to draw your attention to section 2 slash 552 subsection A. All these commissioners are going to be appointed by the mayor. This might work out great now that we have a current mayor that works collegiately with these groups. However, this might not always be the case in the future. I suggest that these members are elected directly from the community gardeners themselves. I understand that one person might need to be brought in from the mayor's office to make sure that there is a line of communication between the mayor's office and these groups. But I think it is a mistake to have all five commissioners directly appointed by the mayor. would be that perhaps there would be in the future a mayor who is not as interested in community gardening as this current administration. So I urge that you consider that four of these members are elected at large. I've taken a brief sample of the members here. They do support this idea as of my conversation. Do you not support? Oh, you don't like the idea that you elect people directly? I'm sorry. You think that's enough, the three? I'm confused because I just spoke with the city solicitor. Perhaps there's a miscommunication on my end. If there is, I withdraw any sort of objection. The solicitor said that these five people are appointed by the mayor as of now. Is that correct or not?
[Adam Knight]: Point of information, Councilor Knight. I think it's very important to point out that this was a citizen driven initiative and that the text of the amendment actually wasn't written at the hand of the solicitor. It was written at the hand of the people that are actually looking to create the commission. So I think it would be important for us to support their wishes and what they see is going to work. Um, you know, I certainly think it's a great ordinance. I've said it three or four times tonight. You know, this is what the people are looking for. This is what they put forward to us, and this is what they're asking us to vote on. With the exception of a couple of items, Mr. President, you know, I can't find a good reason to vote against it.
[Michael Ruggiero]: Legislatively, I just want to clarify, as of right now— Thank you, Counsel, and I— Sir.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The Counsel is speaking.
[Adam Knight]: Are you all set, Counsel? I think so at this point in time, Mr. President. I mean, you know, Like I said, it's a good idea. It's something that I think we should take to a vote. We've all looked into it. We've all reviewed it. We've all done our homework. We've all, you know, spoke about what amendments we'd like to see fit. I'd certainly like to hear from some more people that are either in favor or against it to see where they stand. But ultimately, Mr. President, the community gardens are coming. They're here already. And I think we need to govern them. We need to regulate them. And we need to be sure that there's a fair, open, and transparent process for these people who want to get a plot. And I think that this ordinance meets those goals.
[Michael Ruggiero]: Fair and open means that the people of the garden control the commissioners that apply. As of right now, unamended, these five commissioners will be appointed directly by the mayor's office. That is something that we need to consider if there is a mayor that comes in later who is not as excited about this community garden commission.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information, Councilor Camuso. What the candidate for office fails to recognize is this is still public property. And this was citizen-driven. This is public property that the mayor is responsible for. If someone falls in that garden, they're not going to the five members of the board. They're going to see Mark Rumley for a suit.
[Michael Ruggiero]: It's very important to remember that. Without this commission now, they're still going to speak to Mark Rumley. Was there another call for a point of information, Councilor Knight?
[Paul Camuso]: Without this commission, without this commission, There's no rules in place to make sure that there's fair and equitable access to the gardens. Now, the city has a stake at it. If someone doesn't feel they're being fairly treated, they can go down here and see Diane McLeod. This is fairly simple. This is something good for our community, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you for that point of information. Point of information, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: I think it's also important to point out that the ordinance was already amended by the council to reflect that there would be a council rep and a garden rep as members of the five-member commission.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Sir, you may continue.
[Michael Ruggiero]: The issue is not a simple binary one, where to speak, to improve this provision, what we have before us, is not simply to shoot it down. This is a great idea. It should happen. These people are doing great work. The question is, how do we protect them adequately? That is my only point. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Hi.
[hLm7uOhMYTQ_SPEAKER_57]: Please state your name and address for the record. My name's Alexander Panchich. I live at 12 Cushing Street in Medford. I'm a member of the Mystic Riverbend Community Garden. Since I was hearing questions floating around about them, I felt it was my duty to come up and speak about it. Also to speak about the idea that why we would like to remain independent. There are different ways of running community gardens. There's many different ways of doing it. You can have a victory garden. You can have a garden where all the members are working together for one whole harvest. You can run it as a sort of adjunct to a park where you can have the public moving through it. So What we've done at Mystic Riverbend Garden has worked for 12 years. It's worked very well. People are on waiting lists, and the waiting list changes. We've had four new people this year. It can't move that fast, and we also respect the soil that we have spent so much time cultivating and adding to. We don't agree completely with the way that other people might want to run their gardens. And since ours has worked so well for so long and is transparent in the way that it operates, there's no secret society, there's no secret meetings. Everyone is very welcome to come down and come to our meetings or even just come down to the garden itself. As they've mentioned, we've been very open with how we run things. They come to us for advice, come to us to see how we've managed it, come to us to see what works, what doesn't work, and come to us to see how we put our own effort into the day-to-day operation of it. But come back and say, okay, now that you've run it real well for 12 years, we want you to run it this way instead, because we're trying an experiment, I don't think is a very good idea. And that's one of the reasons why we would like to remain independent, because we have been successful. And if we weren't, we would be looking for help. If you had, I think, Councilor Marks, you had a question about the community garden. I lost my place and I can't remember what it was. Yes. I believe they were answered all. Okay. So there, yeah. And the way the waiting list moves, at Riverbend, we actually started out with the idea that we would have three plots for the school. The school wasn't that interested in them, so we scaled it back to one plot, because only one teacher wanted to use it, and then we gave those away. We can split plots, we can do a lot of different things, but we can do that because we have that independence. And we've put 12 years of money, 12 years of effort, 12 years, and I do believe, and I feel I can speak fairly well for everyone in the garden, that we are basically the definition of being grandfathered. We've done this for a while.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Before we vote on this tonight, if the members aren't happy with these terms, would they speak up on it now? If not, you are happy with these terms? I just want to make sure. Yeah. And you have no objection to the amendments that are presented. So, all right. Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: Yes. Um, I want to thank Mr. Patience. Is it Patrick for coming up, but, uh, I'm going to keep the amendment there, I think 36 months. Uh, and quite honestly, if this doesn't work in 36 months, the audience is going to be out the window. So it's not going to, it will be moved and you guys will still operate your garden off to the side. So like I said, I just think it's the equity that has to be done. And like I said, I cannot appreciate Mr. Lasky and his group, what they've done up to this point, because it wouldn't be realistic. But I don't even remember starting a revolving account for Riverbend Park way back when, when it started. There's not even public records as far as how much money comes in and out and stuff. I just think that 36 months is enough. I'll even, for the gentleman's sake, I'll even go out 48 months. Give them four years. I think that's more than reasonable until it all becomes one.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So you're changing your amendment to 48 months?
[Paul Camuso]: If the council, 48 months. Yeah, I'll do that. I'll withdraw the 36 months and 48 months, which is four years from the date of its passage, It comes down to equity, I mean, and you can't have different organizations running different public properties when it all falls under similar data.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Maybe the city solicitor can be helpful on all of this. We have several amendments on an ordinance. Uh, if the solicitor could advise the council on a, uh, uh, with all due respects on a way to handle those, um, amendments, uh, can we take them, uh, as collectively, uh, we need to have them read back to us too, uh, before we vote on them or should we take them separately?
[Mark Rumley]: I would suggest reverse chronological order. Take councilor Camusos first. and then the other one's going down the line earlier. The first, because the first, if his proposed amendment is taken first, then that will, one way or the other, the recommendation before you is that the Riverbend Garden be exempted. Councilor Camuso takes a different view. I think that's a good place to start and to take these singularly because I think in total there are only three or four.
[Paul Camuso]: I respectfully disagree. I don't think this is a legal decision, as the city solicitor stated. In the past, this is more of a parliamentary procedure, which would fall under the domain of the president of the council.
[Mark Rumley]: You're absolutely correct.
[Paul Camuso]: The motion of Councilor Lungo-Koehn... No, you didn't answer that in the past. In the past, clearly because this is the mayor's paper you're answering.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Nonsense. The chair recognizes Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to sever the amendments.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Lungo-Koehn, that all amendments be severed. Mr. President. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, because I agree on all this. If the Riverbend group wants to stay separate right now at this particular point, there is no animosity among the groups. The friends are fine with that. I don't see this. The city is not supporting the Riverbend and they're not supporting the friends other than allowing to use city land, then I don't see this disparity that one speaks about. And I see it as different organizations. We have little leagues that are different in the city. We have football leagues that are different in the city. And I don't see this as any different for now. And maybe someday they'll join together. So I would support leaving it as is. I can't support right now. the amendment that Councilor Camuso put forward. I think it has some valid points, but at this particular time, there's no one in opposition, and I don't see why I'm going to create opposition when there seems to be harmony among the group. So I just want to go on record, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Vice President Lago-Curran to sever the amendments. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. So the first one then, uh, was the amendment offered by councilor Camuso, uh, that, uh, that in section, uh, go ahead.
[Clerk]: All right.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So, so the, the amendment before us, is to exempt Riverbend Park for a period of 48 months.
[Adam Knight]: Point of clarification, Councilor Knight. We have two amendments. We have an amendment that I put forward at the suggestion of the solicitor, which would be to exempt Riverbend Park exclusively from the ordinance. Then we have Councilor Camuso's contradictory amendment that would exempt Riverbend Park only for a defined period of time. Right.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So what we're voting on now is the amendment offered by Councilor Camuso to exempt Riverbend Park for 48 months, at which time it would follow under the purview of this Metro Community Garden Commission. So on the motion of amendment by Councilor Camuso, a roll call vote has been requested. A yes would be to approve Councilor Camuso's amendment. A no would be to vote contrary to that amendment.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso. Yes. Councilor Caraviello? No. Councilor Knight? No. Vice President Lungo-Koehn? No. Councilor Marks? No. Councilor Penta?
[Robert Penta]: No.
[Clerk]: President Dello Russo?
[Fred Dello Russo]: No. A vote of six in the negative, one in the affirmative. The motion fails. The next amendment that was offered was the one. Well, we're taking them, uh, Well, we can do it this way then, and work it down. So, section 2550, to exempt specific, what was suggested in the language is after the city of Medford, with the specific exemption of the community garden presently existing at Riverbend Park. So for that amendment, which was offered by Councilor Knight, All those in favor?
[Paul Camuso]: Aye. Mr. President, if I may, I know my resolution failed, but at this point, I'm going to, in the interest of having a unanimous vote for something good in our community, I'm going to vote with the rest of my council colleagues to include the language amended by the city solicitor, presented before the body by Councilor Knight. If the record could reflect that. It will. So all those in favor?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Aye. All those opposed? So that amendment passes. The next amendment was in section 2, 552, members in terms. The recommendation of councillors Lungo-Koehn, and Penta was that of the five members, the five members of the commission, the mayor has the right of appointment of three, one comes appointed by the City Council and one appointed by the membership of the Community Garden Executive Committee, was it or?
[Robert Penta]: Membership.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Membership. So on that amendment, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The amendment carries. Did we have one more amendment?
[Clerk]: Yes.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, it had to do with the fiscal year report to- That was offered by- Yeah, that the annual report include the language, mayor, Office of Environment and Energy, and to the Medford City Council.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So that the language include that the annual report be presented to the Mayor, Office of Environment and Energy, and the Metro City Council.
[Clerk]: Was that by fiscal year?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Right, at the end of the fiscal year, with that language we put in there, so we know when.
[Fred Dello Russo]: At the end of the fiscal year. Striking December?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Striking December? No, sorry, no, we're not changing the time frame. Just adding that it be presented to the Office of Energy and Environment.
[Fred Dello Russo]: She's clarifying it, and it should be not changing the time frame, but that the Office of Energy and Environment be included into those receiving the annual report. On that amendment, all those in favor? All those opposed? The amendment carries. So now the chair awaits a motion on, uh, move for approval as amended. So on the motion of Councilor Knight, uh, seconded by Councilor Penta that the ordinance be approved as amended. Uh, this is an ordinance. We will have the clerk call the roll. Take three readings. Is this a,
[Adam Knight]: Motion to waive all three readings, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the motion of Councilor Knight to waive all three readings. Aye. All those in favor. Aye. So with the waiving of all three readings.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso? Yes. Councilor Caraviello?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Knight?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Vice President Langley-Kern?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Penta? Yes. President Dello Russo? Yes. We get Vice President Langley-Kern?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. Yeah. Seven in the affirmative, none naked, negative. The ordinance passes. Congratulations. Mr. President, we'll run to suspension. Mr. President, we'll run to suspension. We'll take the financial paper attached to this, if we could. So on 15-619, to the President, to members of the Medford City Council, from Mayor McGlynn, regarding the establishment of a revolving account for the Medford Community Guiding Commission. Dear Mr. President, to members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your Honorable body approve the establishment of a revolving account under General Laws, Chapter 44, Paragraph 53E and a half, to serve the Medford Community Guiding Commission with the following provisions. One, the fees received from the community garden members or plot holders, along with any donations, will be deposited into the revolving account. Two, the revolving account will provide a source for the payment of expenses related to the community gardens for items such as, but not limited to, equipment, supplies, and maintenance. Three, the director of the Office of Energy and Environment shall have the authority, in accordance with all applicable law, to approve expenditures from the revolving account. Four, the total amount of annual expenditures from the revolving account shall be limited to $10,000, but in any event, expenditures shall not exceed the balance of the account. And five, the Director of the Office of Energy and Environment shall annually prepare a report disclosing all deposits and expenditures from the revolving account for the current fiscal year. Respectfully submitted, Michael J. McGlynn, Mayor, etc. Vice President Lungelkirch.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Just what we spoke about earlier, number five, that we just add. to the end to the mayor and the city council.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So, uh, amending, uh, uh, paragraph number five to include, uh, the mayor and city council in that report, uh, as amended. Did anybody else want to offer amendments?
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, two questions. Um, number three says the director of office of energy environment. And since this is all on Parkland, is there any reason why this is not coming under the park board commission? rather than the Office of Energy and Environment?
[Mark Rumley]: All parks are under the jurisdiction of the Park Board, you're quite correct. This would specifically be Office of Energy and Environment, which has had a relationship with the people involved in community gardens from the beginning. But, and also it would be a bit, there's a practical reason too, because the director of the Office of Community Development is a municipal employee in the fullest sense, And if we would have expenditures approved by the park board, we'd be waiting for their monthly meetings anyway. So it's a little bit different. I think it's more convenient and it still has to be done in accordance with all municipal finance law, et cetera. And under the auditor too.
