[Fred Dello Russo]: The 11th regular meeting of the Medford City Council will come to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello? Present. Councilor Falco? Present. Councilor Knight? Present. Vice President Lowell-Kern? Present. Councilor Marks? Present. Councilor Scarpelli? Present. President Dello Russo?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Present. Seven members present, none absent. Please join me in rising to salute the flag. In a special way tonight, we remember our Belgian allies. Public hearing 16-097, City of Medford. A public hearing will be held by the City of Medford, uh, the Medford City Council in the Howard F. Alden Memorial Auditorium, City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, on Tuesday evening, March 22nd, 2016, at 7 p.m., on petitions from 375 Riverside Avenue, LLC, Emily and Brian Flynn, for a special permit to amend the zoning ordinance in accordance with Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, City of Medford Zoning Ordinance, Section 94 dash 1-4-8-D, table of use regulations, use dirt 30, to operate retail sales at the location of 375 Riverside Avenue, Medford Mass. On said site being located in a number one industrial zoning district. Petitions and plans may be seen in the office of the city clerk, Medford City Hall, Medford Mass. Call 781-393-2425. For any accommodations or aids, for further information, contact City Clerk at 781-395-2425. By order of the City Council, Edward P. Finn, City Clerk, Medford City Hall. Advertised in the Medford Daily Mercury on March 7th and March 14th, 2016. Just for your information, folks, in a public hearing, the first portion, we invite those who are in favor uh, in those who are posed on this set matter to, uh, present themselves before the, uh, rail and just, uh, when invited and to state their, their support or opposition solely. And then when we move into the discussion phase, we invite those, uh, then to speak in detail. So at this time we open the public hearing and invite those, uh, in favor of this, uh, to present themselves to the rail and state their, being in favor. If you would, state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_22]: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members. I'm attorney Peter Miranda. I represent Brian and Emily Flynn. Brian is here with me. They own 375 Riverside Ave. For those who don't know, 375 Riverside Ave is at the corner of Riverside Ave and Locust Street. For the past decade or so, it has been used as a real estate office that they had in there. A lot of employees, a lot of cars coming in and out. But it worked for the neighborhood, I think. I don't think it was a burden to the neighborhood.
[Fred Dello Russo]: You're in favor? I'm in favor. Yes. All right. We'll have you back up in a second. Anybody else in favor? Anybody else in favor? Hearing and seeing none, I declare that portion of the meeting closed. Anybody in opposition to this petition? Anybody in opposition? Hearing and seeing none, I declare that part of the meeting closed. Counsel.
[SPEAKER_22]: I haven't been here in a while. You can hand a- It's been a lot of years.
[Fred Dello Russo]: All right.
[SPEAKER_22]: Again, Attorney Peter Miranda. I'm here representing Brian and Emily Flynn. The owner is a 375 Riverside Ave here in Medford. As I stated, the property has been used as a real estate office for the past decade or so. We are currently under agreement to sell the property to a gentleman who wants to run a hair threading spa. Now, he is here in the audience, Mr. Shrestha, sitting right there. He is not a stranger to this business. He actually has 10 of these salons throughout the Commonwealth and actually has one here in Medford. He was at the mall since 2008. He just was thrown out because of things going over in the mall. Now he's at 34 Riverside Ave. So he's operating a threading spa there. Again, he's familiar with Medford. He knows what he's doing, so I'm sure the business will do fine. I would like to point out that the business is going to be used as one employee. That's what he's going to have there. He tells me that most of his clientele come from the local area in Medford. A lot of them do use public transportation. He doesn't anticipate there'd be a problem with parking or traffic. A lot of people would visit the mall and possibly come over from there. I did notice when looking at the file that the different The police and everyone involved in the different departments had no objection to the petition. And as you know, it is an industrial zone now, so I believe the use that we're asking for will be beneficial to the neighborhood. There is some residential neighborhood abutting the property. This seems to me to be more in line with what the nature of the bylaw is and the underlying, wouldn't undermine what the bylaw is meant to do. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Awesome, thank you. Chair recognizes Councilor Knight, Chairman of the Ordinances and Rules.
[Adam Knight]: Yes, Mr. President, thank you very much. I have reviewed the paperwork and everything does appear to be in order. However, I did speak with the merits in the audience before the meeting started and they do have a couple of questions. If they'd like to address any of those questions, we'd be happy to do so prior to taking legislative action. Who does? Come up to the podium. I think Councilor Miranda might be in a position to answer some of the questions.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Welcome. Just please state your name and address for the record.
[Nate Merritt]: Yes. My name is Nathan Merritt and my address is 373 Riverside Ave. So I'm the adjacent property to the property in question. Thank you. So this is actually the first I've heard the information about what was being there in the past. Um, while it was a realty office, um, we've been there since April of 14 and we had no issues with the business. It was conducted the time of the hours, traffic flows, so on and so forth. Um, some of my concerns that I had coming into here, um, I'm assuming that the hours would be similar for operation nine to five. 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. okay okay same as them all okay and that said it's actually very difficult to access my own driveway on Riverside Ave due to the nature of the configuration of that intersection so basically the stop line actually is just in front of my driveway so on a daily basis My other half, Kim and I, when we try to come home from work, it gets kind of congested during the day. And it can be pretty hairy just pulling into our own driveway. So I do have a slight concern, and I don't think it's It's nothing on their part whatsoever, but I'm a little interested if there's ever been a traffic study done in there recently, only because people will, no kidding, fly right through that intersection. And there are times when we've almost gotten T-boned trying to come out of the driveway. People just ignore the red light. They go right through the line. So someone else, a customer of his, were to be coming out that same exit. It's not a great situation whatsoever. I don't think should necessarily hold up what they would like to do. I'm certainly not opposed to it But it is concern I have just as the neighbor in the area We've already had one car crashed my yard and into the stairs of that building.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So I think the if I might suggest that the present configuration we have there is the result of traffic studies and that were done maybe some decades ago when there was some additional industrial development there in that neighborhood. And so it was done to alleviate some of the, it created a light system there. that allowed for better flow of traffic than existed previously.
[Nate Merritt]: Yes, sir. I guess I'm just a little concerned that maybe there's something else that could be done to help the people that are entering or exiting through that particular driveway. Because right now it's actually past the stop line. It's kind of in this no man's land with the light. Should you go or should you not when it's red or green? I have no idea. So that was a concern of us, just for, in general, we'd rather not have cars crashing right next to our house, if we can help it. And I think, any, I'm sorry. Madam Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Deller. So did you say you lived on Riverside Ave, or are you on Locust Street?
[Unidentified]: Riverside Ave.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Because, I mean, if you look at the map, I think the second to last page of our package, it shows It shows that, excuse me, it shows that it looks like people should be exiting this property onto Locust Street. So I think if you just, maybe, is that how it works with the prior owner? Because that would solve your problem.
[Nate Merritt]: That's the first I've seen of this. Please do.
[SPEAKER_09]: Thank you. State your name and address for the record. Brian Flynn, current owner of 375 Riverside Ave. Yes. Currently, we would enter the premises through Riverside Avenue and exit onto Locust Street.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So with that being said, is it clearly marked? Is the driveway clearly marked so the new customers would know the need to come in one way and out the other?
[SPEAKER_09]: There's no arrows there currently. We just, I just knew that because I occupied it myself. So that's how we directed all our employees to enter and exit.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Would, would you be amenable to possibly put in some arrows to make it more clear?
[SPEAKER_09]: Absolutely.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I think that would, so, I mean, you still have people entering that near your home, but you wouldn't have the traffic jam of coming out. So maybe if we put some arrows, we make it clear that customers is supposed to, and employees is supposed to, enter on Riverside Ave and exit Locust Street, I think that would solve the problem.
[Nate Merritt]: I think it's a business that's probably going to be a little bit more frequent than a real estate office, so maybe even a sign, one sign and a couple arrows would solve the problem. We could do both, arrows and a sign.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If we could make that part of the record, then I'm inclined to approve this.
[SPEAKER_09]: The sign I would have, I would attach to the six-foot vinyl fence that separates our property.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Sure. There we go.
[SPEAKER_09]: Okay.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Great.
[SPEAKER_09]: Thank you, Councilwoman.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, if we could make that a condition, I second the approval.
[Adam Knight]: I just need that paper back.
[Nate Merritt]: I guess my final question was, is there any estimated impact to the property assessments in the area based on doing this conversion? Is my assessment going to go up or down?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yeah, we can send that question up to the city.