[Robert Penta]: And the second part of number three, it said she'll have the authority in accordance with all. Does that mean that that individual, whoever he or she might be, can refuse a vote of the commission to make an expenditure?
[Mark Rumley]: If the expenditure were related to the community guidance, the answer would be no.
[Robert Penta]: But it says here, the director of the Office of Energy and Environment shall have the authority to approve.
[Mark Rumley]: In accordance with our applicable law. Right. And you've just passed the first set of laws which are approved locally.
[Robert Penta]: But I understand that. It says to approve expenditures. And if that individual, now or in the future, does not feel that the expenditures are warranted, wouldn't that be in contravention to the commission?
[Mark Rumley]: It certainly would be in contravention to the commission. And I bet that it would start quite quite a controversy. Let's give an example. Let's say that $1,000 worth of, and forgive me, specialized soil had to be purchased, and then the Director of Energy and Environment said, no, we're not spending it. But yet the Commission said that this is the latest thing in compact gardening. We need to have that, and we approve it, and it's part of gardening. It would certainly create a controversy, which I'm sure would quickly rise to, at very least, the level of department head level in the city and maybe get to the council or to the then mayor. It would have to be resolved. But the final resolution, by the way, as you know from the past, would be the auditor, the finance auditor director, has the final authority to approve or to disapprove expenditures in accordance with municipal finance law.
[Robert Penta]: But if this is just a matter of personal choice, that's what I'm concerned about.
[Mark Rumley]: If there were an arbitrary personal decision And the director of the Office of Energy and Environment said, I don't want you to spend it on that. I'd rather that you spent on ABC Corporation's product as opposed to DEF Corporation product. That, to me, would be arbitrary.
[Robert Penta]: So who makes that final decision?
[Mark Rumley]: Well, the initial one to make the approval would be the Office of Energy and Environment, but there are ways internally that things do get arbitrated, so to speak, to use that word loosely. And that would be through finance auditing, and sometimes it gets to me for an interpretation. Motion for approval, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of approval by Councilor Marx, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: In building upon what Councilor Lungo amended, I'd also like to see a copy of the annual report sent to the people that actually hold the plot. I think that that might be very helpful to them to see the success of a growing community garden and the success in the community. If I had a plot and I was out there working every day, I'd like to get a copy of the annual report as well. So maybe we can make that a part of the requirement, Mr. President, that it goes to the mayor, the council, and as well as those that are fortunate enough to be selected to have a plot. Excellent.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the motion of approval by Councilor Marks as amended by Councilor Lango-Kern and Councilor Knight. Sir, you wish to speak on this matter. Welcome, and please state your name and address for the record, Senator.
[Robert Cappucci]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm Robert Capucci of 71 Evans Street. I don't know. I just have a few questions. Could it be possible that all parks in Medford are, by the request of the council, looked at for possible other venues for something like this, because I know I might be speaking out of turn. There might be works in the process that I don't know about, but my park, Morrison Park on Central Ave, this might be out of turn of the topic, but it's out of disarray. Maybe this is a matter for the questions I have. It's just that Morrison Park is falling apart. The tennis court has huge cracks in it. There's grass growing up between it. The basketball court as well. There are fences falling apart. And I might be speaking out of turn. The Parks Department might have this. Maybe as a part of this, I don't know if you could have like all parks looked at since this gardening was brought up. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Mr. Cappucci. So on the motion for approval, all those in favor?
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, Mr. President. Because the gentleman brings up a very valid point. And as I've stated in the past, our parks, in my opinion, are underutilized right now. And I think all you have to look at is what Lowell did during their revitalization of their downtown business district. They also included their many parks throughout the city of Lowell that were in disrepair. And residents got together, and in some parks, they built little performance stages and did nifty artwork around the perimeter of the park with steel and metal and really made it an inviting and attractive place for residents to come. And they're seeing these parks now gone from drug dens, to be quite honest with you, and places that were in disrepair to places where there's performing arts right now. And it's used as a community gathering spot. And we right now in this community don't have many of those areas. And I think what the gentleman just mentioned about bringing some life back into our parks is a very valid point. And I look forward to that discussion in the future.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval by Councilor Marks as amended, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? for the establishment of the revolving account. The chair recognizes Councilor Caraviello to take a paper out of order. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. President, if we could take paper number 15-608 out of order, I'd appreciate it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries 15-608. 608, offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council allow Carol Power to address the council about turn the town teal. Welcome, Carol.
[hFAk--zIv7g_SPEAKER_02]: Thank you. My name's Carol Powers. I live at 20 Walter Street in Medford, and this is Judy Budney. She's also a committee member. This is the fourth year we're asking for permission to turn the town, turn Medford, turn the town teal with ribbons. This is a promotion just to raise awareness for ovarian cancer. We've done it for the past three years. We put up the signs, I'm sorry, we put up the bows. In September, we keep them up for the whole month and then we take them down. And we just need approval to send it in to turn the town tails.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: If I may, thank you very much for coming. This is certainly something that I was happy to support last year and I was able to get a couple of nice ribbons for us here as well at the council. And I'm certainly happy to support it. And I might ask that if in fact the measure does pass this evening, that we can have our ribbons displayed right here on our Rostam for first September.
[hFAk--zIv7g_SPEAKER_02]: Okay.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. I'm sorry, but a ovarian cancer is, is, is very, you know, uh, is a, is a cancer that's very, very serious. And, uh, you know, if you've had someone in your family that's had it, you know, the ramifications and how people suffer with it. And this group has done a great job over the last few years helping, raising money. How much money have you raised over the last few years?
[hFAk--zIv7g_SPEAKER_02]: This isn't to raise money, but our sisters against ovarian cancer started by Marie Spinelli in Medford, over $200,000.
[Richard Caraviello]: And I applaud you for that great effort.
[hFAk--zIv7g_SPEAKER_02]: We also have a walk in September that contributes to, we have a fundraiser, and then we have a walk, and that contributes to the over $200,000. And currently, right now, we donated to MIT Koch Institute in Cambridge, and they do cancer research. So all the money goes there.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President. Carol, you guys and your girlfriend, you do a wonderful job. And I think the idea, it's not about raising the money, it's just the awareness. People need to know what's going on. They shouldn't be afraid to talk about it. It's like the addiction that we have here in the city of Medford. Huge addiction problem, you know, on drugs and what it does to people and how it can kill them. Same thing with ovarian cancer, you know. And unfortunately, it's something you have to deal with. And I think people need to live with it and people have to understand it and people have to accept it and people have to work for it. And we have great medical staff here in the Commonwealth of Mass. But once again, you do our city proud by doing this, make me feel good about it. I have life experience as it relates to this, so I thank you for what you do.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you. Thank you both for your diligence in this. You have an opportunity now to give out a website or any way of people sending a donation. So at this point, if you could do that.
[hFAk--zIv7g_SPEAKER_02]: Aside from Turn the Town Teal, that's a promotion from somebody in Philadelphia. We're trying to do all the towns. But our organization is Sisters Against Ovarian Cancer. The website is www.sistersagainsoc.org. If you go on the website, you can see register for our walk. You can make a donation directly to Koch Institute. All the information is there. We try to keep it updated. Thanks to Judy.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you for all you do.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'll be brief. Thank you. Um, present Delaware. So thank you for waiting. Thank you for, you know, fighting for a good cause. If you could just announce when in September the Walker beat will be in where it is September 26 at, um,
[hFAk--zIv7g_SPEAKER_02]: It's the Stone Zoo. We started Maple Grove, which is in the Stone Zoo. We walk around Spot Pond. It's a five-mile walk. It's $25 to register. You get a t-shirt similar to this. We change it every year, different colors. And then everybody just walks the five miles. And it's a long walk. And there's a hill. A lot of people used to say, can't you walk down the hill? But Marie Spinelli, who was our founder, Somebody mentioned it to her the first year she started this, and she said, no, we're walking up the hill because cancer is an uphill battle. And so we've even had people since Marie's passing ask us to do that, and we just won't do it. So.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: That's OK. Good. And the time is 10 AM?
[hFAk--zIv7g_SPEAKER_02]: Registration is at 830. The walk starts at 930. We have a couple of brochures here if you want us to leave them there. Great. Good luck with that, and thank you for painting the town teal. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you so very much for what you do. On the motion of Councilor Caraviello for approval. All those in favor? All those opposed? Congratulations.
[Q7cD9OP2TNA_SPEAKER_02]: Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. To let a citizen in the audience speak as it relates to a problem that she has.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Penta for suspension of the rules to allow citizens to speak. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Please take your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_26]: Good evening, my name is Patricia Brady. I reside at 73 Walson Street in Medford, and I own a business at 84 High Street. I won't take a whole lot of your time, but I wanted to bring a situation to your attention that I have mentioned to two of the Councilors. I own a business in Medford. I've purchased a business permit. Unfortunately, I've also learned that there are not sufficient business spots to meet the sale of your business permits. As a consequence of that, if I am not in the parking lot by 8 a.m., I don't have a spot. I have probably $500 worth of tickets in a folder sitting behind me. This afternoon, for example, I arrived at the office at 3.40 and at 4.01 I had a ticket. I was there for less than a half hour. The issue I have is not about eliminating parking and the necessity of parking for the city, but rather to point out the inequity of the process. You sell a business permit and we should all be responsible and accountable for buying one. The fact that as a business owner, we do not have a location to park our vehicles, and then we essentially find, and potentially, my car not being able to be re-registered presents a significant problem for my business, for those who come to my business. I've brought it to the people that are disseminating these tickets, and what I was told was, take it up with the council, take it up with the parking commission. So here I am. Because last week when I called and I pointed out that they had mentioned to a few associates in the building and other business owners that all we needed to do was put a note in our window that we were seeing patients, as I do, that they wouldn't ticket us. So I have a business permit. I put on my letterhead, I'm seeing patients. I get a ticket. I walked down the street with the man who had just given me the ticket, and I pointed to another business owner who has a placard in his window speaking to what business he runs. I said, well, what about him? Why is he allowed to park literally in front of his door and not be tagged? Well, it's because he's carrying something heavy. Well, on a given day, I could be too. And on a given day, I can be summoned to court with 30 minutes notice, and I don't have the luxury of walking to my car another 15 minutes down the street. So I'm here to ask for your assistance in remedying this, and I offer a solution. The solution is allow business owners to occupy a spot on the street if they have a business permit. It seems pretty simple to me. To continually punish owners without sufficient business spots is ludicrous. And I'm not one to complain. I've sat behind this rail and I wouldn't be here but for the amount of tickets I now have. I got one yesterday and one today in the same window of time. That's outrageous. And quite frankly, I'm taking it personal. I think they're looking for my plate number now. Thank you for your time.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Ms. Brady. Chair recognizes Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Patty, can you answer this question, please? What's the response been back to you from this Park Medford place? I mean, these people that are from Tennessee that are running this place.
[SPEAKER_26]: They've told me to appeal the ticket. I've appealed more than you see there in that pile. I have gotten maybe a handful of responses, some saying that they've overturned it, some saying that I still need to pay it. It makes absolutely no sense. And then when I called and asked to speak to someone above the person on the phone, they gave me to Patrick. And Patrick said, well, I can't help you. I don't know what to tell you. And I said, well, who can I talk to? They then connected us to kind of a regional representative. He was a little bit more helpful, acknowledged the problem, said that we recognized that we sold business permits that there were not spots for, and we're working on it. Well, that's not going to help me tomorrow when I have to be in and out by nature of the business that I do. So I don't know what to do, but when I can't register my car, I'll be back. So I would ask that there be some policy, and I would ask that that policy be instituted retroactively, because I'm sure I'm not standing here alone.
[Robert Penta]: I think the fact of what you're saying just represents the failure within the system. The city of Medford is equally responsible for you getting those tickets, because if they're giving out more permits than the spaces are allotted, and they're not making provisos for it, what they're doing is they're grabbing the money, just like this group from Tennessee are, taking the money, and they don't really care where it's coming from and how. It doesn't make any sense. This does not cultivate a business community at all. Bad enough that the kiosks are doing what they're doing, and now they want to put kiosks in the parking lots, which again becomes another issue. The fact of the matter is that you are a legitimate business person and you should be treated the same as everyone else. But for that person to indicate to you because they're carrying heavy boxes, how do they know that that person's carrying heavy boxes as compared to what you carry or what you don't carry? It's absolutely wrong. And that's the problem with this whole system. It's an out-of-state company and it's not in-state. They take 68% of our money and they run with it. The fact of the matter is, It's anti-business, it's anti-consumer, it's anti-friendly. There's no reason for this. So as a business community, I would hope that the Chamber of Commerce recognizes this because they have a big stake to play in this. The Chamber supposedly is the spokesperson for all the business people. And as a business person and as a member of the Chamber, if in fact this is going on, somebody needs to speak up. It's quite obvious you're not going to get it from the Conor office because that's his program, this is what he wants. But this is the only place people can come to speak about this and understand and recognize the fact that this is wrong, this is so terribly, terribly wrong. And if I were you, I'd probably look at the, I would probably go to the city solicitor and say, before you entertain anything legal or otherwise, this has got to stop. Because if he is representing the city of Medford as legal counsel, and the city of Medford is issuing these permits, knowing that there are not enough spaces, and they don't do what you said, which is very simple, just park on the street for the time period in question, then what are you supposed to do? You can't do anything other than get a ticket, but the city can do something about it. They've changed the amount of kiosks. They've changed the dollar amount. We can go on and on in this whole subject matter. It's not good, it's not healthy, and it's not business-friendly. It's not consumer-friendly. And I'll sit here and say, I apologize for your problems that you have, because this is just so terribly wrong. And hopefully, after the first of the year, this will be changed. This will be changed.
[SPEAKER_26]: Well, I hope it's done before the first of the year, but... Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I just want to thank Pat Brady for coming up. I think it was probably about three months ago that this issue came up before the council. I remember, you know, all the councils had concerns in issues with the parking program, but I remember this specifically came up and Council Pender and I brought up the issue because probably we spoke to you with regards to not having enough business permit parking spots. And I think that, like you said, you gave a resolve for it. I think there's a number of different things that could be done, but the bottom line is we need more business permit spots. I don't know if it was Park Medford who was here, but Park Medford, I think, declared that there was enough business permits parking spots. I don't know if they're including the Condon Shell or, you know, where the discrepancy is. But obviously, if you have a handful of tickets, probably 30, 40 tickets, I'm assuming. At least.