[Nate Merritt]: It'd be nice to know informational-wise, but it's nothing I'm going to be opposed to. Nothing's a showstopper here.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Question the city assessor as to the effect of this change of use in the building. Will that have any effect on adjacent properties assessments? If we can send that to the assessor's office for an answer. So on the motion of approval by Councilor Knight, as seconded by Vice president Lungo-Koehn with the conditions Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, the locus street sidewalk had some repair on it over the last year, right at the corner. And it's in deplorable condition. Is that Brian, do you know if that's a city owned sidewalk or is that part of your, your land? It's a,
[SPEAKER_09]: Yes, Councilor, as far as the last time I talked to the building department, it did belong to the city.
[Michael Marks]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_09]: So they have access to, uh, I think some saw lines there.
[Michael Marks]: So, so that particular, uh, stretch of a sidewalk on Locust street, uh, coming around from Riverside F, uh, is in deplorable condition. It was dug up a few times for, I assume some road repair and some other projects. Uh, so I would ask that as a B paper, nothing to do with this paper. that the city go over there and repair the sidewalk. I think from what I hear from this new business, many of the people that may be traversing this particular area are going to be new to the area and that sidewalk definitely in the interest of public safety needs to be done over. Also, my question is to the new owners and they mentioned there's going to be one employee.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes. And my name is Shiva. Yeah, I'm keeping one employee. One employee. How many square feet are in that building? That one's 1,600.
[Michael Marks]: It's 1,600 on each floor. Each floor. So your plans are to occupy both floors with this here threading system?
[SPEAKER_04]: I'm going to keep first floor threading spa, and second floor I'm going to keep my corporate office.
[Michael Marks]: So, the trading spot will be on the first floor with one employee? Your one employee. And then the second floor will be your corporate office? Corporate office, that's it. Okay. Mr. President, I see no problem with this based on — I think that's a great suggestion — the entrance and exit sign, because clearly it's not delineated now. And when you go into the lot, there's parking in the back. And when cars go in both ways, it makes for a very complicated situation. So I would ask with those amendments that this be approved, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. So on the motion for approval by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Lungo-Koehn as amended with Councilor Mark's B paper. So we'll take the B paper first, Mr. Clerk. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. And on the main motion, we need a roll call vote on this.
[SPEAKER_13]: Councilor?
[Michael Marks]: Just living in the area, I happen to pick up on a lot of small stuff. The timing of the single lights at that particular location, I've asked a half a dozen times, coming down Riverside, going towards the Fellsway, the light may stay green for about five seconds, and then the Locust Street stays green for 30 seconds, which doesn't make any sense to me. And I think someone needs to, from our traffic department, needs to take a look at the signalization on those particular lights And that may be adding to the gentleman's concern of cars queuing up all the way, because they do queue up all the way back on Riverside.
[Fred Dello Russo]: As further amended by Councilor Marks for review of the timing of the signalization. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Falco? Councilor Knight? Yes. Vice President McBurn? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes, with a vote of seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Congratulations. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 16-319 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that the mayor begin talks with Bridgewell to continue the Heckner Center back into city property and with the possibility of turning the building into a home for our art community. It was turned over to Bridgewell for a $1.17 a year ago. and a seeing bridge wall no longer has use for the building should be turned back over to the city for the same amount. Chair recognizes councilor Caraviello. Uh, please be advised that Councilor is suffering from laryngitis.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, last week when this, uh, this was going to come to our council, he caught, he got dismissed and, um, attorney solicitor Romley gave me a little history of the property and after seeing the history of it, um, Seeing that Bridgewell bought this property from the city some years ago was turned over some of a dollar, and they haven't used it for many years, I think it's time that the city enter a negotiation into turning it back to the city. And I think the solicitor said that would be happening at some point, and with the hope of maybe giving this to the art community for their art center.
[Mark Rumley]: Well, that would certainly be a wonderful outcome of this scenario. The truth of the matter is that just recently, there was a, well, the history first. The history is that in 1991, the city of Medford crafted an RFP to sell the property to a nonprofit educational institution that assisted citizens who have mental retardation and other issues of that nature. As a result of that RFP process, the property, which is the field house at Gillis Park, was sold to an entity called the Hegner Center for $1. And in the deed, it said that the property had to continue to be used for nonprofit educational purposes. For various reasons that really are irrelevant to the discussion right now, Hegner Center became Bridgewell through a merger. And during 2015, Bridgewell entered into a purchase and sale agreement with the church to buy the property for a certain figure. They then advised the city of this prospective sale and asked if the city would agree to it. A number of things happened after that and that resolution or that scenario did not unfold. The last that I had heard is that the church is no longer interested in purchasing the property. In addition, the RFP process in the old file I had spent some time digging that up, and it was very clear what the original purposes were in 1991. So all I can say about Councilor Caraviello's resolution about negotiating with Bridgewell to get the property back, I think that that's a healthy suggestion. But keep in mind that negotiation means a lot of different things. Some people would say it means that the city should buy it back. Some people would say that if we buy it back, we should buy it back for no more than a dollar. And some people say we should, if we can't come to an agreement to buy it back at a level, uh, that minimal, that we should enter into, uh, other alternative means in order to get the property back, all of which involve court actions. So that's really the status right now. Uh, but the, uh, the idea that this could be quickly turned over to the arts community, uh, simply by, No, I don't think you're explaining to me that that wasn't going to happen overnight. Right. That would not happen overnight. But it's an admirable thought and admirable sentiment, however, certainly premature.
[Richard Caraviello]: But again, I would like, if we were able to get it back, to look into that for possibility of giving it to the Arts Center.
[Mark Rumley]: I have no doubt that Mayor Burke wants to, and not only with this particular endeavor, but with uh, so many other ways. She has her eye on the city to see what an appropriate home would be for the arts community. She made that a part of her, um, commitment, um, to the arts community and to the people of the city of Medford because of the beneficial, beneficial attributes of that particular endeavor. And I'm sure that she is going to continue to live up to that commitment.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Again, motion for, thank you. On motion for approval by councilor Caraviello, Good evening, sir. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penter. I live at Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass., former member of the Saugus party. I was on the Medford City Council on the year that this transfer did take place. It was a very emotionally impact situation at the time. Folks that had certain disabilities were very excited over the fact that this opportunity would present itself. But the fact of the matter is since the property has not been used, I believe for the last two years for the purposes so stated back in 1991, I believe, Mr. Solicitor, it would indicate that it possibly would revert back to the City of Method because of its non-use. And Bridgewell really has no opportunity to say to the City of Method, you have to buy it back from us to negotiate because, in fact, it was the Heckner Center. Whatever the agreement, the handshake was between the Heckner Center and Bridgewell, that came after the fact. It continued on, so to speak, as the educational nonprofit entity. But when they stopped using the property at that location, I believe, The council vote and the record will reflect that once it's no longer used for that purpose, it remains as a city of Medford piece of property.
[Mark Rumley]: May I?
[Robert Penta]: Sure.
[Mark Rumley]: In fact, the council was the president of the council when it was sold to the Heckner Center. Um, I would only say this. I know that, uh, uh, some people might think that the merger of one nonprofit into another is, is of some relevance here. It is not. Bridgewell stands in the, in the, in the shoes of what Heckner would have had. Also, the idea that we could simply say, you didn't use it for a nonprofit use for two years, so give it back to us, would assume that they would say, oh, yes, and here's the deed, thank you very much. Things don't happen quite that simply, nor does it happen with the snap of a finger or with the intentions that are built on historical fact. That requires legal action if there's resistance. Thank you, Mr. Solicitor.
[Robert Penta]: But I believe the legal action was predicated upon the city of Medford and the Hegner Center. And what they did after that became subsequent to the original intent of the council.
[Mark Rumley]: Bridgewell stands in the shoes of the Hegner Center as their successor corporation. The Hegner Center does not exist. Hegner Incorporated no longer exists. It was merged into Bridgewell, which had the exact same nonprofit purposes to serve citizens who are mentally retarded. and to help them in different endeavors. Bridgewell, the fact that there's Bridgewell and not Hegner is of no legal significance.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Thank you to both of you. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Just a question to the city solicitor while he's up here. I know we had a lengthy conversation regarding this paper that was on the agenda for last week. Has there been any dialogue with Bridgewell between Bridgewell and the city regarding what our intent is
[Mark Rumley]: Not in the last week. What's happened right now is this is the aftermath of the breakdown of the prospective sale. So in the last seven days, there has not been, well, I shouldn't say that, in the last five, there has not been any dialogue. I did speak with representatives of Bridgewell and the church towards the end of last week, but they are taking care of the issues that they need to take care of to unravel the contractual relationship that they had, which would have led to the sale of the property. And so it's a little bit early for anything else to have transpired.