[SPEAKER_00]: At least.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Then obviously, there is an issue. And for somebody like you, a professional who's in and out of court, you need to get a spot probably four or five times a day, sometimes upwards of. I think we need to resolve the issue by putting in more permit parking spots on top of the 10, 20 resolves that we've put forward. This council did, I believe, vote to resolve that issue. I mean, it just has gone nowhere. I know we have the chief of police in the audience.
[SPEAKER_26]: Maybe he can come up and... I just spoke to him about it. And honestly, someone said to call him. I had already done that, been to the parking commission. I think we're on the agenda for September. But to what end? I mean, the bottom line is there's got to be a remedy, and I think I proposed a reasonable one. I'm prepared to buy business spots for my entire staff, but I'm not going to do it when I'm still getting tagged after I've bought a ticket, a permit.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I would move that the parking commission, in conjunction with Park Medford, work on a resolve to creating more declared parking spots for business owners. Whether that's in different locations, it doesn't have to be in front of the business. It could be, but it doesn't have to be in front of the business, whether that's up Governor's Ave. We need more business parking spots because this should not be happening. If you're paying a fee, a yearly fee that's declared by the city, this should not be happening. And it's unfortunate for a business owner who's doing the right thing, following the rules to get tagged week after week. with 40, 50 parking tickets. I don't think it's right, and I think we need to fix that before January 1st. Yes, I hope there is, I think there will be resolved January, but we need to do that sooner than later, as we spoke about three months ago.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So the motion is from Councilor Lungo-Koehn that the Medford Parking Commission, in conjunction with Park Medford, which is, what is it, Republican parking? that they straighten out the situation vis-a-vis the commercial parking stickers. Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. Just real quick. This program originally, I don't want to talk about the program, but the parking enforcement was initiated by the businesses and residents that couldn't get parking spots in the square. You drove through the square a year and a half ago. Every business owner was parked all day in front of their store. Matter of fact, some of them were so blatant, they had their vehicles leaded. You couldn't go in and get an ice cream, or you couldn't go in and get something to eat, or your nail's done, or this or that, because they were parked in front of their businesses. I think what we're losing sight of is a business permit is just that, it's a business permit. I can assure you, when the days of the Cambridge Courthouse was open, you could buy a permit, but if you weren't there by seven o'clock, the cone would be in front of the garage, and you'd be riding around, feeding the meter until midday, and then you'd come out and move your car during your breaks. So a permit is no way guaranteeing a spot. I understand you'd like to park in front of your place all day with a business permit on the window, and that sounds easy, but the consumers need these places to park. That's what we heard from the businesses in Medford Square, and throughout this community. Perhaps you misunderstood.
[SPEAKER_26]: I'm not looking to park in front of my door.
[Paul Camuso]: Not even close. You want to park on the street with a business permit for as long as you're going to be there. That's basically what you said.
[SPEAKER_26]: I want to have the option if I can't get a business spot. I go to the business lot first.
[Paul Camuso]: But as I said, a business permit is a permit only. You can have all the permits in the world. You go to Davis Square and you park behind the Davis Square T Station. If you have a permit, you have to get there early, and you have to be there in time so there's a spot available. Otherwise, you wait outside the garage, you see a car pull out, and then you can pull in. I mean, I sympathize with you, but the fact of the matter is, this is where this was all generated. It was by the business community, it was by the people that wanted to utilize the squares that couldn't because of the business owners parking in front of their squares all day. If we do the simple solution that you're suggesting, Why don't we throw the parking out, you can park in front of your business all day, and then the consumers won't have a place to park. That's where we came from. I mean, that's where we came from.
[SPEAKER_26]: And you can't argue with that. I guess there's not an easy solution to a difficult problem. I understand that. But the fact is, this is a problem. And I would appreciate it if you didn't minimize it. But for a business owner that did buy the permit, that can't find a spot in a lot, in addition, the kiosks in the block around my office, I'd say 50% of the time don't work.
[Paul Camuso]: Okay, well that's something we can take care of, and the Chief just heard that. But with all due respect, when you say I want to minimize it, that's not the case, because you're talking to someone that's father, owned a drugstore in Winchester Center for 25 plus years. And let me tell you, he had a business sticker, but if there wasn't a spot available, he took the gamble, and it was up to him to either pay a ticket or go home. He certainly wasn't going home and shutting the door on the drugstore. He certainly wasn't doing that. But the fact of the matter is, sometimes with his bad heart, he'd have to park up near Stop and Shop and walk a little bit, or he'd have to park on Church Street and walk a little bit. I mean, I understand your frustrations. But the easy solution of just parking in front of the businesses on the street, that's why we're into this over the years. Let's not sugarcoat it. That's why we are into parking enforcement.
[SPEAKER_26]: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I'm not asking to park in front of my door.
[Paul Camuso]: No, you're asking to park on the street
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I just don't think it's fair. The person before the podium just making a suggestion. I think it's up to park Medford. I think it's up to the traffic commission to figure out what percentage of the lot is business parking. Should we have more, you know, a larger percent of the lot business parking? And Governor Zav, I mean, there are probably 10 other different ideas that can be thrown around, but the bottom line is whether it's probably not in front of the businesses, but there needs to be more spots designated as business parking. This is an issue. Our business owners need to be able to park somewhere so that they can get to and from their offices, even if it is a five-minute walk. They need to be able to get to their offices without being ticketed after they bought a business permit, spent their money, did the right thing, followed the rules and regs, and can't park anywhere without getting a ticket. We need to find a resolve. to that issue and many, many others with the parking program.
[Paul Camuso]: and Councilor Robert M. Penta, you were afforded that opportunity, as well as you and you and you and you and you and me. And that is the lot behind St. Joseph's. The Chamber of Commerce worked diligently with this city council. If people don't want to walk across the bridge to get to their business, then I just, it's a catch-22. It's a catch-22. People, people now can get a spot when they go to the doctors in Governor's Ave and Bradley Road, but I mean, this was emanated when people were parking in front of their businesses year after year with names on their vehicles.
[SPEAKER_26]: And they're still doing it, and they're not getting tagged.
[Paul Camuso]: Well, if you see that, you should be calling the police. Or call me, and I'll call the police.
[SPEAKER_26]: I did. And you know what? I was told they carry something that's heavy.
[Paul Camuso]: Well, you know what? That's unacceptable. And I know you were conversing with the chief out there, I'm sure. Did you tell the chief that?
[SPEAKER_26]: I certainly did.
[Paul Camuso]: Yeah, because I understand you, in your business, you've got to carry probably briefs and things of that nature, boxes to court.
[SPEAKER_26]: Right, and I'm on call for court. And it is what it is. So I'm not there. I don't always have the luxury of getting there by 8 o'clock.
[Paul Camuso]: I wish I did, but I don't. And listen, I sympathize with you. But at the same token, it was the Chamber of Commerce and the businesses that pushed this. Believe me, this is what we all hear the calls about. There's a happy medium out there somewhere.
[SPEAKER_26]: You're right.
[Paul Camuso]: And I'm here to advocate for that. Yeah, absolutely. But with that being said, the mayor, as you know, is the contract negotiating authority. You should be speaking with him regarding this. We can bring the message.
[SPEAKER_26]: I guess they told me to come to you. So, you know, I'm a rule follower. Here I am.
[Paul Camuso]: Well, you being a former elected official should understand that the council is a legislative body and not the administrative authority. It's tough. We're not the executive in in January. I know at least one candidate has a plan for parking that was in the newspaper a few weeks ago. So we'll see what happens in January. But at least for now, I would suggest that you contact the mayor's office and to demand to see him. You pay enough in taxes.
[SPEAKER_26]: I'll do that. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. And Miss Brady, thank you for being here this evening and sharing your story with us. I think the council needs to go a step further than what we've done. We've sent resolutions after resolution after resolution to the corner office. We've asked for the traffic commission to come in up here before us. I think that maybe we can take an opportunity to have our transportation subcommittee investigate the situation relative to the number of business permits that are being issued, the number of business permit parking spots that are available in our business districts, and report their findings back as well as proposed solutions to the council and the committee of a whole, something that we can all support, something that we can all get behind, and we'll present that to the Medford, Park Medford and the parking commission. But I think that, you know, we've, We've spoke a lot about the issue. We've been outspoken in certain aspects of what we don't like and we haven't effectuated much change. We did a good job at the beginning effectuating change and it's beginning to fall on deaf ears again. We filed a number of resolutions and we're not getting the responses that we like. Why don't we take ownership of the issue? Why don't we put this into our transportation subcommittee? We have a subcommittee hearing where we bring the principals together and we sit down and we try to bang out a solution that's gonna really resolve the problem. So, Mr. President, I would amend the paper by asking that the Transportation Subcommittee meet to conduct an investigation and provide findings and solutions to the committee level relative to the issue of business parking, the number of spots that are available in our business districts, and the number of permits that are being issued. The outcome could be a recommendation to limit the number of business permits for a particular business because there aren't enough spots. There could be recommendations. that fall right in line with what Ms. Brady requested. But I think that we need to take a better, longer, harder look at it and come up with some solutions that will work and findings that are going to be based on fact before we move any further.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Council Vice President Legle Curran, as amended by Councilor Knight. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Patty, for coming up. I think Councilor Knight just hit the nail on the head to get the information on the number of business permits that are out there and how many are being sold. But also, and we have the Chief in the audience, I was under the impression that only Medford residents can get commuter parking stickers. Is that still true, Chief?
[Leo Sacco]: Good evening. Leo Sacco, police chief, 227 Elm Street in Medford. The commuter parking, I believe, is only for residents right now. The commuter parking permits are only for residents. Has that been looked at recently?
[Michael Marks]: They're not selling them to anyone outside the community?
[Leo Sacco]: I'll have to check. I mean, I've had some other issues going on, so I'd have to check to find out for sure whether, as far as I know, it's only Medford residents. And after 10 o'clock, if spaces are available, I think it's open parking for others. But that's just in the commuter parking area. Now, the business area, and I think there's an answer on the business permits and the number of them that are out there, they base their estimates on what was in place last year. Now that you have enforcement, a lot of the businesses and employees of the businesses have opted to purchase the permits. So the numbers have skyrocketed.
[Michael Marks]: But, Chief, what I'm getting at is if the intent is to have business owners be able to park and Method residents be able to have commuter parking, and we're selling them to people outside the community, which I'm led to believe is happening now, then that takes from business owners, because we can shift, you know, if we don't have enough people going for commuter parking that live in the city, and there's an overflow of people outside the community that can come in and buy passes, that defeats the whole purpose. And I'd rather see a business owner that can take that spot rather than an outside commuter.
[Leo Sacco]: But I think in the area that we're speaking of on High Street, there isn't a commuter parking area at all in that area.
[Michael Marks]: But that's one area.
[Leo Sacco]: But that's one area. The only out-of-town commuters that I know that park are right over here across from City Hall. And I believe there's a kiosk that will be in there. They'll have to pay $5 for a day. They're not going to, there won't be a permit.
[Michael Marks]: What about along Playstead Road?
[Leo Sacco]: Playstead Road is, right now the permits are for residents only. I'll have to check to see, but I'm told it's residents only and others after 10 a.m. if there are available spaces can pay the $5 for the day and take the spot.
[Michael Marks]: I think we're going to find chief and this has nothing to do with you. they're overselling these business permit parking stickers.
[Leo Sacco]: Well, again, it goes back to what they had estimates from last year before the enforcement.
[Michael Marks]: Don't forget, the mayor's original plan was to charge $400 for a business permit parking sticker. And when the businesses heard that, they were outraged.
[Leo Sacco]: Let's correct that. That was not the mayor's. That was something that was passed at the traffic commission and subsequently rescinded. That was not the mayor's suggestion.
[Michael Marks]: I have a tough time believing nothing happens without the mayor's input.
[Leo Sacco]: But needless to say, Chief.
[Michael Marks]: Right. But I think now what we're seeing is the fact that they had to lower it to the $100, they figure they'll just sell four times more the passes and make up the difference. But if you could check into that, Chief.
[Leo Sacco]: There's certainly room for some corrective action on some of the things that are going on. Part of the problem is there are only so many spaces. I do agree with Councilor Camuso. He hit the nail on the head. Because of business owners parking on High Street, Riverside Avenue, Salem Street, there was never a spot available for anybody else. So now that there's the enforcement and the business permit in place and people had to purchase them, they move outside the square. They move to a distance. It's unfortunate that if someone's on call for something, It's unfortunate. And I hate saying this, but I'm going to say it because no one wants to say it. Then maybe they have to evaluate where they're working. If it's something, if their type of business is such that, you know, in 15 minutes they have to be someplace else, then maybe they don't want to be in the center of Medford square. And maybe it's someone else that's going to be there all day, a doctor or a dentist that isn't leaving the office. But that's, that's just natural. I mean, that's just something that, that, you know, that might have to take place. The other piece is, You know, we need additional parking. We need, you know, I didn't think I was going to say this, but we need a garage. We need to have the additional parking out there. We need to be able to solve some of the problems for the businesses and for people who want to enjoy Medford Square to go to a restaurant or go to Chevalier. You know, we're at that point where, you know, no one wants it to be Sleepy Hollow anymore. We want it to thrive, and I'm looking forward to a revitalization of Method Square, and I don't think it can happen without serious consideration for a garage. But I will check on the commuter thing, because if that's happening, that's something that I'm not aware of. But I'll check.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, my chief. Councilor Marks, have we concluded? Thank you, Councilor Marks. The chair recognizes Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Chief. I'm going to greatly disagree with you. I don't appreciate that last statement. If you have a job that you have to be out of the square in every 15 minutes, maybe you should look for a different job.
[Leo Sacco]: No, I didn't say different job, maybe a different location that's more appropriate.
[Robert Penta]: Well, you know, if somebody wants to be in Medford Square for location, I don't care if they were in there every five or 10 minutes, whatever it might be. The problem is there was a legitimate taxpayer citizen came up here to tell you her concerns. To me, the nub to the whole matter is if a business person can park in front of their place, because allegedly they're carrying heavy boxes. Who was he or who was she to make a determination as it relates to another business person? That's number one.
[Leo Sacco]: But I just heard that piece tonight, and I will look into that.