[Michael Marks]: And I noticed too, that, uh, the new language, if this, uh, deal was to go through, uh, between Bridgewell and this, this church that, uh, now there's language in there requiring notification to the city. Um, if, if the property is no longer used for its intended purpose, is there, is there a reason why that wasn't done back in 1991?
[Mark Rumley]: I couldn't say I didn't draft that deed that was done with my predecessor, Mr. Bloomsack and that notification language that would have existed between the church and Bridgewell is now of a historical interest only it's moved.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So, so I guess my question is, and maybe you can't answer it, but the fact that Bridgewell relocated in November of 2013, uh, does that give them any more standing? The fact that the city hasn't approached them and two and a half years to say, Hey, wait, we believe that you are no longer using this to its original intent, and we would like to have the property deeded back to us.
[Mark Rumley]: Yes, but there's a fundamental fact that you have to acknowledge, which is this. The city was not aware that they didn't use it for that purpose for that time. They did not advise us of that until this past holiday season. there was no notification before. There was no requirement that they notify. They have, Bridgewell has said, uh, in writing that they have not used the property for that period of time. That's true. But the city was never on, uh, never had, uh, gone there in 2013 or 14 because we didn't know where they were, uh, where they were. I know that way.
[Michael Marks]: I know they're tax exempt because of their nonprofit status. That's correct. However, they still pay a water bill. I would assume. Yes. they still pay other outstanding liabilities on the property itself. Of course. Um, is it safe to say that they have paid their water bill for the last two and a half years?
[Mark Rumley]: I have not checked their water bill, but I don't think that it's in arrears.
[Michael Marks]: Okay.
[Mark Rumley]: Uh, we can certainly report on their water bill if that's your request.
[Michael Marks]: No, I, I'm just concerned that, uh, that people here at city hall didn't realize, uh, an establishment that's been in the city. for a number of years in a city-owned building at the time that was deeded over, didn't realize that after two and a half years, they were no longer operating in the city.
[Mark Rumley]: Well, I would say, you said a city-owned building. It hasn't been a city-owned building in 25 years. And in addition, there was no taxes that were required for them since they were a nonprofit, nor was there any requirement that they, on an annual basis, report into us. And also, it sounds a little nefarious to say that nobody here in City Hall knew. In fact, there was no bad intent. The ability of Bridgewell to serve the citizens that they were serving was expanding, and the Hegness Center location was no longer sufficient for them to carry out that particular mission. And when that occurred, they went to other places in order to carry out that mission with the citizens that they were serving. So the city didn't enter that building until Sometime at the beginning of this year and it was me who did it and at that time they were very upfront We haven't used this for these purposes for the last two years. So there's no been no sleight of hand No, no shell.
[Michael Marks]: I don't think it's a slight of hand, but and we've had this conversation I have a tough time as a member of the City Council knowing that this particular property was deeded over for a dollar. Yep for people with Intellectual disabilities. Yes, and they serviced a number of methods people for a number of years and done yeoman's work around the disabilities. However, some years later, I have a problem with the fact that they're no longer using that particular building for that purpose, trying to sell the building at $670,000, in which they paid $1 for, and in my opinion, which is below the assessed value on top of it, in my opinion, the city should have done a better job of safeguarding it's position on the property and it's no reflection. I know you weren't city solicitor at the time, but, uh, it's, I think someone at city hall here should have realized what was going on in the building, realized it wasn't being used for two and a half years and then maybe move towards land court or move towards negotiations with bridge. Well, to try to bring this back into the city coffers back into the city.
[Mark Rumley]: Three points. One, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't have to agree with it. Two, I'm not looking for agreement. I'm just giving my opinion. Then we should be all very happy. Two, the second part of it is that that deal for $670,000 is not going through. Three, in the last seven days, the city of Medford has not entered an action in land court, and there's various reasons for that. Not the least of which is, it's not time to do that. It's time to allow the relationship between Bridgewell and the church to unravel legally. And the actions that'll be taken in the future on this property by the city of Medford will be done either by negotiation or by judicial action, one of the two.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Thank you all. On the motion for approval by Councilor Caraviello, Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I was just going to ask on this topic, but on a side, how many buildings are there that we've deeded over, you know, and how do we keep control of them, you know, in the future? Maybe we should stay on topic. How many properties have we deeded over? For a dollar that have deed restrictions that we should be keeping up with.
[Fred Dello Russo]: There's one that I know of, Hagena 7. Okay, that's it. That's it.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: That's right.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. The motion for approval by Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor? Knight. Knight. All those in favor? motion passes please on the motion for suspension of the rules to take paper 1 6 3 2 5 1 6 3 2 5 out of order by council night all those in favor all those opposed motion carries 16-3 2 5 Request for expenditure from law department claims over $1,000, count number 10-151-5762, date March 18th, 2016, to the President and members of the Honorable Medford City Council, from Stephanie M. Burke, mayor, claiming name Frances Souza versus City of Medford, law department, file number 15-134. Date of accident, not applicable. Date of settlement, March 3rd, 2016. Date of trial resilience, not applicable. Amount of request, $2,637.71. Claimant's attorney, not applicable. Description of alleged claim. Claimant, Mrs. Frances Sousa of 150 Alston Street, Medford, Mass., seeks reimbursement for damages and expenses incurred due to the damage of her property as a result of a sewer backup into her basement on September 3rd, 2015. The Department of Public Works has confirmed that a blockage occurred in the sewers main that may have caused or contributed to sewage flowing into her home. The blockage was cleared by a city water and sewer department employees, Peter Kerger and Phil Santo. The necessary release has been obtained from the claimant breakdown of amount requested, medical cost zero, lost wages zero, property damage 2,637, and 71 cents, other zero. Total settlement, $2,637 and 71 cents. Motion for approval, we have before us the city solicitor.
[SPEAKER_13]: The motion for approval by Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Vice-President O'Connor? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes, with a vote of seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. On the motion of Council and I to revert back to the regular order of business, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries, 16-320. Offered by Councilor Caraviello, be it resolved that the Mayor take $100,000 from the $250,000 allocated in Resolution 15-186 and purchase single head meters to be placed on the main roads of the city's business districts. Councilor Caraviello, can you tell us first about motion number 16-320? Thank you, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: This is some money that was set aside by former Mayor McGlynn in order to help out the business districts with the parking. It was a one-time only allocation of funds, and it's been sitting there for a bit. Oh. I'm sorry? Now I know. Okay. Um, I saw that last week the mayor had, uh, has a motion to purchase, I think about 86, uh, single head meters to go around the city. Uh, it's, it's my proposal that we, we, we replace the kiosks with single head meters in all the, all the, all the main roads of the business districts throughout our city. And, uh, the purpose of doing this is I think everyone's biggest complaint that we hear of is, Kids too far away, I don't know how to operate them, various things. And I think by just replacing them with the basic meter will be, I think, a huge improvement to the whole area. If you go out and you look now, they sell a single meter that has two sides on it. So you don't have to buy two, we can get one that does two sides. And also some of the newer meters have a 15 minute free button on them. So again, I think it's something that people have been asking for in the community. It would be a relief to everybody. And then we can take some of the kiosks that we have and put them in different areas where they're a little spread apart, or in different populations, Mr. President. Very good measure, Councilor.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair recognizes Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: If I can, I appreciate Councilor Caraviello for bringing this forward. But I think that, direct me from wrong, but I think that from what I'm reading, There has to be some change in the discussions, that there's some changing going on. I'm sure there would have to be some discussion with Republicans. And I know that the hope is still out there to revisit the whole process.
[Richard Caraviello]: I would like to revisit the whole process also.
[George Scarpelli]: So I think we're all in agreement with that. But at the same time, I think doing this or voting for this resolution right now might put the cart in front of the horse and say, look, I'd like to instead maybe ask for a report
[Richard Caraviello]: Well, I know the mayor has met with them. I don't know what the, I don't know.