[Robert Penta]: You heard it tonight, all right. I just heard that tonight. But this is new. We've had a multitude of problems with this company since they've been in here, dating back to when they first started in October, when the contract was signed, and they officially took off on January 15. And then it took from January, and we heard they were going to go in March, and then we heard they were in May. It wound up until the end of July before they even found their way over to the senior center to explain to the seniors that they were going to do something. We have kiosks on High Street, as you and I have spoken about, in front of two-family homes that don't belong there. We have kiosks that are going to go in parking lots where the signage hasn't even changed. The parking lots are supposed to be three-hour municipal parking lots. And now you're going to put a kiosk in there with signs that say 15 minutes, 30 minutes, one hour, and two hours, all in the same parking lot. How is a kiosk going to address that? How is anyone supposed to figure that out? You tell me. I don't know. To me, I told you, Chief, they got to go. It is unfriendly. It's unhealthy. It's poor for business. We are not like downtown Boston. We're not even like Somerville. We're just like Medford. We want to get ourselves back in action. We want to get a downtown vibrancy. We want to get all our little cities and towns, the sister cities that make up this community, to have a collage of types of businesses that entice people. The whole idea was not revenue enhancement. It was revenue enforcement. And if you had revenue enforcement, maybe every two hours, and that's more than enough time to be on the street, and the cars were ticketed, and they were tagged, and maybe they were told, the message will get out there. You don't need more than two hours in most of these businesses. Hairdressers, for example, in West Medford, some of them go maybe two or three hours, okay? And because of the concern that was brought up by the city, that it was the city people that were doing the signs and that was against the union. I mean, the company was doing the signs and the city should have been doing it. It's a union contract. They haven't even changed the signs yet. So now you're going to be put these kiosks in there. You're going to be charging people after two hours. You got to tell them to move a car. And the most stupidest thing of all of this thing is how do you park yourself in a spot? And you only can be there for two hours. And if you put the money in there, you get a ticket. But you can move up one more spot, because the GPS system tells you it's OK. And you can sit there for another two hours. And if you come from out of state with an out-of-state plate, it doesn't take it. You're automatically going to get a ticket. There are so many frailties. They're not open on a Saturday. Everybody else gets a ticket on a Saturday. They're not open on a Saturday for someone to go there and have a concern, whatever the concern might be. To me, they're nothing but out-of-state hustlers They're bounty hunters, they get 68% of whatever the profit is, for what? To cause all this confusion, animosity, and concern? No, Chief, it's not good for the city. You're my friend and I told you this before, this is not your job, not your responsibility. It doesn't belong in your bailiwick, it belongs in a commission. It doesn't belong in the diversity director of this city to be the hearings officer for someone who might get a ticket. It doesn't take two months for tickets to be heard. That's insanity, that's crazy. And if somebody wants to go there, and it's closed on a Saturday because they can't get there on a workday, that's not fair either. But it's OK for them to give tickets. And if you don't like it, we'll appeal it. You know what happens on the appeal process? Somebody says, I'm not coming back. I'll pay it, but I'll never come back here again. Go to West Medford. Go to South Medford. Go to Haines Square. I'll leave the name of the personnel. One particular business is off 8% to 12%. 8% to 12% because of that crazy chaos. And you know where they go? They go down the street where they say, like saying business, and there's no kiosk. You tell me how that's fair. It's not fair. And you know it's unfair, and I know it's unfair. That's why this whole thing is just not good for the city of Medford. And if the city administration, before he bows out, recognizes it and says, I made a mistake, let's correct it, let's get rid of it, and come in with a program, I will stand here and publicly compliment him. I said that to you before. I will stand up publicly and compliment the mayor for recognizing the mistake that he made. and correcting it because he doesn't want to hurt the business people. It's definitely not good for the taxpaying citizens. Go into the shops in Medford Square and ask them what they think about that. Go ask the customers what they think about this. Why should I go and worry about it? I was with a lady last Friday in Haines Square. The poor woman went into the shop to get her clothing. She comes out with her clothing. She had 18 minutes left on her ticket. And right number, 18 minutes, and she still got the ticket. That's not the first time I've heard that story. You don't like it, appeal it. Well, that's wrong. Maybe there's something wrong. If these things all run off the sun, maybe the sun isn't working right, whatever it might be. It certainly doesn't work right for those solar compacts that Waste Management has. The doors are open and the rubbish is all over the place. So, Chief, you're my friend. I like you, but I do not agree in this program. It's a complete disaster to the operation of this community.
[Leo Sacco]: The only way I can respond to that through the chair is that obviously this program was brought in to get something up and running. Wherever it goes from that point, hopefully it improves as it goes along. It does need constant supervision. The traffic commission is made up of other department heads and two residents of the city. It's a non-paying commission. You know, meeting once a month on parking issues does not manage the traffic or the parking management program. They're a company, they're supervised to some degree by onsite managers from the company, and we watch it, you know, from the distance. Hearing a complaint like that, favoritism, taking care of one merchant but putting the boots to somebody else is totally wrong. But this is the first time I'm hearing that, but I'm not naive. Is it possible? Could it go on? Yeah, this is a human factor. That's going to happen. But we need to have that brought to our attention. But, you know, what I had said about what you said you were offended by is the fact that, you know, maybe someone has to reevaluate. I think that's the honest answer. I mean, if your nature of your business is in and out, that you as the proprietor are in and out of that business and you have to be other places, Then you pick a location that maybe has off-street parking, or you pick a location where there's plenty of parking. To be in the middle of Medford Square, and I know it's not as lively as Medford Square should be, but you can't anticipate because you bought a permit that there's going to be available spaces. We need to create additional spaces. We'll look at that, but I can tell you it's not going to be in that section of High Street. It may be up on Governor's Ave a little further up. And obviously the Condon shelf, the back wall of the Governor's Ave lot I know fills up quite early in the morning, but that's it. The rest of it's open for customers. So there's a number of issues, but we can't, we really can't change the geography. We can add some.
[Robert Penta]: But chief, if we really want to be business friendly, and we're comparing a business-friendly to a commuter pass. Why don't we just cut back on the commuter passes and give more of the business passes, and at least if you have given out 134, you have 134 spots.
[Paul Camuso]: The rules clearly state that commuter parking, now Councilor Marks brought up a very valid point that they may be selling them to out-of-towners, but according to the policy and the rules, 100% of commuter passes are Medford residents. And to take their parking privileges away, I don't support that at all. At all. It's a thought process.
[Leo Sacco]: But it doesn't help Medford Square, because there are no commuter parking areas, with the exception of the lot across the street, on the other side of Clippership Drive. So there are no commuter parking spots in the center of Medford Square, anywhere around whether it be Forest Street, Governor's Avenue, Bradley Road, Hillside Ave, Boynton Road. There's nothing there. So we can't say we're going to cut down on commuters to add to business, because we don't have that.
[Robert Penta]: And West Bedford Chief, on Playstead Road, as you know, you're lucky if there's one car there during that day, that $5 parking. And all those people that were parking there now have put themselves into the neighborhood, OK?
[Leo Sacco]: If they have, I haven't heard the complaints, because I think with all the permit parking that's on the side streets off of Playstead Road, we would have been receiving the calls, even though Republic is the enforcement arm, we would be getting it at the police department. And going back to, you know, business parking in the square and vehicles parking on the main streets, you remember all the complaints that used to be generated when the police officers went out there and did the enforcement, and they were just chalking tires. The appeals process was people would say, I wasn't there for two hours. How do you know I was there for two hours? We had no mechanism. We had no meter to say, you know, the red flag was up and, and the vehicle should be tagged. We were tracking tires and, and a lot of tickets were, were dismissed because you really couldn't prove it. Now, other than the fact that the officer said that car was there two hours and 15 minutes, they got the ticket.
[Robert Penta]: I think Councilor Marks alluded to this fact a few months ago. where they have these handheld devices that'll acknowledge how long the car is there, and it comes up, and it just comes right off the computer handheld. They have that in Somerville in spots where they don't have meters because the people are walking by, and they have a person in each one of the squares.
[Leo Sacco]: Remember now, Somerville's been in business 30 years. They bring in $8 million a year, and their overhead is about $3.5 to $4 million that they run their program. But the idea is they've been in, They've been in position for a long time. It's a separate standalone entity. You have a traffic and parking director. It's a full-fledged department. They're in charge of lights and lines, so they take care of traffic lights. They take care of crosswalks. Anything to do with traffic and parking, they handle it under their roof. I'm not sure how many staff people they have, but it's a full-blown agency within the city of Selma.
[Robert Penta]: But Chief, all we're asking for is to start off small and just work our way up to it.
[Leo Sacco]: That's what I just said. Grow it. That's it? Grow it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Oh, say Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President. Chief, I, I see a much simpler solution, uh, for the business parking problem. We have a lot out here and back that's never full all day. Why can't we take two rows and may and dedicate that for business parking until we either come up with some more wrong, but I said, this, this lot out here is never full. take a row or two rows, and we make that dedicated for business only.
[Leo Sacco]: Are we talking about the one directly behind here, or are we talking about the one?
[Richard Caraviello]: No, the one, the bigger one, where the buses go.
[Leo Sacco]: Okay. No, no, the one right in back here. Right behind the city hall?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes.
[Leo Sacco]: But that doesn't help the people further up on High Street.
[Richard Caraviello]: Well, they're going to have to walk down here. I mean, listen, Chief, there's nobody lazier than me. But I say, this lot is always, always empty. Take two rows. and dedicate that for business parking. I mean, people are walking down from Route 16 to walking up. If they have a permit, I mean, that's a viable alternative. We own a lot in the state.
[Leo Sacco]: Oh, we could combine it. You could have the time limit or a business permit.
[Richard Caraviello]: But give the business permit people maybe two rows. We add 25 spots over there. I mean, you drive by it every day. There's never anybody in that lot that would fill it up. And I think that's the easiest solution until we come up with something better. That's a good suggestion.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. And, uh, I'm sorry. Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: As amended by Councilor Caraviello.
[Paul Camuso]: Um, thank you. And I got to agree with Councilor Caraviello. I'm looking at this realistically. I don't have to yell and scream about it because it's not a campaign year for me, unlike everyone else that's sitting in this room tonight, a lot of you. I look at it and try to look at it realistically. A year and a half ago, at four in the afternoon, if I wanted to go and take my son for an ice cream in Medford Square, I wouldn't have been able to get a spot. I would have drove around four or five times. I think that's realistic. I think most people agree with that. People are nodding their heads in the audience. I look now, a year later, with the inception of this program, I can't remember the last time I had to drive around to go get that same ice cream at four o'clock in today's parking program. Is it culture shock, having to pay to park in the city of Medford, which hasn't had meters since the 19, I'm not even sure what year, but you look at the old photos, they had them in Medford Square in front of Stagliano's liquor store, Sure Pharmacy at the time. They came out in 1982. They came out in 1982. So from 82 to 2014, it slowly built up. And there wasn't a need for it in the 90s because there wasn't as many cars on the road. There wasn't as much cars in each household. And the development has been more throughout the city too. Not particularly in the squares, but on the outer edges of some of the areas, there's been more development. Other than paying to park in the enforcement piece, I think the consumers are happy. I've got to be honest. Other councillors may get 200 calls about this issue. I haven't got it. At first, it was culture shock. I was getting the calls. I was getting the calls. Matter of fact, I'd like to see someone's call log. Someone's call log of all the calls they're getting. Black out the names, because I quite honestly don't believe it. I don't believe when people are saying they're getting 200 calls, 300 calls about it. It doesn't add up. It doesn't add up. With that being said, Mr. President, I understand people are still getting used to it. And I understand that wholeheartedly. But when some businesses say they're down 8% to 12%, I have other businesses So I have no reason to not tell the 100% truth, that say this is the best thing that ever happened to their numbers. Now we may shop in different places. Maybe some people tell me what I want to hear, tell another Councilor what they want to hear. But I'm telling you, I have been told this by businesses. I'm not making it up. I'm not making this up. The fact of the matter is, This is more consumer-friendly in one aspect. It's not consumer-friendly because you have to pay now. It's not business-friendly because you can't park your car in front of the business all day. But there's also businesses out there that are happy with this. They're happy with this. This chamber has not had over 50 people in it in one night regarding the parking. Hasn't. Hasn't. We have a city of 60,000 people. 60,000 people live in this city. If the councillors get the 300 calls that they say they do, if they actually get 300 calls, God bless them. It's still less than 1% of the community. It's still. So, like I said, I just, I don't hear the complaints. I hear the young, and it's funny too, because the same people, and I bring this up when the drive-throughs come up. The same people now are stopping at these businesses because there may be parking where before they'd drive an extra three miles, drive by two Dunkin' Donuts or two banks to go to the one with the drive-thru because they couldn't find a spot. They didn't want to get out of the car and stuff. I mean, so obviously there's some people that are happy with it. There's some people that are not happy with it. But that's just through my eyes. I mean, I'm given a fair synopsis of what I see out there. I haven't heard the I mean, I can give you probably 50 emails of people that have complained about it over the six or seven months, but I'm just going by what I've experienced. And like I said, I don't have to give a speech. I'm retired. I'm off into the sunset. Good luck to all of you. I'm just telling you what... I'm just... Well, with all due respect, Val, Val, we're cleaning. I'm not even going to get into the parking lot mess over there in West Medford. But with that being said, Mr. President, with that being said, Mr. President, I'm giving a brief synopsis of what I see. And it's just one city councilor out of seven. And I know there's other councilors here that have Got some of the same feedback because people have told them directly. And I'm not going to put them on the spot because it's not fair to do that if they don't want to talk about it. But there is people out there that are very happy with this program, as well as not happy with it. But more, I get positive feedback.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much, Councilor. I know some citizens want to speak on the matter, so please welcome. The state your name and address for the record, please.
[Q7cD9OP2TNA_SPEAKER_02]: Joanne Haney, 123 Playstead Road. I'm not here to complain right now. I'm just here. I'm old. I'm tired. I want to go home. Me too. But I want to thank Michael Marks for all the help that he gave me in regards to this parking situation. It happens to be in front of my house. We think we pretty much have it solved, and I hope we do. But he has been tremendous. He is one great council member. He has done a good job. He's worked for the people, and he's worked for me, and I was a nuisance many times. So publicly, I want to thank him. And I hope we resolve the parking. But I will tell you that it's more the new parking company than anywhere else. They don't listen to anyone. And they try to pass it back to the city. So that's my take on it. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Hi.
[Robert Cappucci]: Please state your name and address for the record. Thank you, Mr. President. Bob Capucci, 71 Evans Street, I just want to be really brief because I know other people are waiting to come and speak about other agenda items. I just want to thank Ms. Brady for coming up and bringing this up, for Councilor Penta's remarks and for Chief Sacco's remarks. Obviously, we all, everybody in this body, everybody that works in this building, we all have a passion and love for Medford, but this pay-to-park kiosk program The way it was implemented and the way it's been working, or a lack thereof, is disastrous for the city of Medford. I have been working on another project, and a week ago from Saturday, I started at the end of Salem Street, where it intersects with the Fellsway, before Malden, and I stalked at Forest Street, just taking pictures of businesses that were once there that are gone now. I have pictures of over 20 businesses in that eight block radius that are gone now. I'm not blaming that on the pay-to-park kiosk program, but with all due respect, we're talking about being realistic. The small businesses in this community that provide the jobs and this city makes money off of through sales tax and mails tax and whatnot are the reasons why, partly, we have a surplus. And if we focused, you know, hindsight's 20-20, but if we focused years ago on going to bat in supporting small businesses, and we didn't lose these 20 businesses, we would have had the funding for Chief Sacco to have a full and adequate police force. I mean, God bless him. He's doing the best he can with the manpower he has. And with the national feeling going on about police officers in general in the country, he deserves a real applaud him and every officer. But if we had the full and adequate police force built upon providing the support that we can to these small businesses going back years ago, it's not that the business owners are parking in front of their businesses. The problem was in the past was that because Chief Sacco doesn't have an adequate police force to enforce the laws that are already on the books for traffic enforcement. We have people from other cities and towns coming here, parking all day right in front of these businesses, and then getting on the T and going to work. That was the real problem, not the business owners parking in front of their places of establishment all day long. The gentleman who owns the gas station right across from the West Medford post office, A few weeks ago, I was talking to him and he said, you come out here at 11 o'clock in the morning and you look up this street that was once parked with cars and all these small businesses were making money off, it's gone now. We're losing money, businesses, jobs, revenues being collected because of this pay to park kiosk program. And I hope that the next mayoral administration will exercise the buyout option and get rid of it provide the infrastructure and support for small businesses to take the place of these 20 businesses that are on this phone right now. I'll email you the pictures if you want. And we have that level of economic engine activity again. And with the two surpluses we have, with all that money coming in, we can hire a full police force for Chief Sackle to get the officers out there, not even to mention all the construction programs that are going on, to have Chief Sackle with a full police force to implement the traffic laws that are already on hand, then we wouldn't be experiencing a lot of these problems, in my opinion. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Senator. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Move approval, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of approval of the main motion of Councilor Langley-Kern as amended by Councilors Knight and Karafiello. And that's it. All those in favor? All those opposed? Mr. President, we're in suspension. Chair recognizes Councilor Marks to take a paper out of order. Yes, Mr. President, paper 15-591, on order $2,120 for capital approvals to the city sewer system. On the motion of Council Marks to take paper for the final reading, paper number 15591. All those in favor? We're getting there. This was in committee of the whole. We have the third reading before us. This was a paper presented to the Council at the last Council meeting. It had its second reading by advertisement and now it's up for its third reading. It's a request for a loan order of $2,120,000 that will be expended upon improvements to sewer and drainage in North Medford. It's a loan from the Mass Water Resource Authority, MWRA, that Its components are a 45% grant, so once we receive the loan, 45% of it is a grant, and 55% of it is repayable over a five-year period at 0% interest. So $1,000,000, was it $166,000? $666,000 is repayable over a five-year period. In our deliberations in the committee of the whole, we moved approval with the caveat that that repaid amount be taken out of the sewer enterprise account. So if we have a motion on the floor for this, Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Let's do this one more time. On an annual basis, we are charged a water and sewer dollar amount from the MWRA, correct?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: That's correct. An assessment.
[Robert Penta]: And that assessment, and that's a result of what we as a community use for water by cubic feet, and we're back charged on the sewer side at 120% of the water bill.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: That may be the total amount. The water is based upon the amount of water that we use, whereas the sewer is based upon a number of different factors.
[Robert Penta]: But it comes out to the charge of 120% of our water bill. Now, you're asking us to vote for this. I know we have the committee to hold tonight where there was a whole bunch of explanations as to where and why these things are going. And of course, my question is, why didn't we just do this earlier? We're only sitting on $7.5 million of money, but that's beside the point. Just looking and trying to understand this, if 45% of this loan is going to be a grant from the MWRA, correct? That is correct. The remaining 55%, which is $1,166,000, has to be repaid. That's correct. So as we are repaying them, during the next five years, we're also going to be assessed by them in the next five years for water and sewer charges, correct?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: That is correct.
[Robert Penta]: Okay. So in essence, since we're already being charged an assessment for what we're using, we're really not getting this money for nothing because we're being charged. And even though this is an isolated project, which is costing $2.1 million, we have to pay back $1,168,000. And I've been thinking about that from the time we left that room till over here. I think the city has one of two options. They either go this route or rather than saying, just pay it off over a five year period of time, since we're going to be taking it out of the sewer account for which is half of the water and sewer account. Why don't we just pay it off the first year? You're going to have to pay it off one way or the other. So I guess my question then comes to the council. I would probably move to amend not one to five years, Mr. President, pay it off within the first year, because you have to pay it off no matter what. I wouldn't want to wait and procrastinate over five years and realize that I would want to know what my balance is now to go forward on any future endeavors that this might reveal. You said one to five years, correct?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: I said, I'm sorry?
[Robert Penta]: Up to 1 to 5 years, we could repay this back.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: Right now, the way it is set up is that it would be a 5-year repayment.
[Robert Penta]: It's a 5-year repayment. So we can pay that anywhere up to 5 years.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: We could do that, but since it's a 0% interest.
[Robert Penta]: I don't care about the 0%. I understand that. But we're going to have to pay it back one way or the other. So why procrastinate and go through a 5-year, $275,000 deletion? I would rather have it taken out now and understand what my balance is. to go forward on other projects. Because if something comes up of a major concern, I'm going to then have to worry about $275,000 for year 2, 3, 4, and 5. And I don't want to think about it. So the more I keep thinking about it, we're already being assessed on an annual basis. And if we're going to be assessed for the next five years on the sewer charge, and we're paying them back the money that they're loaning us, we're still paying out on their sewer portion of it. because we're being assessed. So, with that being said, I'm going to move, Mr. President, that since we are going to accept the grant, that we pay it back year one — within year one of this five-year loan. Is that what you call it? A five-year loan moratorium? Is that what it is? Ms. DeParle That is a five-year loan. Mr. Schultz Within the five-year loan. And I move on that question, Mr. President, because I just think, you know, it terminates the whole issue of over a five-year period of time, and it also terminates the fact that over the next four to five years, after the first year, we have to delete $275,000 out of that account. Since we're going to have to pay for it anyway, we might as well just get rid of it up front and deal with the remaining balance that we have.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Motion of approval by Councilor Penta. We have also part of the committee report that the engineer provide a listing of the streets in the North Medford project, that the mayor utilize Waterloo sewer enterprise account in future projects, that a percentage of infiltration and inflow be reported back to us, and how much? and how much has been allocated from the MWRA in total. So we have all that. And now we have Councilor Penta has moved approval and that this debt of $1,166,000 be not only paid from the Sue Enterprise account, but it be done so within the first year. On the motion for approval, Mr. Stroller wants to speak.
[Sorrell]: Mr. President, I hope you'll be patient with me. I have to sort of sort this out and explain this, if I don't sound condescending to the council. I don't understand why we are taking out a loan. That's what this is, is a loan, when we've already paid for it. The Water and Sewer Commission has raised our rates with the knowledge that we were going to need improvements on this. We've already paid for it. We have $6 million there. And if we paid this, we'd still have $4 million. We may have more than the $6 million. But somehow, this council thinks there's a free lunch. Does anyone here think there's a free lunch? Any one of you councilors? Because I've heard one Councilor say, hey, we're getting $950,000 for nothing. We're not getting that for nothing. We've already been assessed $18 million, so we're getting back our own money. Now, the law says that in order to pass a loan order, and that's what this is, This is, if you read what the mayor has proposed, it says here, to borrow said sum and to issue bonds for the amount of $2,120,000. It's not for $1,600,000. It's for $2 million. And there's a rule saying that on the third reading, and this is the third reading, you don't have a majority vote any longer. That's how important. The law thinks this is. The law does not think that people ought to be burned with debt. And that's what this is. It's debt. You would not run a business like this. So it says, instead of the usual majority vote, now you've got to have a two-thirds vote. So why did the law say that, hey, usually you can go past anything with just a majority vote, but now, hey, you've got to have five votes? So if only three members of this council vote against this, it will not pass, and we will not have that debt, which the people should not have. Why should they pay this money twice? They paid it once when the Water and Soil Commission decided to increase our rates, and our rates are increased. Don't think that the MWRA did not know we were going to make these improvements. They added that into their assessment. We've already paid for this. Now we're going to pay twice. And that's what's wrong with the tax structure in this city. That's why taxes are raised to the maximum, the maximum, every year for 28 years relentlessly. Now, that tells you what the tax structure does. And this is, in microcosm, more of that. We are perpetuating that tax system. We have a tax system. We always go to the maximum. Now, people say, hey, well, one year, we didn't go to the maximum. We saved ourselves $50,000. But according to Proposition 2.5, you recover that and more the very next year. We never run out of that maximum. Why must we always have the maximum in taxes? Because we have debt. Does anyone here know? what the debt in Medford is. You're the city councilors. You're concerned with debt. The debt is borne by the people. They pay the taxes. They are separated from their money. City decides how to spend that money, sometimes correctly, often foolishly. You'll all agree to that. That's what we're trying to control. Now, here we are. We're going into debt again. Going into debt, that's what we're doing. And we place that burden on the people. So the $950,000, as one Councilor here keeps repeating, is a grant. It is not a grant. It is our money coming back to us. We've already given it to the MWRA. Now they're giving it back to us and giving a grant. That is the hook. That is the bait. And the city council bites. You're like fish. You love that bait. It looks like free money, but there is no free lunch. We all agree to that. So I say the city council needs only three votes to not pass this and should not pass it, because we already have the money. As Councilor Pat has said repeatedly, there's $6 to $7 million there just sitting there. And that's what it's for. That money was charged to the ratepayers for the purpose of paying for this very sore capital expenditure. So in order to pay for this, taxes must rise. And that's why we have taxes raised every single year. So I say to this, I think the people in Medford are adults. They ought to be told the truth. And the truth is that if the city council votes for this loan, and that's what it is, it's a loan, it's increasing debt, the city council is increasing their taxes. When tax time comes around, they wonder why. Hey, why do we have to? Well, because you ought to pass all of these loans. And we have a debt. of $75 million. That's what our debt is. Now, we're going to add on another $2 million with this, so now it becomes $77 million. Well, that's okay, because the financial structure has been arranged such that every year, built into the budget, is a $7 million charge to pay for this debt. In 10 years, it's $70 million. With $70 million, we could build a police station. We could build a fire station. We could take care of the DPW. We can do all the things we want to do. So what do we do? We keep adding to the debt. We just keep adding to the debt. And I think the people ought to be told this. You have to take a roll call vote on this. And I think the people of method should be informed as to how this city council voted. There may be a mailing telling them how this city council voted on this and how this city council has raised their taxes again. And in addition to that, uh, the people will, will be told exactly who voted for this and who did not. The people who voted against it will get credit. The people who voted for it will not get credit.
[Adam Knight]: The Press I'm wondering if the people who vote in favor of this project are going to get credit for addressing the environmental concerns that the residents in the North Medford section of Medford have, because this project will address environmental concerns that they have relative to sewage in the community, Mr. President. I also think, in looking at this, that it makes financial sense. And I'm going to vote in favor of this measure. I'm going to vote in favor of the measure as filed.
[Sorrell]: You need not wonder. You need not wonder at all. Because we know that the capital improvements are needed. And we must go through with them. But we've already paid for them. But you want to pay for them twice.
[Adam Knight]: If I were going to buy a car, and I went into the dealership, and I said, I want to buy this $5,000 car. And they said, OK, you can buy it. And I said, here's the $5,000. And they said, no, no, no, no, no. Don't give me $5,000. Give me 55% of the $5,000. And finance that 55% of that $5,000 over five years at 0% interest, and we're right off the rest. You better be sure. I'm going to be the first guy in line, giving them the 55%, financing the other 45%, giving them the 45%, financing the money. It's a zero interest loan, Mr. President, over five years that we can pay it back. I know there's a contrary motion on the floor. I don't support the contrary motion. I feel as though the money should be paid back through our sewer enterprise account, which is flush, which has funds in it that are available to pay this down. We can pay it down over five years at 0% interest, and we're getting 45% of the total cost of the project reimbursed by the way of a grant. Now, we can fund it another way, and that's fine. But what we're going to do if we fund it another way is we're reduce the overall budget in our sewer account by $2.1 million. We're not going to get any money back. And at the end of the day, we're going to be left with less money in there than we would have had if we went by the proposal that's in front of us right now. So I can certainly understand Dr. Stirella's concerns about having money in reserves. However, I think we can use the monies that are in reserves to leverage further projects, because they allow us to maintain a high bond rating, and they allow us to borrow at a lower rate. And in this instance, we're borrowing at a rate It's the lowest it can be, 0%, Mr. President. So I really think this is a good paper. I think that, actually, we might even have close to unanimous support behind the reel for the paper right now, Mr. President. So although I understand his concern to the taxpayer, I think that this makes good sense municipally. And I think that this protects the taxpayer. I don't think it hurts the taxpayer. And I hope that Dr. Starrell is willing to share that as well in his mailing. But I think that the residents up in North Medford deserve the fact, deserve to have this work done. It's an infrastructure improvement that's necessary. It's the plan that's in place, and the plan's not going to change. We've already gone through that ordeal when we were here at the meeting last time, when we discussed whether or not the plan was going to change, what phase we were in. We had a subcommittee meeting, and we went through that all again, Mr. President. So, you know, in looking at it, the infrastructure repairs need to be done. We have a mechanism to fund it. The mechanism to fund it makes sense. I think we should move on.
[Sorrell]: Mr. President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Actually, is he finished so I can have the floor? I have a question for the doctor.