[George Scarpelli]: I know council, but I, I haven't, this is, this is what we're saying. They're talking about, you know, I'd like to know what the mayor, what's in place. I maybe, maybe it's a great, wonderful plan, but It seems like the transcript knows what's going on, but I really don't. So if we can, if we can get a report from the mayor and find out what we're really doing, because if we're going to, if the thought of the mayor's thought is to overhaul this and this is everybody's wish, that's great, but why put anything into it and do something twice? So that's, that's my only concern.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So as amended by council Scarpelli, that the mayor report to the city council as to her intentions on dealing with the parking program.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair recognizes Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. I also agree with Councilor Scarpelli. I think a report from the administration is a great idea, but what I would also like to see is with regard to this resolution, it'd be interesting to see, you know, how much, how much does a single meter cost? I mean, if we could get some cost figures from this city with regard to how much single meters cost, I mean, we have kiosks that we purchased. I mean, I mean, even though I might not like the kiosk program, maybe something that if we sell them back, can we, I mean, I hate the sense, uh, this money that should be going to the, each of the individual squares, it'd be nice to actually use it for something other than parking. And, um, so it would be nice if you can get some sort of cost estimates back from the city with regard to, um, if we could, how much the single head meters would cost. And, um, if the kiosks could be, I don't know, sold to another city, that's maybe using the site, same type of program. Um, I definitely would like to use the money for the purpose that it was originally planned for. So, um, if we could get those numbers back from the administration, that'd be great. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval offered by Councilor Caraviello, amended by Councilors Scarpelli and Falco, Madam Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. President Dello Russo, I think Councilor Falcook read my mind. Just a little more discussion needs to be had. My question was, how much is each single head meter? And my question along with that is, I know after 10 years we're going to own the meters, but as of right now, it's almost like we are leasing them. So, you know, when we are we selling these, would we be selling the machines that are out there now back to Republic? We'd own the single head meters. So I think this is just a number of calculations that need to be done, and I agree with Councilor Schiappelli, just to the whole conversation about the whole entire program, whether that's in the Committee of the Whole with the Mayor, just to see, you know, get her feedback, see where we're going with this and how we're going to improve it on multiple levels. And thank you to Councilor Caraviello for bringing the discussion forward, but I think a number of different things need to be discussed.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. President. Mr. President. Councilor Caraviello. About four weeks ago, we had asked for a discussion with Republic Parking and they have not come forward.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So maybe we should ask them again.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Do you want to continue, Madam Vice President?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: No, I think I was finished speaking. I think we should definitely have a committee meeting and get the mayor's input and see where she's going and get some facts and figures so we can know how this will impact the entire situation.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Awesome. Councilor, Chair recognizes Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. The last number I heard, if we were to go to meters and do away with the kiosk, was the city would have to put up about $800,000 to $1 million, because Councilor Lungo-Koehn is right. Over, I believe it's a 10-year span, we'll eventually own the kiosk. But at this point, we don't own the kiosk. So to revert back to meters, which, by the way, I wholeheartedly support, and I'm having deja vu, because back some Four or five years ago, the committee I sat on, that the mayor appointed, then Mayor McGlynn, our recommendation was to put meters on the street and kiosks in the parking lots. Now that was back four or five years ago, the recommendation, and the mayor at the time didn't like how meters looked on the streets, and he decided to go off and do kiosks altogether. So it would be helpful, I'd rather have a meeting than to get just a correspondence back from the mayor. I think it's appropriate that there's all these different transition committees out there going around, meeting with neighbors and the business district and everything else. And we have yet really to sit down with the mayor to discuss anything other than what the mayor wanted to present to us a couple of weeks ago. And that was it. It was a one-way conversation, which is not an effective way to communicate. But needless to say, Mr. Mayor, Mr. President, that... Needless to say, I think it would be more fruitful if we had a meeting to sit down with the mayor and discuss some of these issues. We've all been around, we've all listened to the businesses and the residents, and why not invite us to a meeting and say, hey, what are your thoughts? Rather than the mayor go off and do something on her own and then come back and say, Well, that's the direction the council gave me, similar to what Mike McGlynn did to us back a couple of years ago. You know, he tried to bring us in after the fact, after he made all the decisions, he tried to bring us in and say this is what the council was supportive of. So why not have a fresh new start with this new mayor and bring us in ahead of time and let us give some input and some suggestions. Chief Sacker was at meetings we had, this is going back some years ago, But I believe at the time, a double-headed meter, which was more cost effective, installed was about anywhere from $600 to $800 for a double-headed meter. And that was from Pacquiao or one of the particular larger vendors. And prices may have changed. I know technology has changed over the years. So $100,000 to do every meter in the city is far short of the mark. So I don't think $100,000 would be enough. And we'd also have to look at, the additional $800,000 to $1,000,000 to actually get out of the contract that we have right now with Republic. So I think it's a worthy suggestion. And I would ask, Mr. President, rather than a correspondence, that we have a meeting with the mayor to discuss parking in this city.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. And thank you to Councilor Caraviello for bringing this initiative forward. I can certainly understand why he's done it. The program's been in place now for a year, and we've made a lot of requests, and we've asked for a lot of different things, and we've seen some inaction. So I can certainly appreciate where he's coming from. However, I would agree with Councilor Marks that I think a meeting would be more beneficial, more productive, and quite frankly, get us all on the same page. So in looking at the matter that's before us this evening, Mr. President, I think it's safe to say that we're not going to have any consensus tonight, which is fine. So I would motion that the matter be referred to a committee of the whole between the administration for public parking in the council to do an annual review of the last year, the first year of implementation, and to discuss the pros and cons, the complaints that we've received, so on and so forth, and then maybe help shape a new plan going forward as to what's going to work best for Medford, Mr. President. So I would recommend that we go to subcommittee and concur with Councilor Markson and Councilor Lungo-Koehn on this matter. And I would make that a motion.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. As amended by Councilor Knight. On the motion, main motion for approval as amended by Councilors Scarpelli, Falco, Markson, Knight, Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. My intent was not to throw away the kiosks and give them back. My intent was just to do the main roads of the business districts and reposition those kiosks in different parts of the city, in different areas. I don't think anybody was buying them from us or taking them back. just to move them to different areas, maybe a little closer in some spots. And just put the meters on the main road of the business area. And I have no problem sending this to either committee of the whole or subcommittee for discussion, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: go ahead. I apologize. We had to clarify what was said. Please state your name, address for the record and welcome.
[Joyce Paul]: Thank you. Joyce Paul, a Mason street, Medford mass. And I just wanted to say, um, when we make a contract, when the city makes a contract, I'd like it to benefit the city. And this contract, I understand 65% of the money goes to a company that is in Tennessee. And to me, that doesn't sound like a really good deal. I think there must be somebody in Massachusetts that could, do the same thing. And I think we would, I'd like to, you know, look at benefiting us if that's what we're, if that's what the contract is for. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much.
[jCO6jvvXtn0_SPEAKER_03]: Good evening. Welcome. Please state your name and address for the record. Nick Tomazook, 29 Garfield left. Uh, maybe I missed it or what? What is this from the meters? Where's that money going to go to, to the city or to that parking Nazi? Or whatever, Republic is it? I'm sorry, I haven't really followed up on that contract. But who's the money going to go to from the meters? The parking company? And we have to pay for the meters? Are they absorbing any cost at all of the meters? Right, they're doing the enforcement. Now we have to provide them with the tools to enforce it? Well, that's what I was saying, is where's that money going to go to? If we're paying for the meters and then they're going to collect the money. Okay. That contract's been so messed up, but you know, things have changed and it seems like the city's pumping money into it and they're just sitting back and collecting the money. They had to improve the cameras because they couldn't see them. We'll pay for that. I mean, we're loading lots of money into this program that you're not getting a return on, that you should be getting. If you can't read a screen, the city shouldn't have to pay for the new screens. They should have to pay for the new screens. So if they want to change the screens next month, are we going to pay for it again? There's got to be a stop somewhere. You know, the buck's got to stop somewhere. And when you put these meters in, they're going to say, hey, we want all the money. And you're going to get your 35%. But you have to incur the cost of the meters. They should have to incur some kind of cost. If I go through a set of brick steps in your house, am I going to ask you to pay for the trowel, for the bucket, for the mortar, for the, you know, for the shovel? Yeah, but the thing of it is, is you're asking for the money to pay for the meters. Where's the money going to go from the meters? Are you only going to get a 35% return on it? Well, that's why I'm asking the question.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Vice President Longo-Curran.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President DeLaRusso. Nick, I think that's why we're asking for a committee the whole meeting, because your question makes complete sense. And I think that's where Council Fapo and Marks and I were coming from. You know, who's going to pay for these meters? Obviously, maybe the city would. would we get reimbursement for the meters that we gave back to them that are currently there now? I think that's all the questions that we need answered before we just go and buy single head meters. Because the contract would have to be changed, terms would have to be agreed upon, because obviously Mayor Burke is fiscally responsible and isn't going to give up funds that should be the city's.
[jCO6jvvXtn0_SPEAKER_03]: Because I saw the enforcement car.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you for that clarification, Madam Vice President.
[jCO6jvvXtn0_SPEAKER_03]: I saw the enforcement car. All they did was put a magnetic sign on the door. Thank you. That's not part of the enforcement. Good evening.