[Sorrell]: Certainly, Ms.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Counsel. Because I understand what you're saying. My question to you, then, because I understand the grant came from the previous year's assessments. Now, we were explained in the Committee of the Whole meeting that each community has a certain amount of money they can get from a grant through the MWRA. My question to you, then, is why would we not take it take advantage of that. I can see paying it back sooner than the five years, but why would we not take advantage of the 45 percent?
[Sorrell]: We're not taking advantage of anything. Every single community is in the same position as we are in. If they give us some money in the form of a free quote-unquote grant, which it isn't, we have to emphasize that. Well, don't you think that we are contributing to all of their grants in return? We're not getting anything for nothing. They're giving us some money. In our assessment, we give back $18 million. But every other community is taking advantage of these grants.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So if we're always going to be adding to it, why wouldn't we want to take advantage of the grants from now into the future? Because it's just going to toll. I think we were explained, and I don't know if Ms. Miller can explain it a little further or back me up, because that's where my confusion is. I understand what you're saying. We paid for that over the years where it's tallied up, and now we can, you know, request the grant of, you know, it's going to be about a million dollars. But why wouldn't we take advantage of that? Why just let it toll up when we have projects that need to be done, and now we can take advantage of the, not free, but we can take advantage of the 45% grant? Not free.
[Sorrell]: We should not cut off our nose to spite our face. We're going to go into debt because other communities are taking advantage of, quote, unquote, grants. They're not grants. They pay for them also. The MWRA knows what it's doing. And as far as depriving North Medford, no one feels that way. And as far as going into an auto dealership, when you went into that auto dealership and they told you that they were going to give you a 45% discount for nothing, huh? But you didn't realize that the week before you had gone there and given them the 45% in advance, you're getting back your own money. You forgot that you'd gone there the week before.
[Adam Knight]: I agree. In looking at the paper that's before us, we have a contrary point of view from a citizen. However, I think that the council has deliberated this matter to its extent, and I think it'll be appropriate for us to move the paper.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion of approval by Councilor Penta, as amended, Councilor Marks. Just if I could, because I have a lot of respect for Dr. Starella and his eagle eye for budgetary concerns in this community. I think I'm struggling with the same thing, doctor. We had a conversation prior to the council meeting. And I appreciate the fact that you're saying the 0% interest loans that the MWRA offers is all the community's money combined. And you're right, because the MWRA doesn't generate money on their own. rates and through charging communities rates for water and sewer. So you're right, that pool is money that's out there that's generated from my water and sewer consumption, your water, everyone, and not just in Method, throughout all the MWRA district. And you're absolutely right with that. And my only concern is that if there is a grant out there, and at the end of this all being said and done, Dr. Estrella, and I know what you're saying. $954,000 of this project will not be taken from our $6 million reserve. It'll be given to us by the MWRA, which is money from all the communities. I see that as a win for our community. It's no different, in my opinion, when we built the new schools in this community. You could say the same thing with the reimbursement we got from the state, the state building assistance program with the new schools. Why would the state come in and give the city of Medford 90% to build new schools? And you're right, that's every taxpayer in the commonwealth's money that's in that state building assistance. But why as a community wouldn't we take advantage of that? And that's the only issue I'm struggling with. Why wouldn't we take advantage of the grant? I realize we paid into it, Malden paid into it, Somerville paid into it. Everyone paid into it, but why wouldn't we try to get our fair share of it? Rather than saying, you know what, we can afford out of the excess we have in the water and sewer, the surplus from all the rate payers paying too much for water and sewer over the years, we can take that $2 million out without a problem. That'll leave us with $4 million. I'm saying, let's only take $1,166,000 and let the MWRA give us the balance. Have to take the whole $2 million. Right, right. And then we get reimbursed. And then we get reimbursed. I just think it's a difference of opinion. I really — I can't leave that on the table. I can't leave that on the table and say, okay, we can afford it, let's do it on our own. And I'd take it one step further. I don't even agree with saying that's paid off right away. If I'm not paying interest on that, why would I — if I had money in the bank and I don't have to pay interest on purchasing something, why wouldn't I want to leave that money in the bank collecting interest? It just, I don't know, I have some real concerns. As Councilor Knight mentioned, I've been talking about water and sewer infrastructure since I've been on the council, 14 years now. And I've been talking about the lack of infrastructure because it's under the ground and so forth. I've been talking about INI, inflow and infiltration. And you're correct. And so I know these projects are needed. I think you know and I think everyone behind this reeling realize these projects are needed. With this particular project, We have catch basins right now that are supposed to collect runoff rain when it rains out and sends it to the Mystic River. We have them directly connected to our sewer system. So anytime it rains, rather than that go out to the Mystic, we're taking it and sending it out to Deer Island. So you can imagine the volume. We have about 16 connections in the community right now that are directly connected to our sewer system. This is going to address six of them. Now, it's not all of them. but it's going to address a portion of it. We're making some headway in the community on infrastructure that's been neglected for many years. If the mayor can neglect a building that we can see, imagine what he's neglecting under the ground. There's no argument there. You know, so, but these are the things that, you know, I just, I just have a problem with not going after a grant. And I know what you're saying. There's nothing free in this world. It's a grant out there. that we could take advantage of, and it doesn't — that $954,000 will not come out of our surplus. And under your thinking, it will come out of the surplus.
[Sorrell]: I just can't put my hands around it. That word, grant, is used erroneously. Grant means to give. We're not being given anything. It's our money. And as far as the reserve, you say you don't want to tap the reserve? That is the very purpose of the reserve.
[Michael Marks]: No, no, no, doctor. I'm not saying don't tap the reserve. Well, then we did. But I'm saying if we could tap the reserve and also tap the MWRA, which you're saying is our money, well, we could dispute that until the cows come home. Cannot dispute it. Well, I think it's disputable.
[Sorrell]: It is our money.
[Michael Marks]: It's everyone's money. It's 54 cities and towns. So it's not just the city of Medford. That wasn't money put aside just for the city of Medford.
[Sorrell]: The mayor once said to me, John, my lad, he said, I want to tell you something. He said, all revenue comes from taxes.
[Michael Marks]: Right. I can't dispute that. So it's all money. Right. And so was the building of new schools. It was our money. So I guess we didn't get 90 percent on the dollar with the new schools. And maybe we should raise taxes in the community to raise that hundred and something million dollars. But We thought better of it.
[Sorrell]: This is a different subject. New schools is a completely different subject. It's the same content. There are advantages and disadvantages. We got busing with that. We got busing with the new schools.
[Fred Dello Russo]: We're going to focus on the matter before us. Thank you very much, councillor. Thank you, doctor. The matter brought to us in the way that councillor Pentez presented it tonight. is contrary to the way it was reported out of committee. So we're going to take your amendment separately, Councilor, and your amendment was that that be paid in one year, within the first year, Councilor.
[Robert Penta]: That be paid within the first year because if we're going to delay it over a five-year period of time, I think what that's going to do, I think that's going to limit whatever might become as a future project by almost a million dollars and I would rather know up front that that million dollars was gone beginning the second year and just dealing with the residue that's there because I don't want to deal with an uncertainty of a particular project in years two, three, four, or five.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Yeah, rather than, and I can understand where the council is coming from, but I don't agree. I would rather have that million dollars in the bank collecting interest for the taxpayers, knowing that it's encumbered for a specific reason, which is the repayment of the loan, but at least have it in an interest-bearing account, which it is. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the amendment of Councilor Penta, on the amendment of Councilor Penta to pay it off in one year, all those in favor? Roll call. All those opposed. Chairs in doubt, please call the roll on the amendment of Councilor Penta.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso?
[Fred Dello Russo]: No.
[Clerk]: Councilor Caviaro? No. Councilor Knight? No. Vice President Long-Tern? No. Councilor Moniz?
[Fred Dello Russo]: No.
[Fred Dello Russo]: No, in the vote of six in the negative, one in the affirmative, the amendment passes. Now on the paper reported out in the committee for approval that the loan ought to be taken with the amount of money that is due, the $1 million. 166,000 be paid out at 0% out of the sewer enterprise account. And the other aforementioned pieces that were reported out as well. And we need a roll call vote on this as it is a loan order.
[Robert Penta]: It's within the five year period of time. You forgot the five years.
[Fred Dello Russo]: What's that?
[Robert Penta]: You forgot the five years.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Within the five year period of time. Right. That was the terms of the original paper.
[Robert Penta]: No, that's the committee paper that was amended. Right.
[Fred Dello Russo]: We have that up. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. Yes. Yes. With the vote of seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the law and order is passed. On the motion of Councilor Camuso, while we're on suspension, to take.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, could we just allow a citizen to speak?
[Robert Cappucci]: He was caught in the process. Thank you, Councilor. Thank you, Mr. President. About a year and a half ago, this council passed an amendment to appropriate $600,000 to give to the MWRA to keep our rates the same. The amendment passed, but then there was a dispute about it, but the budget was signed with that amendment passed for $600,000. I think it was $618,000, something thereabouts. But Dr. Stirella brought up that the rates went up anyway. I came before this council. After that, and I specifically asked the question, now that this amendment passed, does that mean the water rate stayed the same? And the answer given to me was yes. But now I'm finding out that the water rates did, in fact, go up. And what happened to that $600,000? Let me explain what happened.
[Robert Penta]: What had happened was, yes, the council voted for it. It was taken out of the budget, and the rates weren't supposed to go up. But the Water and Sewer Commission changed the rate structure. into three separate tiers where before they were never. So as of last year, after our vote, the mayor empowered them to change the rate structure, for which they've changed twice since last year.
[Robert Cappucci]: So then what happened to that $600,000? Guess it's gone, huh? And now you're borrowing $2 million.
[Fred Dello Russo]: 15-605, locations of poles, attachments, and fixtures in underground conduits. You are hereby notified that, by order of the Medford City Council, a public hearing will be given at the Howard F. Alden Memorial Auditorium, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts, at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 2015, on a petition by National Grid of North Andover and Verizon New England for permission to locate poles, wires, and fixtures, including the necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures along and across the following public way. Canal Street National Grid to install one new J.O. pole strut guide and anchor with a six-foot lead across the pole. 402 Canal Street pole and anchor will be located on town property on the east side of Canal Street. Pole will be labeled 402-85. Wherefore it prays that after due notice and hearing, all provided by law, it be permissive, It be permission to excavate the public highways and to run and maintain underground electric conduits together with such sustaining and protecting fixtures as it may find necessary for the transmission of electricity. Set underground conduits to be located substantially in accordance with the plan filed here with Mark National Grid Canal Street, Massachusetts number one nine zero three eight three three two. 4-27-2015. Approved by the chief engineer upon review of this petition, this work can proceed forthwith provided that the following are met. One, no city-owned or private utilities or other structures are adversely impacted. National grid shall ensure that all sewer, water, and drain lines are marked prior to any excavation. There will be no obstruction to the traveling public. The pole strut and guy will be installed per the attached tail. The sidewalk and any other city-owned property are restored. Before beginning the work, contractors shall notify DIGSAFE and shall obtain applicable permits from the engineering division. National grid contractors shall utilize city of Metro regulations and standards as well as for removing all debris related to this work. Approved by the superintendent of wires, et cetera. Edward P. Finn, city clerk. Sir, you represent
[SPEAKER_20]: Yes, my name is Nguyen Noh. I'm representing National Green Electric.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Are you here in favor? Yes. Very good. Anybody else in favor to present themselves for this matter? Hearing and seeing none, I declare that portion of the public hearing closed. Anybody in opposition to this, please present yourself to the podium. Hi. Please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_04]: My name is Kim Deandre, 54 Canal Street.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Robert Hunter, 52 Canal Street. Thank you. And you're in opposition.
[SPEAKER_04]: I'm in opposition because- Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Uh, we have, uh, people in opposition. Anybody else in opposition, please present yourselves. Hearing, seeing none, we declare that portion of the public hearing closed. Uh, you're here in opposition. Please present your reasons to the city council.
[SPEAKER_04]: Now I say my reasons.
[Fred Dello Russo]: No, now you're gonna do it. It's done in parts, I apologize.
[SPEAKER_04]: Well, our house is right on the sidewalk and it seems that this pole would be right in front of our front door and it would be like having a pole right in our living rooms. And so we would rather not have it be right in front of our living rooms and are hoping that it can be moved to the property line on one side or the other or even further down the street opposite a different pole. I think that it would affect the resale value of my property. I think it affects the tenant desirability of the property and just ease of getting in and out of the car right in front of the house to have a telephone pole right in front of the front steps, which is what it appears that they want to do.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_30]: I'm in agreement with Kim.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. And the person in favor wish to make a presentation on the matter?
[SPEAKER_20]: So we're petitioning on setting a stealth pole across the street from an existing pole where our electric wires run through. As Kim said, the pole is going to obstruct the entrance and exit out of our house. We can look into an alternative location. We've moved it too close to the property line between the two houses. I can meet her in the field. We can work something out. I wouldn't want to pull in front of my house either. But for this matter, it's a concern for the pole that's existing across the street with the electric wires. We don't want it to fall over based on the tension of the wires. And we don't want to cause any outages because when it falls over, it's going to be live wires. You know, it's going to be dangerous to the neighborhood and to the people in the neighborhood.
[Adam Knight]: Very good.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Camuso. Go ahead, Councilor, and I apologize.
[Adam Knight]: Sir, can you explain to me what a J.O.
[SPEAKER_20]: pole is with the strut guy? Yes, J.O. is a jointly owned pole. It's both owned by National Grid and Verizon.
[Adam Knight]: It's a single pole, it's not a double pole, it's not adding a pole onto another pole with a strut that's attaching it or anything like that.
[SPEAKER_20]: No, it's a single pole, and what you see here from the existing pole, P402, going towards proposed pole P402-84.
[Adam Knight]: Yeah, we don't have the same renderings, I think, that you have in front of you. Sorry. Let me see it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So anyway, it's a single. Thank you very much, sir.
[SPEAKER_20]: Support for P-402, existing with the green wires across at the corner. And the J-O pole that we're proposing is across the street in front of 52 Canal Street, P-402-84. That's a stub pole that we're petitioning on installing. Because of the angle of P-402, we don't want that pole to fall over due to the tension on the wires. And originally, we have a guy wired that's attached to a tree. Speaking with Kim, she said that the tree had been removed. But it's still an issue for the pole being fallen over. And we're proposing on setting that pole across the street.
[Adam Knight]: And in looking at this diagram here, we're at 52 and 52, 54, I guess, would be your problem. 54. Okay. So you know, is there a driveway or something in, in regard to maybe in between the two houses here or anything like that, that would be blocked after Paul was moved to closer to the property line? Closer to. So does your home have a driveway? Yes. And that would be closer to 50. Okay. Oh, okay. All right. And then so access to 5254. Okay. Okay. So have you spoke with your neighbors and this gentleman to figure out if there would be a compromise of some sort? Okay. All right. So I didn't know if there might've been some sort of proposal. Um, Right, in terms of something that you guys can live with and discuss? And you'll make a commitment to going out there and meeting with them in the field? Yes. So is there a motion on the floor? Mr. President, I'd ask that we hold the paper until we can take a look and see if there's a mutually agreeable site where the parties can put the poll and hold off on the approval until such.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. So on the motion of Council of Nine to table, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? That is tabled. While we're into suspension, we're going to take paper numbers. Number 15617, a request for expenditures from law department claims over $1,000 a count. 010-151-5762. To the President, to the members of the City Council, from Mayor Michael J. McGlynn, this is a claim. Claimant name, Quincy Mutual Insurance Company, First City Medford. Date of accident, April, February 11th, 2013. Date of settlement, July 21st, 2015. Trial result, not applicable. Amount to request, 7,500. Joseph P. In this case, the insurance company seeks payment made to its insured, Chambry Bernard of Winchester, when his vehicle was struck from behind by a City of Medford Public Works vehicle during February 11, 2013, etc. Madam Solicitor.
[k3Xg1illaRI_SPEAKER_15]: Thank you, Mr. President. Kimberly Scanlon, 75 Ashcroft Road, Assistant City Solicitor.
[Michael Marks]: Motion for approval.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The motion for approval. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Do we have to vote on this? Yes. Roll call is required. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. My apologies.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso? Yes. Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Hanks? Yes. Vice President Ronald Kern? Yes. Councilor Marksx? Yes. Councilor Penta? No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. No. No.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Yes. President Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. And the vote is seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Matter passes. Thank you. Where do we want to go from here? Chair awaits a motion. What's that? OK. On the motion of Councilor Knight to revert back to the regular order of business. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? 15-604, hearings. location of poles, attachments of fixtures, and underground conduits, Medford, Massachusetts. You are hereby notified that by order of the Medford City Council, a public hearing will be given at the Howard F. Alderman Memorial Auditorium. 85 George B. Hassett Drive, City Hall, Metro Massachusetts, at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 2015, on a petition by National Grid of North Andover for permission to locate poles, wires, and fixtures, including the necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures, along and across the following public way. High Street, National Grid, to install a 102-foot plus or minus of 2 to 5 inches concrete encased conduits from existing electrical manhole MHA-177 to existing electric manhole MHB-157 on High Street due to collapsed conduit from MHA-177 to MHB-157. Wherefore, it prays that after due notice and hearing, as provided by law, it be given permission to excavate the public highways and to run and maintain underground electric conduits together with such sustaining and protecting fixtures as it may find necessary for the transmission of electricity. Send underground conduits to be located substantially in accordance with the plan filed herewith, marked National Grid, High Street, Metro Massachusetts, number 15605063, filed on June 25th, 2015. Approved by the chief engineer upon review of this petition, this work can proceed forthwith provided the following are met. No city-owned or private utilities or other structures are adversely impacted. National Grid shall ensure that all sewer, water, and drain lines are marked prior to any excavation. No ramps, sidewalks, panels, or crosswalks be replaced. as soon as the conduit installation is complete and that the roadway will be restored. Final roadway restoration will match existing, but will have no less than four inches of asphalt. Address stream and vehicle traffic management will be conducted per prior approved by the city. Any other city-owned property is protected and or properly restored. Before beginning the work, contractors shall notify DIGSAFE and shall obtain applicable permits from the engineering division. National grid contractors shall utilize city of Metro regulations and standards, as well as for removing all debris related to this work, prove superintendent wise, et cetera. Anybody in favor of this, please present yourself. Aye. Very good. Anybody in opposition? Anybody in opposition? Hearing seen none, this portion of the meeting is closed. Mr. Grid. Tell us about this project.
[SPEAKER_20]: We're proposing on repairing and installing two five-inch conduits between manhole MH8-177 to manhole MH8-157 due to its collapsing condition. We would like to replace it to install a new cable.
[Adam Knight]: Would you be so kind as to tell me How about how long the duration of this construction project will take?
[SPEAKER_20]: My knowledge of that depends on the underground crew that works on the job itself. It's 100 feet of conduit, a day or two at most. Two plus days, all right. And it'll most likely be done at nighttime rather than daytime during business hours.
[Fred Dello Russo]: They're digging up the street on High Street.
[SPEAKER_20]: We're not digging across High Street. We're digging across Hillside Ave, which is perpendicular to High Street.
[Robert Penta]: How wide is the trench going to be?
[SPEAKER_20]: It's going to be about 2 to 5 feet, it looks like. It's about 36 inches wide, about 3 feet or less.
[Michael Marks]: Is the plan for you?
[SPEAKER_20]: As you can see, we'll be digging across Hillside Ave.
[Robert Penta]: So you're going to be almost in the middle of the street.
[SPEAKER_20]: It'll be closer to the curbside than the street on High Street. And this is it's it's it's a big concern because we don't want future outages and it's going to affect.
[Robert Penta]: I'm going to put a condition on here, Mr. President, that in six months that the city review the street opening to make sure that there were no depressions, because The problem with you folks lately, not you, because you're not digging the hole, is your company comes in and digs holes, and within six months, they just become depressed. And they sometimes can cause some of these potholes that are existing on some of these streets. So I think we also have to look at, Mr. President, the bond amount that the city is charging right now. I'd like to raise it to $100,000 that your company has to leave here within the city of Medford, because if these streets need to be repaired, you know, You guys opened it, you should repair it to the way you found it. There are so many streets. You go up to Doonan Street, you go up to Hillside, you go up to Fulton Street. You guys are all over the place. I know you have to do work, but whoever is filling your potholes or whoever is filling your trenches, you leave a lot to be desired. That's just me talking on another area.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Do we have a motion?
[Robert Penta]: Yep. Move approval with that condition to the city.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Motion for approval, uh, offered by Councilor Penta with the condition says the, uh, engineer department reviewed the site in six months to make sure that it meets the standards of a repair of a public way and further amended that there be a $100,000 bond, uh, placed by national grid on the project for repairs to the area.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah. No, to the City of Medford, no, to the City of Medford for repairs if they become deficient.
[Fred Dello Russo]: For repairs to the City of Medford should they become deficient. On that, all those in favor? Aye. Motion carries. 15-606, location of poles, attachments and fixtures, and underground conduits. We're hereby notified that by order of the City Council, A public hearing will be given at the Howard F. Alden Memorial Auditorium, 85 George C. Hazard Drive, Massachusetts, 7 p.m. Tuesday, August 11th, for a petition by National Grid of North Andover and Verizon New England for permission to locate poles, wires, and fixtures, including the necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures along and across the public way. Prescott Street, National Grid, to install one new joint ownership pole, strut guy, and anchor With a six-foot lead across the pole from pole 6184 Prescott Street to pole and anchor will be located on town property. Pole will be labeled 6184-84. Wherefore it prays that after due notice and hearing, as provided by Laura, be given permission to excavate. Et cetera. They're going to put a pole at number on Prescott Street to be numbered 6184-84. All those in favor, make yourself known. Aye. Anybody in opposition? Hearing and seeing none, we declare this portion closed and open up the floor to questions. Can you tell us about this project, sir?
[SPEAKER_20]: We're petitioning on installing a J-O-P-O. across the street from Post 6184 at the corner of Carter Street and Prescott Street. Right now, there's a guy wire from existing Post 6184 to a tree. It actually, the tree is located between House 9 Prescott Street and 17 Prescott Street. We would like to remove that guy wire. and install a stub pole with an anchor. Excuse me, a double pole? A single pole across the street. And that's due to the tension of the wires. We don't want the pole to fall over.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. Councilor?
[Michael Marks]: Does that have to pass practice if there was a tree around to use a tree? Why would it be connected to a tree?
[SPEAKER_20]: Because nowadays, the customer, if the tree is on their property, they would like to have it removed or they don't want our equipment on their pole, on the tree, I'm sorry. And if the tree ends up dying because of the guy wire, we would have to remove it anyways.
[Michael Marks]: Right, but how did it first get installed on a tree?
[SPEAKER_20]: Started before me.
[Michael Marks]: So that's not the practice to put a guide wire into a tree?
[SPEAKER_20]: No, nowadays we don't put guide wires to a tree anymore. We would like to remove all of them.
[Michael Marks]: So at some point you did?
[SPEAKER_20]: Excuse me?
[Michael Marks]: At some point you did put guide wires to trees?
[SPEAKER_20]: Not with my knowledge. I wouldn't. I don't know. Sorry.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Motion for approval, Mr. President. Motion approved by Councilor Marks. All those in favor? Opposed? Congratulations. Thank you. 15-607, offered by Vice President Lungo-Koehn, be it ordered Call for election. City of Medford. Preliminary municipal election. Tuesday, September 1st, 2015. Be it ordered that, in accordance with the provisional. Brief synopsis, folks. Tuesday, September 1st, 2015. There will be preliminary election. Purpose of this election, uh, is, uh, with 16 candidates, uh, to elect seven members to the Medford city council. Um, the voting, uh, 14 to call it down to 14 for the election of seven members, um, be it further ordered that the following named polling places, uh, be, and they are hereby designated to be used at the city election to be held on Tuesday, September 1st, 2015. Ward 1, Precinct 1, Andrew Middle School, 3000 Mystic Valley Parkway. Ward 1, Precinct 2, Firefighters Club, 340 Salem Street. Ward 2, Precinct 1, St. Francis Parish Center, Fellsway and Fulton Street entrances. Ward 2, Precinct 2, Roberts Elementary School, 35 Court Street. Ward 3, Precinct 1, Lawrence Memorial Hospital, 170 Governor's Avenue. Ward 3, Precinct 2, Temple Shalom, 475 Winthrop Street. Ward 4, Precinct 1, Tufts University, Gansher Center, rear. Ward 4, Precinct 2, Walkland Court, Al Fondicaro Center, Auburn and North Streets. Ward 5, Precinct 1, Columbus Elementary School, 36 Hicks Ave. Ward 5, Precinct 2, Columbus Elementary School, 37 Hicks Ave. Ward 6, Precinct 1, West Metro Fire Station, 26 Harvard Ave. Ward 6, Precinct 2, Brooks School, 388 High Street. Ward 7, Precinct 1, Mystic Valley Towers, North Building Entrance. Ward 7, Precinct 2, McGlynn Cater 8, Public School 300, 3004 Mystic Valley Parkway. Ward 8, Precinct 1, Senior Center, 101 Riverside Ave. Ward 8, Precinct 2, VFW 114, Mystic Ave. Due to insufficient number of nominees for the Office of Mayor and School Committee, those offices will not be part of the preliminary election, just Office of the City Council. Motion for approval? All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? And tomorrow is the last day to register to vote for the September 1st preliminary election. So you have to register to vote by tomorrow, Wednesday, August 12th, by 8 p.m. here in City Hall.
[Michael Marks]: When's the last day to get an absentee ballot, Mr. Clerk?
[Fred Dello Russo]: In the last day for an absentee ballot, Mr. Clerk.
[Clerk]: Absentee ballots are available Monday, September 31st, December 1st at 12 PM. 12 PM.
[Michael Marks]: The last day you can obtain one?
[Clerk]: Obtain one, yeah. That would be over the counter. We won't, more than likely, if you were looking to get it mailed to you, you would have to do so.
[Robert Penta]: 12 o'clock, September 1st?
[Michael Marks]: Probably before. Eddie, did you say- Supposed to get it back. Right, when's the last day to submit it?
[Clerk]: submitting it, well, in the mail, on call.
[Michael Marks]: Up until August 31st?
[Clerk]: No, September 1st, the day of the election. They'd be mailing it. They'd take everything up to the polls.
[Michael Marks]: But if you mail it on that day, you're not going to get it for that election. So would he count it the following? No, I'm kidding. Postmark. So that's what I'm trying to figure out. So when's the last day that someone can submit something to the clerk's office? So it would be counted.
[Clerk]: If they choose to come in and drop it off, we'll take it that day, election day. But if you mail it, and it's not in by the close of the mailing day. Of what day? Post office day, September 1st. Anything afterwards, we won't take it.
[Michael Marks]: So if it's postmarked September 1st, you'll take it?
[Clerk]: Yeah, before that. Yeah. Before that. No, you can't mail it out September 1st.
[Robert Penta]: Eddie, you just said, I don't know if it was a slip. I don't know if you made a slip. Did you say you can come in up to 12 o'clock on September 1st to get an absentee ballot?
[Clerk]: No. The day before, Monday the day before, September 1st. August 31st. Yeah. Is that August 30th? August 31st. Yeah. Physically, that's physically coming into account.
[Robert Penta]: So what happens to all these Service people that are overseas, they have to get their ballots when? Well in advance. People who are overseas, out of state, they have to get these ballots to you well in advance. They have to be there before September 1st.
[Clerk]: Yeah, we've been mailing it to them.
[Robert Penta]: By 5 o'clock. Now, when do you open up those ballots?
[Clerk]: Open up those ballots?
[Robert Penta]: The ballots, the absentee ballots. When do you open them up?
[Clerk]: Those ballots are delivered to the actual polls during the day, and then you count it.
[Robert Penta]: OK, but what about the ones that you have to wait till the end of the day when the mail comes in? When do they count, to the next day?
[Clerk]: No, we have them to close a polling to bring the ballots up there. So we will bring it.
[Robert Penta]: So whatever mail you get on September 1st, that day, election day, you bring to the respective polls? That would be too late. Well, then how does it work? If you get the mail later in the day, how do you get it to the polls by 8 o'clock for them to count it?
[Clerk]: We physically run it out there to the polls.
[Robert Penta]: That's what I just said.
[Clerk]: But you said mailing it afterwards. If the mail comes in on September 1, I'm not going to get it.
[Robert Penta]: You have the mail up to September 1 on that day.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So if the postman comes into City Hall and drops off a bundle of mail at 435, they sort it out, and they send it out to where it's got to go to be counted.