[Robert Cappucci]: Please state your name and address for the record. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, Rob Capucci, 71 Evans street. Uh, really brief in this meeting that's coming up, uh, possible, uh, question, uh, the meters we don't have to pay after six o'clock, but I've, I've noticed many times parking around the city. that I know there's signage for it, but the signs kind of blend into one another and a lot of people don't notice. And many times, I've been walking down the street or parking after six, and I see people pumping money into the meters at 6.15, 6.30, seven o'clock at night. If there was a way to perhaps make these meters either shut down or not take money after six o'clock, If that's possible with Republic in any meetings that you have, that would probably save a lot of citizens some money that they don't need to be paying after 6 o'clock. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much. Good evening, sir. Welcome. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Robert Penta]: Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, and I've been masked. I'm a member of this council. One of the things I think you really need to be concerned about is the annual report that just came out by Republic. They indicated that they did just a little bit over a million dollars. Their intention was to do about a million eight for their first year. Now they're blaming a bad winter, they're blaming the Kratik Bridge, they're blaming a whole host of other issues as to why they didn't receive that and generate the money. If that doesn't tell you that they're going to go on a very aggressive ticketing here in the city of Medford, something is going to tell you that, because they're not going to be out here not to make money. You know, the fact of the matter is that we only got $30,000 this year from them. I believe we're getting another $230,000 from fines and we're getting another $250,000. Um, on the, it's an annual payment. It's not a one time annual thing. It's $250,000 annually. That's supposed to go back to the cities and towns. So that probably only generated about $560,000 here to the city of Medford for this past year. But that included fines and that included the two 50. So the actual, Revenue was only $30,000 because they never even got anywheres near the million eight It wasn't supposed to be a revenue enhancer, but the present mayor calls it a revenue turnover I I don't know how it's a revenue turnover if it's not a revenue enhancer Because if you're turning over more cars allegedly people are going to take the spots and pay more money no matter how you look at it It's a revenue enhancer Councilor Marks. We can go back to 2009 when the report was submitted here which you and the chief and other members of this community served upon it, and you're right. The first thing was to have revenue traffic enforcement. And on the last page, the priority of the committee was to have single head meters or double head meters, you know, throughout the community. That was the easiest and common sense way for people to understand what they would have to pay for when they're parking. And we don't see that right now. And I think if you just continue to go on and you realize, that if you're going to change the contract, the contract is very specific as it states. If any changes to the kiosk take place, the city of Medford has to pay for that. So whether you buy these doublehead or singlehead meters, it's going to have to be negotiated. I know your city solicitor is here. It's going to have to be negotiated too. But the fact of the matter is, they didn't get anywhere near the $1 million that they were looking for. So you're going to probably see a very aggressive movement right now by Republic as it relates to this. Let me tell you an experience I had this afternoon. I was in Medford Square with one of the people from Republic, a gentleman who was very kind and very courteous. And he watched two particular people, one gentleman in particular, who parked his car maybe six cars away from the kiosk. He drove by, didn't even see the kiosk, and just went along his way. He was stopped, and he was told he had to put the money in the kiosk. He said he didn't even know. And if you have an SUV or other type of vehicle that's there, when you're driving by and you don't see it, and if you don't come from the city of Medford and you don't see it, You know, you're just going to be subject to that. And another one was, somebody just mentioned it, I think Mr. Capucci, if the screen is very light and you can't read it and you can't see it. I think it was you, Councilor Caraviello, who brought this up way back in January of 2015 as one of the first arguments that you had against Republic was the fact that the matter of these kiosks were very hard to read, especially when the sun is hitting on them. And if you're a senior citizen, it's making it even worse. There's a cost factor that the republic is going to have to address and it should not be on the city side. But I would, if in fact you have to go forward any further with this whole program for which I would be totally opposed to, I believe the meters would be a better way of representing common sense to a person having to park and having to put money in it. But more importantly, I think the city can find itself in a negotiating point as it relates to where they would want to go with this. Remember that $250,000. by Mayor McGlynn, former Mayor McGlynn, was very specific. It was to be used specifically for the business districts here in the city of Medford. And to use it for any other purpose for which would serve hopefully a better purpose for people in the business districts, I think that's gonna have to be a negotiated tool.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion approved by Councilor Caraviello as amended. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. 16-321 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that legislation House Bill 463 and Senate Bill 312 to provide early screening and appropriate instruction of students with dyslexia is supported by the Medford City Council. This legislation is supported by representatives Donato and Garbali. Nancy Duggan will say a few words in regards to this legislation. Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Sex here is a neurobiological condition and it starts in children and affects how they learn to write, read and write later on in life. Part of this bill is to provide early screening for these students. So this is found earlier in their lives. And I spoke to Nancy about it, I think she's here in the audience. And I think she'll clarify a little bit better.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Ma'am, please state your name and address for the record. Welcome.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hi, I'm Nancy Rasso-Duggan, and I'm from 36 Warren Street in Medford. I also represent a statewide group called Decoding Dyslexia. It's parents, neuroscientists, developmental pediatricians, speech and language therapists, and families who have a history of dyslexia and are trying to get this type of legislation passed. One of the benefits, as Councilor Caraviello mentioned, is that early screening is part of the legislation, and currently in Massachusetts we screen for vision and hearing and posture, and we didn't in the past have the ability to screen for dyslexia because it's somewhat of an invisible disability. But now the research and the information is out there through the great institutions in Massachusetts, like Children's Hospital and Massachusetts Institute of Technology has a brain and research center, and they've done a lot of research on this. It's a simple process. It's very easily done in less than 20 minutes. So the current legislation would really benefit probably about two students in every classroom that would have this disability. It's a very widespread disability. And so instead of the current model where we wait for kids, we recognize kids that are struggling to read, and by about second or third grade, we start to provide different interventions. Sometimes they even get interventions sooner, but not specific to the actual disability. So if we could screen when kids, they call it school onset, when kids come to school as we do for vision and for hearing and for posture, that would be a benefit to these students. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much, Nancy. Chair recognizes Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I support this a hundred percent. I have a family members. I have friends who have kids that have dyslexia and, uh, cannot even stress the importance of early detection. Um, you know, you hear, I know being on the school committee previously, you know, you talk to so many parents and, um, you know, real nightmare is when a child goes undiagnosed for And they get to the fourth grade, and all of a sudden, they find out the child has dyslexia. And to try to unravel that, get back to the point where you're starting to teach reading again in the fourth grade, that's really tough on the child, on the family. And so early detection is the key. And I support this 100%. I'm glad that Councilor Caraviello brought this before us tonight. And I support it. Thank you. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Excellent. Councilor Caraviello. Mr. President. I would ask that this be sent to Senator Jalen and Representative Barber for their support also.
[Fred Dello Russo]: As amended by Councilor Caffiello.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Yes, Mr. President, I do have one question through you to the sponsor of this resolution. Are House Bill 463 and Senate Bill 312 the exact same language? They're not. Can you explain the differences, Ms. Duggan, if you don't mind? And which version would your organization prefer to see? What do you think would be the best fit for Massachusetts and Medford?
[SPEAKER_00]: Currently, the two bills are in the, it's a joint committee, so there's a Senate bill and a House bill, and the House bill is specific to screening, early screening, and it would coincide with, I think, Section, Chapter 57, Section 71 or something, the same law that does the screening for hearing and vision, basically. The Senate side has some more detailed description. It actually suggests that we accept the scientific definition of dyslexia, which we also would support that. They would like us to use the International Dyslexia Association's definition or the National Institute of Health's definition. They're both the same definition. It seems obvious that there would be a scientific definition, but they're recommending that it be part of the legislation. The Senate also has the interventions. They're more specific and more detailed about how to do the interventions. So we would also support that. But my understanding is that if it comes out of the committee, it will come out revised. Because there was a hearing, there was a public hearing, and there's been quite a bit of professional testimony from those researchers at MIT and Boston Children's and different places. So my understanding is they'll come out as sort of a combined dyslexia legislation.
[Adam Knight]: And, Mr. President, through you to the Speaker, Mr. President, what goes into a screening? How long does the process take? I mean, I think we're all familiar when, you know, we went down to the Brooks School and they made us look through those glasses and follow the apple around or raise your left hand and your right hand when you heard the beeps and stand up against the wall in gym class when they checked your spine. What goes into – do they still do that? I'm sorry, physical education. My father's yelling at the TV right now as he's sitting at home. But if you could explain maybe a little bit as to what goes into the process.
[SPEAKER_00]: would be done, like right now, as this gentleman referenced, we do discover or find them by third grade. The screening is very similar, except for instead of doing it in third grade, we have discovered that there are certain activities that you can do at age five that are just as accurate. In fact, they may be even more accurate because the child hasn't already learned some other things and they can find them. So typically in schools, You do like a kindergarten screening. And some of the activities like rhyming, letter knowledge, and something called rapid automatized naming, which are very simply done in about 20 minutes. The study from MIT. was done throughout Massachusetts. And in fact, I think some schools in Medford participated in the study, where MIT professionals helped teachers use the normal tools that they would use anyway. In other words, most schools already understand how to measure something called phonemic awareness or rapid automatized naming. And they were just made aware of if you do this at age five. and it hits a certain criteria, then we know with 87 percent accuracy that that child will fail to read by third grade. It was 87 percent accurate in about 20 minutes. So you could predict in this long term, it was a five-year study funded by the National Institute of Health, and they were very surprised at how accurate and how simple the study was. So that's what they're proposing.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I don't think you can argue with those numbers. That's for sure. Um, I'm in full support of this resolution and, uh, I would move approval on the motion for approval. Chair recognizes Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. And, uh, I know her as Nancy Razzo. So, uh, Nancy, um, are there currently any districts and school districts in Massachusetts that are doing the early screening?
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm not one of the researchers, but there were either 129 or 159 schools that participated in the original study. And it's my understanding that even though the study was over, they were all like, this is awesome, and we're going to do this. I believe that Carver, Mass, and the town of Weston recently has already said, well, we're going to adopt this anyway. But I don't have a poll of every single town. Oh, in Amherst, actually, Amherst, Massachusetts, they also, I think, have a screening protocol.
[Michael Marks]: Based on the statistics, I think it might be worthwhile for us to send also, in addition to supporting both the House and Senate bill, something to the school committee, as well as the superintendent of schools, to have them look into it. Because I think your numbers do bear out. If I could just ask, the House bill and the Senate bill, How long have they been filed with the state legislature? How many years?
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, it's a two-year session. So we started to lobby in 2013. Like I said, we're a collaboration with some experts and researchers. And they just entered, I guess, last January, the cycle. I'm not a lobbyist, so I hope I'm saying this correctly. But in January, they entered the legislation. In June, June 17th, we had the hearing. Now it's been in the committee, and there's some discussion of how to word it and how to get it to come together. And it's been extended. So usually there's a rule in Massachusetts where it would have been reported out already, but it has until June 3rd to report out because they're trying to get the language precise. One of the other things that I didn't mention is that we're hoping it will come out, it is not in the legislation now, but we are hoping that they will come out with a task force so that these researchers and experts and families could talk with educators and decide what the plan of action would be so they'd be like a handbook or some guide so you wouldn't just say, Okay, everybody screen and not really have. And I think that's what the delay is to make sure that we equip our educators, not only with the information about that screening's effective, but how to do it and how to be supported so that they can go forward.
[Michael Marks]: Do you know if the bill includes any type of funding, state funding?
[SPEAKER_00]: It does not, because, well, maybe they'll come up with something, but theoretically, it doesn't cost anything to accept the definition. The screening tools most schools would have anyway, and it would just be an education factor of getting everybody on board, so there'd probably be some kind of time, so they would give time to the schools to figure out how they're going to do the screening. For instance, in one school you might use something called the Gold Star Kindergarten Screening, which does include phonemic awareness and RAN. And another school might buy something called AIMSwebs, you know, because different districts have their own way to screen their kindergartners. And so they would just have to have time to figure out, you know, which screening tool are we using and who's going to be responsible? Is it the kindergarten teachers or the first grade teachers?
[Michael Marks]: And do you know if it covers both parochial schools as well with private schools?
[SPEAKER_00]: That, I think it's a public school situation. I know that with most disability rights issues, private schools usually follow suit if they can. They would because they usually follow the ADA laws and IDEA laws. because you have equal access. Once it's accepted as a disability, and it is a disability under IDEA, it's really just an awareness. If people understood how effective this screening is and it's new, theoretically, we already have the obligation to do that under the Federal Child Find Act. We're just informing people that there's a better, more effective, newer way to find them. And instead of finding them in third or fourth grade, we can find them in kindergarten. So that law sort of already exists. This just brings awareness.
[Michael Marks]: That's great. Thanks for your time. Mr. President, if we could just amend it to send that communication to the school committee as well as the superintendent of schools.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Caraviello with the second for approval by Councilor Knight as amended. Chair recognizes Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. Just two quick questions, if you don't mind. Does this, I think the first has been answered, this mandates that every kindergartner be screened, not just those who may, the teachers may feel are at risk?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, it would screen every kindergartner.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And would they be screened by the kids?
[SPEAKER_00]: Our first grade, because some kids don't come to school until first grade.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And then would they be screened by their actual teacher, or does it have to be somebody with a certification?
[SPEAKER_00]: It's really up to the district. They found in the studies that you could train paraprofessionals, you could train the teachers. It's not a very long or intense training, and most teachers, actually, once they were told this is what you are going to do, would be like, oh, OK, we could do that. It's not that difficult.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. No, I appreciate all your hard work on it. And me, as a parent, I think it's It's great to get the children tested in kindergarten before it's, you know, they're later in life, second, third, fourth grade and struggling. So, um, thank you. Councilor Caraviello for bringing this forward and I second the approval on the motion for approved by council.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Can't be all seconded by council night. All those in favor as amended. All those posts 16-three 27 off by council scout Pelly be resolved that the mayor's office and the health department report back to the city council outlining the guidelines on the free structure for portal parties for the city of Medford youth organizations. Uh, council Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, I received numerous phone calls and emails and, uh, um, stopped the, uh, last Tuesday evening after the park board meeting and, uh, our youth organizations, I believe we're just informed that not only are they to rent quarter parties at our public parks, but now have to pay a, fee of $25 per port-a-potty per month, which is unheard of. So I've done some research in neighboring communities, and we're pretty fortunate in Medford that our youth organizations pick up the tap on the port-a-potties that are used, not just through the days and times of use through the organizations, but also throughout the whole summer and spring. My question, my concerns that were brought forward were why are we paying? Why do they need to have to pay the fee if it's looked at as a private organization and that's under the rules and regulations of the health department? And if not, then maybe we should meet with the powers to be above the park board in trying to figure out a way of aiding our youth organizations. One of the biggest issues that we're hearing is the lack of numbers in some of our youth sports, and maybe because of crude costs. And with this, it might sound like piddles, but if you keep adding on to it, we're going to, We're going to have to raise fees in which raising fees is going to now take our kids off the fields. So I find it really bothersome and I'd like to know how this falls into the structure of rules and regulations in the health department. And then if there are issues moving forward. We need to sit with the park board and try to figure out something that will assist our youth organizations, whether it's waivers or assisting in fees with the porter parties. And I've had one call said that, well, if it's going to be ours, we're going to put a chain around it. And that brings another issue, because when people try to lock up porter parties, that just invites destruction. And that's not a pretty sight. I know that in my profession, we oversee all of our parks and all of the porta-potties are paid through through the DPW and it's open to the community. So that's if we can. ask for that report and get some answers back because, uh, as a season comes upon us with a lot of questions.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So thank you. Councilor on the motion for approval by Councilor, uh, Scarpelli, Councilor Falco. I'll I'll wait. Hi, please state your name and address for the record, man.
[SPEAKER_19]: Katie Martin, 20 Sagamore Avenue, Medford mess. Um, I am the president of Medford youth soccer. We're the largest youth sports organization in the city. We have, approximately 700 children participating in our soccer program this upcoming season. And I just would like to address the overall issue of the burden of having to provide sanitation facilities in our public parks. We budget about $4,000 a year, so that's money that is taken away from the children's program and is directed into providing what probably is a basic service that should be provided by the city. The additional burden of the permits being put upon us is also substantial as we provide, you know, four months of pot, four months worth of the season with potties in five different parks. So, um, I'd like to just bring this up as a point of consideration as to why the youth sports organizations in the city are fielding the tab for potties. In addition to the unsanitary situations that it creates and the potential for fines for those that are older than six that are using the trees for facilities. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you, ma'am. Chair recognizes Councilor Knight. Yes, Mr. President, I'd like to amend the paper to request what the permitting process is as well. Especially since last week, a pot of potty popped up in front of my house on High Street on the sidewalk. And also, Mr. President, I'd like to see what the fee structure is, not only for youth organizations, but for anybody that would like to receive a permit to put a protoparty on a parcel. Very good.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The motion for approval and amended by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Knight, and as amended by Councilor Knight, Chair recognizes Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. I too have received phone calls about this. He was asked questions on Saturday when he took my son to Little League tryouts. And I got the same type of figure little league had told me that they basically spent $6,000 on port-a-potties, um, for the, for the various seasons that they played baseball at the parks. And, uh, to me it's a bit exorbitant. Um, and you know, the city, it'd be nice to actually see if we could do some sort of, you know, if the leaks can't do cost sharing or something like that, it'd be nice to maybe see if we can do, the city should, in my opinion, the city should be providing the port-a-potties and, uh, basically the city should, If we could actually have, and I'm not sure if it would be the parks department, if we could actually have them do a cost analysis to see how much it would cost for a year, or for the time period where the parks are in use, just do a cost analysis to see how much it's gonna cost to put a porta potty at each of the parks that are in use. And it's something that the city should provide. To me, it doesn't make sense if you're increasing the cost to play soccer in Little League, because, you know, you have thousands of dollars of port-a-potty costs. So, I definitely think this is something that should be looked at. If we could actually have the city do a cost analysis to see how much it would cost to have a port-a-potty at each of the parks, that would be great.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So, thank you. Thank you, Councilor. So on the motion of approval by Councilor Scarpelli, as seconded by Councilor Knight, and as amended by both Councilors, the Chair recognizes Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I'm wondering who pays for the portal party up at the high school. Does anyone know who pays for the one in the field of dreams?