[Clerk]: That's it. We actually go to the polls. post office at the close of day and collect anything that's outside.
[Robert Penta]: So nothing's counted the next day. Everything is counted that night.
[Clerk]: Yeah.
[Robert Penta]: Overseas ballot. I don't know. That's another.
[Clerk]: We don't have any overseas ballots.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Councilor Knight, 15-612 offered by Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, if I may, um, I spoke with the sponsors of, uh, papers, 15609, 15611, 15621, and we've agreed to merge these papers together because they're all of similar substance and material.
[Fred Dello Russo]: What papers are these?
[Adam Knight]: Is that the one you just went through here? The next three, the next in regular order of business? 609, 611, and 621? Council? Motion's passed. Am I at the right place? 609, 611 and 621? Yeah, they're all of similar substance and material. I spoke with the sponsors of the bills and they've agreed to merge.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'll read them separately and then we'll address them together. 15-609 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council discuss the paving that was recently done on Withrop Circle. 15-611 offered by Councilor Knight. Be it resolved that the crosswalk and On the east side of Winthrop Street Rotary at High Street, have the crosswalk repainted as well as the handicapped parking places in front of 190 High Street. 15621 offered by Councilor Marks, be it resolved that the Traffic Commission post yield signs at the Winthrop Street Rotary on the approaching roads. Furthermore, that the sign be placed inside the circle facing Route 38 North that says, a rotary. Who is going to speak on this first, councilman?
[Adam Knight]: I'm going to defer to Councilor Caraviello as this paper was put on the agenda.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I live over that area and I drive around Winthrop Circle multiple times a day. It behooves me to understand why the company who did the paving there went around and deliberately went around patches of roadway when they could have ground the whole thing down and made it one neat piece. We now have a patchwork circle of crappy paving, Mr. President. I mean, it was their trucks that went around that circle for the last two and a half years, grinded it down. And when we were working it, I don't understand why they couldn't have paved the whole circle. Rather than leaving a square here, and a little section here, and another little section. It just behooves me to understand why that happened. how we allowed it, how our either engineer or whoever saw that allowed that to happen.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Can we have a report on how and why that happened and why the company did it like that?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Moved by Councilor Caraviello that the city engineer report back to the city council regarding the insufficiencies with the repaving at Withrop Circle. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. My resolve is regarding Winthrop Circle and to clarify some of the confusion that's out there regarding the entering of the circle itself. So I would just ask that yield signs be posted at Winthrop Street Rotary on the approaching roads and that a sign be placed inside the circle facing Route 38 North that says Rotary. So people that are coming up realize it's a rotary, and that may help with some of the confusion, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So that offered by Councilman Marks that in the interest of public safety, in good order, that the aforementioned remedies be forwarded to the Traffic Commission for immediate action. Councilman Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. It's been brought to my attention, and it's my understanding that The gas company did some construction work, and in the process of doing this construction work, they have ground up and repaved over the preexisting crosswalk at the corner of Winthrop and Morell. And that crosswalk has not been repainted, and it needs to be, Mr. President. Recently, we had a death. A resident of 190 High Street crossing the street was struck as a pedestrian crossing, and she died as a result of the injuries that she sustained in that. accident, Mr. President, so I think it's very important that we have a crosswalk in the vicinity of the corner, and I think that Councilor Mark's resolution to include yield signs there makes perfect sense. There are also a couple of handicapped spots, Mr. President, that are out in front of the building number 190 High Street that have fallen into disrepair. Mainly because of the amount of debris that's been on the road as a result of the construction projects that have been going on. The paint for the handicapped spots is worn completely away. There's been an outcry from the residents in the building that are asking that this be taken care of. I've had some preliminary conversations with the DPW and I'm very confident that it will be addressed. However, where the work still needs to be done, I figured it would be appropriate to continue further with the resolution. As such, I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this matter.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the motion of Council tonight, that this matter be presented to the DPW and the Traffic Commission for immediate action. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The combined motion passes. 15-622, offered by Councilor Marks. Be it resolved that the matter, oh, what did I skip? No blue.
[Adam Knight]: I thought we were in the business. We did these, right?
[Unidentified]: Page six.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I don't have that.
[Richard Caraviello]: The order's a little messed up, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: You see a 10 on that? Where is it? Oh, okay. I have 22 by Marks and then 10 by Penta.
[Clerk]: Yeah, we gave you a revised agenda because of all the different things that came in.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Ah, look at this. 15-610 offered by Council Penta be resolved that the huge amount of questionable dirt that has to be repeatedly covered with plastic in front of the triple business development along Riverside Avenue at Wellington Fellsway Plaza be discussed, Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Well, we have Panera, Snappy Patty, not Snappy Patties. What is it? Smashburgers. Smashburgers and noodles and noodles going down over there. This is really a disgrace what's going on because it's alleged that it's contaminated soil. It's been covered up and re-covered up, you know, on hot, warm days. And when the wind blows, that dirt is going all over the place. There's got to be a reason why. or a problem why that dirt has not been removed. I mean, how do you have a triple business development take place over there and have this amount of dirt stay there day in and day out, month in and month out? So, Mr. President, I'm going to move that the building department and our health inspector go down there, tag them, find them, do whatever it takes, because this is absolutely unacceptable as part of a business project development here in this community. And if the city was on top of this, we wouldn't even be discussing this, but it's quite obvious. that there is something wrong there. They just, once again this past week, covered it with more new type of clear plastic. And I don't know, I can't answer it. The poor people across the street, the lady who's across the street, she's beside herself. She just can't understand what's going on over there. And so is it the responsibility of the three people? Is it the responsibility of the people that own the parking lot? I don't know. But it's there. And it's the first time in all my years serving that this amount of dirt has hung around after projects gotten started, while the project continues to go forward, and the dirt continues to stay there. So Mr. President, I ask that we move on this expeditiously. I know we don't meet until the end of September, so I don't want to wait till then. I think this needs to be resolved immediately, and the fines need to be assessed. Go ahead and do it. The city should go ahead and do it. But the fact of the matter is, it doesn't belong there. So I move the question and roll call vote.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of approval by Councilor Kenta, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Robert Penta]: the Board of Health and the Court of Enforcement, and the Billing Department. I said that, the Board of Health.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The Board of Health and Court Enforcement. And National Grid.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso? Yes. Councilor Caravielloles? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Vice President Lungo-Koehn? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Penta?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes.
[Clerk]: President De La Russa?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. With a vote of six in the affirmative or one absent motion passes 15-six 22 offered by council mocks be resolved that the Medford city council hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 6th at 7 PM and invite ever source and the appropriate city departments to discuss the proposed underground utility work slated for 2017 be it further resolved that the city send out a reverse 911 call to all Medford residents, notifying them of the public hearing. Councilor Moniz.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sure many other councils received the same phone calls and emails regarding a meeting that was held here at City Hall several weeks back by Eversource. It was a combined meeting of Somerville, Winchester, and Medford because this particular two and a half mile stretch of an underground utility impacts several communities, and residents that attended from the city of Medford were quite disappointed to see that Somerville had representation from the city administration, Winchester had someone from their town hall, and the city of Medford did not have one person from the administration representing the community and the residents regarding this major problem project. that's going to cut through Winthrop Street and down South Street, down Mystic Ave, through the heart of our community and disrupt the roadways. In particular, as we all know, Winthrop Circle that's been under repair for the last two and a half years, they're going to re-dig this road up. And there are still a lot of outstanding questions. This council put a resolution on several weeks back And many of us asked representatives from Eversource a number of questions, of which we have yet to receive any responses. So I had asked through this resolution that we have a full-blown public hearing on Tuesday, October 6th. That gives Eversource time to prepare. It gives the city time to send out a reverse 911 call to residents that are impacted by this project. And it not only impacts residents along the roadway, but it's going to impact traffic for every resident in our community. And I think we have to start talking about mitigation, which I haven't heard anything in regards to that as of yet. And what's going to be done regarding the traffic and how it's going to impact the Craddock Bridge project, because we all know it's coming down South Street, and that's just a stone's throw from the Craddock Bridge. at the very tip, and I would ask that this be supported by the council and sent to the mayor for action, Madam President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Motion for approval by Councilor Marks. All those in favor?
[Michael Marks]: Roll call vote, Madam President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Roll call has been requested.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso. Yes. Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Vice-President Alan Kern?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Marksley? Yes. Councilor Penta? Yes. Councilor Hussle?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Six in the affirmative, one absent. The paper passes. Offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulates Firefighter John Friedman on his recent appointment to the rank of deputy chief. Faye Faye to William Young on his recent appointment to the rank of captain. Faye Faye to Vincent Marcelino on his recent appointment to the rank of lieutenant. Faye Faye to Stephen Oliveri on his recent appointment to the rank of lieutenant. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. These four individuals have long served our community. is firefighters. They've done their best to keep us safe. They've done their best to protect us. And because of their hard work, dedication, and commitment, they've been elevated to new positions. These four individuals have between them over 100 years of service to the Medford Fire Department. And it's with great honor and privilege that I welcome them aboard in their new role and wish them the best of luck. I would hope that my council colleagues join me in doing the same.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Absolutely. Motion for approval by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? All those opposed? Paper passes. We wish them good luck. Offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved the Medford City Council extend its deep and sincere condolences to the family of Charles Barry on his recent passing. While we're taking condolences, paper 15-614 offered by Councilor Penta, be it resolved that an expression of sympathy be extended to the family of James Harris on his recent passing. Jim was a wonderful family man, an avid outdoors man, and a dedicated fire captain for the Massachusetts Port Authority. Also offered by Councilor Caraviello be it resolved that the Medford City Council send its condolences to the family of David Rose, father of Karen Rose, our Board of Health Director. David was a veteran of the Korean War. He will be missed by his family and friends. If we could all please rise for a moment of silence. Offered by 15615, offered by Councilor Camuso, be it resolved that the Medford City Council send its congratulations to former Medford First Lady Joyce Pompeo on her first flight. Joyce recently completed another item on our bucket list, flying an airplane at age 81. Councilor Camuso. Motion for approval by Councilor Camuso. All those in favor? All those opposed? Papers, passes. Is that it? Oh, 15-623, offered by Councilor Penta, be it resolved that the putting of parking kiosks in our municipal lots be discussed. Councilor Penta. Do we already do that?
[Robert Penta]: No, we had talked about it, but I just want to make it as part of the official resolution that these kiosks that are now going in there, the proper signage has yet to be put into the parking lots. I mean, I don't know how they can do this. Once again, people are just being taxed impositioned by these kiosks from these out-of-state bounty hunters. And there's just no sympathy being left out there for people who don't understand the program. At the same time, all they want to do is just keep taxing the people. And this is not the way our city should be going. Again, like I said, it's not good for business. So I don't know how you can set up these programs, especially when Parking is supposed to be three hours in the municipal lots, and these kiosks are now going to be regulated to a maximum of two over 15-minute increments. Signage isn't properly put up. So I'm going to refer this, Mr. President, Madam President, to our parking commission and Republic Park, and also ask, as a tag-on to this, that they entertain Saturday operating hours at Park Medford on Main Street and Medford.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Just repeat that one more time.
[Robert Penta]: I want, as a tag along to this resolution, relative toward the unacceptable use of these kiosks in the parking lots, to request also that they entertain staying open on Saturdays as a regular business working day. Park Medford.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Park Medford opens on Saturdays as a regular business day. Yes. The office on Main Street.
[Robert Penta]: Roll call vote, Mr. President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Motion for approval. All those in favor? Roll call. Roll calls are requested. If I may, from the chair, you also want parking meters in which municipal lots?
[Robert Penta]: No. The parking meters in the municipal lots are not ready to go, because the signage is not ready, which is supposed to be for three-hour parking lots. And as a result of that, I want that referred to the traffic commission.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: OK, referred.
[Robert Penta]: Traffic commission.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Motion for approval, roll call vote has been requested by Councilor Penta.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso? Yes. Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Vice President Long? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Penta?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. Vice President De La Rosa? Yes. With a vote of 70 affirmative, none of the negative, the motion Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the administration and the DCR review the current logistics and provide a cost estimate to develop a pedestrian and cycling path linking the Campbell Peace Garden to Riverbend Park. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. I've had a lot of talks and a lot of discussion with some residents in the area who are avid cyclists and avid pedestrians, avid walkers, and one of the things that they had expressed interest in would be connecting the Crystal Campbell Peace Garden by way of the waterfront to Riverbend Park. Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd like to amend the resolution to request that the department of transportation also be involved because my research would indicate that they're also going to be a party to this if in fact it does come to fruition, Mr. President. However, I feel as though linking Riverbend Park to the Campbell Peace Garden will also give people another reason to come to Medford Square. I think we can build upon a vision for the square with a bike and pedestrian path, maybe bring Hubway into the square, further expand a bike and pedestrian path from the Campbell Peace Garden along the Mystic River across Route 16 through Sleepy Hollow, and ultimately connected to the Minuteman Trail in Arlington. Should we use a little bit of planning, foresight, and vision, I think we can accomplish this, Mr. President. So I'd ask that my council colleagues support this resolution to take the small step in connecting the Campbell Peace Garden and Medford Square to Riverbend Park, and then we can take a look at the bigger picture at a later date.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. So as amended by Councilor Knight, and motion for approval by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion? The tabled records of June 30th, did we cover everything? Tabled records of June 30th, 2015 were passed to Councilor Marks. Councilor, how indeed did you find those records? To be in order, move approval. On the motion for approval by Councilor Marks, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Records are approved. The records of the July 21st, 2015 meeting were passed to Councilor Panto. Dear Councilor, how did you find those records? Council has yet to review them, so on the motion of Council, I'm tempted that they be laid on the table. All those in favor? All those opposed? Those records are tabled. Motion to adjourn by Council. Announce the next meeting. And the next meeting is September 22nd. September 22nd. That's a Tuesday at 7 p.m. Motion to adjourn by Council. All those in favor? All those opposed? Happy rest of August.
|
total time: 39.22 minutes total words: 2921  |
total time: 16.28 minutes total words: 1685  |
total time: 19.8 minutes total words: 1639  |
total time: 29.39 minutes total words: 2494  |
|
total time: 5.19 minutes total words: 485  |
total time: 17.56 minutes total words: 1318  |
total time: 11.2 minutes total words: 1102  |
total time: 2.76 minutes total words: 267  |
|
total time: 6.41 minutes total words: 283  |
|||