[Fred Dello Russo]: So the school pays for that one up there.
[Michael Marks]: No, but it's right. I agree with the comments that were made, Mr. President, that with the user fees going up in this community, that's just a basic amenity. If they're not provided, then you're going to have the option of what else do you do? And the alternative isn't a great alternative. So I think it's worthy of the city looking into it. And possibly, I'm not sure how they do it in other communities, if it is so expensive, and that seems very expensive, That may be a service we can provide in-house. You know, I'm not sure in a city this size with the number of parks we have, it may be worthwhile to check into that and see if that's a service DPW can do on behalf of the community, Mr. President. And, you know, it's definitely worth looking into. And I thank Councilor Scarpelli for bringing this up.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. 16-322, offered by Councilor Falco. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council send its sincere condolences to the family of Stacey K. Kirkpatrick on her recent passing. Stacey was born and raised in Dallas, Texas and lived in Medford for over 20 years. She was a nurse practitioner at the Boston Healthcare for the Homeless Program and raised over $60,000 as an eight time rider in the pan mass challenge. Uh, if there's no objections, we have another condolence here too. Offered by Councilors, Caraviello and Dello Russo be resolved at the Medford city council office and say condolences to the family of Brendan Daddario on the occasion of his recent passing. Uh, so the chair recognizes council Falco speak on Mrs. Kirkpatrick.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, Stacey and her wife Karen were neighbors of mine. And Stacey was an inspiration to all of us. She didn't only beat cancer once, she beat cancer twice. And she became a nurse practitioner. Like you said earlier, she rode in the PMC Challenge, I believe, eight times, which is a remarkable accomplishment. She went to Haiti to help out after the earthquake. She was just a remarkable woman. And I was talking to her friend, Joan Sear, earlier tonight. And she basically hit it on the head that Medford has lost a shining light of hope and resilience. And my thoughts and prayers go out to the family.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So thank you. Thank you, Councilor. And if you would all join us for a moment of silence.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you. If I may, on this not good day, Osher, we should take a moment to say a prayer, if you'd like, for what happened in Brussels, Belgium. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Petitions, presentations, and similar matters. 16-323, petition for common official's license by Jeffrey B. Chen, president for Two Chins Restaurant, Incorporated, doing business as Maylings, 434A, Salem Street, Medford, Mass. On file business certificate number 60, building department, fire department, police, traffic, impact, health department, treasurer, letter of compliance, tax identification, workman's comp, Certificate of organization and petition all approved. Chair recognizes Councilor Caraviello. Chairman of the Licensing Committee, full recommendation.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I have reviewed the papers and they appear to be in order. And they are, are you just changing ownership from your old mailings to? Hi, please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_17]: Yes, Councilors. Good evening. Margaret Sue, attorney for Two Shins Restaurant, Inc. I have here today the owner, Jeffrey B. Chen. And he is going to be mainly changing ownership of the business.
[Richard Caraviello]: Very good. Mr. President, my only question is, this is a new business. The hours of operation are 7 a.m. to 12 a.m. on Friday and Saturday and Sunday, 7 a.m. to 1 a.m. Do these carry over from the old business? Mr. Clark? Everything appears to be in order, and I hope you do the same good job that Mayling's has done for many years in this community.
[SPEAKER_17]: As a matter of fact, actually, Mr. Chen is actually a family friend of the previous owner, Michelle, and that's, it's going to be
[Richard Caraviello]: basically keeping it kind of in the family because she's, you know, has it been a staple in that area and it is, and I hope they continue the good work.
[SPEAKER_17]: Yes, that's, that's exactly the intent.
[Adam Knight]: Very good. So on the motion for approval by Councilor Caraviello, Councilor Knight. Yes, Mr. President, Councilor Caraviello took the words right out of my mouth. I know that Mei-Ling's has been open late night for a very long time and I wanted to be sure that they were allowed to continue to do so because I may, once in a while, pop in there after 11 o'clock at night to get a little bite to eat. So I wish you all the best of luck. So you have my support on this matter and thank you very much for appearing this evening.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Very good. On the motion for approval by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Good luck. 16-324, petition by Jean Martin, 10 Cumming Street, Metro Massachusetts, to address the council about police and fire departments. Ms. Martin, please state your name and address for the record. Welcome.
[Jeanne Martin]: Thank you. Jean Martin, 10 Cumming Street. I was wrong a couple of weeks ago when I backslid on mandating a new public safety building for this city. I remember saying to myself and saying to you, there's not an appetite in this for this city. You know what? Doesn't matter whether there's an appetite in this city, it has to happen. The reason is because Mayor Burke has made a few small gestures in the right direction toward open government. And so in response to this good faith effort on her part, I essentially gave her a pass on building out the public safety building. I was wrong and felt guilty later that night. She needs to be able to do both simultaneously, open up government and make it transparent but she also needs to address the new police building. She cannot claim ignorance to both matters as essential to the running of this city, but she is not the only one. This city is also willfully ignoring the needs of our police department. And if the people are in a state of collective denial, then it is my job to hold the citizenry accountable as well. Not only do the local police have to save people from themselves and others in its traditional role, they are being asked to become the front line for domestic terrorism, and we need to adjust and prepare our men and women in public safety to be ready for this new demand on them. Today, in Brussels, terrorists once again sent fear throughout Europe, killing 34 and wounding 28 others. And that was an early estimate. The target was near the headquarters of the European Union. Boston is also a symbolic city, in case you were wondering. They bombed an airport and a subway. What does Boston have? An airport and a subway. Less than one year ago, on July 17, 2015, the local police, the local police, took down the domestic terrorist who shot up a recruiting station at Chattanooga, Tennessee. and went on to kill four Marines and wounded three others at a naval training station. It was the local police who stopped the shooter. We have a recruiting station in Medford Square. Why do we think we're immune? Also on November 13, 2015, terrorists attacked several sites simultaneously in Paris, killing 128 and wounding countless others. It was, again, the local police the local police who killed the attackers. And on December 2, 2015, domestic terrorists opened fire on innocent people in their workplace, killing 14 and injuring 22 others in San Bernardino, California. If that's not enough, I will hit you where you live. While the following statistic includes school buses, college campuses, and suicides on school property, In 2015 alone, there were 52 school shootings resulting in 30 deaths and 53 others injured. Why do we think we're immune? They're getting so commonplace, they don't even report them anymore. The problem isn't the public safety professionals, it's the public, period. With absolute clarity, I can tell you that sooner rather than later, there will be a group of well-intentioned, genuine people who will want to spend money on renovating the library or building a new high school or, no offense, an art center. And the sad part is that they have a better chance at seeing their want list checked off before a new public safety station is built. Most people's experience with the police is either watching them on a detail, standing in the street, or getting pulled over for a traffic stop. But I assure you that they do a lot more than that today. And you better start appreciating them, or chaos will ensue. I am for police reform, and I believe it is in the best interest of both the police and us. The public included, including but not limited to, details, crowd control, toxic spills, fires, sensitivity training, overtime limits, relaxation techniques, school shootings, terrorist bomber threats, you name it. All of these come under the purview of the police department training. That's just a short list. But it all starts with the solid base of operations, which our police and fire do not have at this time in order to face the issues of 2016, when the building they are working out of was built in 1962. Mayor Burke, you no longer have a choice to look the other way on this. It is not a maybe. or a in seven years decision. It has to be made today. The plan has to be started today in order for it to be up and running in three years. To the people of Medford, the mayor takes her cue from you, and you stand silent to this. You are just as much to blame. These men and women aren't there for the fun of it. They are there in that building to carry out your protection. While it is an ugly topic, it is not one that can be avoided anymore. We need to send everyone in this city to police empathy school. And yes, I do agree with our police and fire from time to time, and I disagree with our police and fire from time to time, and will continue to do so. They're not always right either. The two values can and do sit side by side for me. We need to give them all the right tools for the job and teach them better skill sets to manage today's problems. They are not exclusive of one another. I can assure you today, this city has let me down and let the police down horribly, and it continues to do so. Ask yourselves, why don't I care about the people who swear to run into danger when I am too chicken and run out. Why? Because it impacts your desires to build a park, school, recreation building, or renovate some other interest you have. You don't see it as selfishness. You couch it in some good-for-all construct that helps you rationalize your goals over that of the entire city. And make no mistake, I don't do this for the police department. I do this for the betterment of the entire city. While I am calling out the mayor for negligence in making this a priority, I am also calling out my fellow citizens for selfishness above and beyond recklessness. The police are there for you, and they don't ask you for your insurance card before administering Narcan to your kid. They don't ask you while they are standing between you and your crazy ex, what is it you do for a living? The fire department is there for you when you are having a heart attack, and they don't say, wait, My kid's in Little League. I'll have to get to you later. They say now. I will be there right now. I will be there right now for you. It is our job to be there for them right now.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair recognizes Councilor Knight. Motion received and placed on file, Mr. President. On the motion for Councilor Knight to receive the paper and place it on file. All those in favor? Motion to suspend, Mr. President. On the motion for suspension of the rules by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? All those opposed?
[Adam Knight]: Earlier this evening the Subcommittee on Zoning and Ordinances met to discuss paper number 16309 at the request of Councilor Marks and the concurrence of this Council. This paper was before us last week and it was an amendment to the outdoor dining license. This amendment to the outdoor dining license clarified the improper interpretation of the legislative intent. It takes nothing out. Presently, this is a $25 fee, Mr. President, for an individual to apply for an outdoor dining license. The new language added to the ordinance would read, the provisions of this article shall be applicable and specifically limited to sidewalks and other property which is under the jurisdiction of the city. or any of its departments, notwithstanding the provisions of this article, all other laws, regulations, ordinances, and codes that pertain or relate to outdoor dining shall continue to be applicable and in full force in effect." So this change, Mr. President, based on the determination of the subcommittee with the advice and consent of the city solicitor, reported it out, indicating that all it did was clarify the legislative intent of the passage of the previous ordinance back in 2014. And the subcommittee reported it out favorably, Mr. President. As such, I would move for approval on the paper.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval on paper number 16-309, Amendment to the Outdoor Dining Ordinance. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. First reading.
[Clerk]: Councilor?
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for Councilor Caraviello to waive the three readings. All those in favor? Aye. Councilor Marks?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I would ask that my colleague withdraw the motion based on the fact that the three readings are in place to, first of all, require public notification, which the second reading is the printing of it in the local newspaper. And the third reading allows residents of this community to come up and speak on it and give input if necessary. So I would ask with all due respect That my council colleague remove that in the interest of transparency, Mr. President. The chair recognizes Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'm sorry, Madam Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. Councilman Lacks said it perfectly. I just believe that the three readings are necessary. It's something that a few of us councilors believe should be taking place, especially after what we've heard during election time and the need for transparency.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Caraviello has a motion on the floor to waive the three readings.
[Richard Caraviello]: I'll rescind my motion, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'm sorry? I will rescind my motion for Councilor Knights. I will rescind my motion for Councilor Knights. The motion of Councilor Caraviello for the suspension of the three readings is rescinded. Mr. President. Mr. Clerk, call the roll, please. Mr. President, if I could get a clarification. Councilor Knight, if you would.
[Adam Knight]: Can the clerk explain after the three readings I waived what the process is in terms of notification, so on and so forth?
[Clerk]: If the three readings are waived, it would then go to the, it would be an advertisement to the public.
[Adam Knight]: So the advertisement requirement still remains in place. However, the final reading at the meeting would be waived. Thank you very much.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval of the first reading by Councilor Knight, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Michael Marks]: The roll is called.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, I just want to thank my council colleague, Councilor Caraviello, for his understanding on that. Thank you, Councilor. The records show that Councilor Marks expressed his gratitude to Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Commit to the part of the paper. Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Calderon. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Vice President O'Connor. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Dello Russo?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. With a vote of seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. First reading passes. While we're under suspension, offered in council March 22nd, 2016 by Councilor Scarpelli, number 16-328, be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate Jay Campbell, for organizing a very successful Medford night at the Boston Celtics game last evening, March 21st. Over 900 Medford residents attended the game and raised over $11,000 for various Medford programs. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Well, thank you, Mr. President. This is a gentleman that everybody knows but nobody knows in Medford, Jay Campbell. I've known Jay for a few years, being a parent of the McGlynn School. Jay helped our PTG raise some money through a fundraising effort with the Boston Celtics. He realized how big it was and it started to grow. So he contacted the Celtics and Reached out to every organization that is a fundraising organization in the city. And everybody from, I know the Joey Lopez Foundation, all the PTGs, a few of the basketball programs in the city. And everybody jumped right in. And last night was an amazing evening. Jay's intent isn't just to raise money, but getting the whole community involved. I believe Dean Bruno was named the citizen of the game for the Celtics for all of his efforts and what he's doing with his endeavors. And I believe almost every kid that was involved, every child that was involved, was part of the game, whether they played on the court, I know the Mephiti boys played the Mephiti girls team. I believe the girls won by 66 points, John. And high fives to the kids and the players. But it was something that, I forget about the money that was raised, but what a community event. It was nice to see when you're walking through the venue like the Boston Garden and seeing everybody so happy and involved. So I just want to thank Jay publicly. for everything he did. I know that's thankless, and it's, you know, he does it out of the goodness of his own heart. So, thank you, Jay. Thank you, Jay. Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to echo the sentiments of a colleague. Jay did a fabulous job organizing the event. All the kids were involved in something, and, you know, Jay doesn't get to watch any of the game. He literally runs around the garden the whole night trying to get the kids into position as to where they need to go, if they're playing or if they're giving players high fives and whatnot. Congratulations to Jay on a job well done.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion approved by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. While we're on to suspension, meeting notice. Tomorrow night is the last meeting of the Mayor Burke Economic and Business Development Committee, subcommittee for the transition meeting in South Medford at the Arthur W. So, the Arthur W. Russell Community Center at Engine 5, 6 to 8 p.m., Economic and Business Subcommittee on South Metro. While we're under suspension, Councilor Marks has this to offer. Be it resolved that the city report back on the number of outstanding common vitual licenses citywide. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: It was brought to my attention that the Board of Health, prior to approving the common vigilance license is requesting on-site visits to many establishments, of which many establishments are doing business without their common vigilance licenses. And this seems to be a change over previous years. So I would just ask that we get a report back from someone in the administration, maybe Karen Rose or someone else regarding why this is a new process that's taken place and what is holding up the on-site visits for some of these business establishments.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. So we'll send that to the Mayor's office to be disseminated where it needs to go. On the motion approved by Councilman Marks, Councilor Caraviello. Okay. On that motion, all those in favor? Aye. All those against? Carried. Chair recognizes councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. President, while we're on the suspension, 16094 in our package this week, we got back an answer from Republic Parking on amendment B and amendment C. It says C attached. I don't see anything attached there. What are you referring to, councilor? 16094, some questions we asked of Republic Parking. And they gave us an answer here. But it says C attached on letter B and letter C, and I don't see any attached.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Oh, yes. What is your motion then, Councilor?
[Richard Caraviello]: I'm looking for the attachments.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Be it resolved by Councilor Caraviello that the response from Republic Parking be re-sent to us with the attachments. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. On the motion of council, Vice President Long of Kern to revert back to the regular order of business. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. 16-326, petition by Robert M. Penta, Zero, Summit Road, Medford, Mass, to address the City Council regarding Republic parking issues. Good evening, sir. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Robert Penta]: Robert Pentz, Zero Summit Road, Medford Mass, former colleague of this August body. On January 29th of this past year, Republic met with the mayor of this community as it relates to certain parking issues that have been going on. But I would just like to revert back to July 23rd of 2015, when the local press, the mayor at that time who was running, had sent in a press release indicating that there were 12 things that she would like to see take place as it relates to Republic. And the request at that time was to have it done immediately, not in January. And we're still waiting. But she updated that on August 23rd of this past year. And what she updated, strike that, on August 30th of this past year. And what she updated was another press release. And she also sent out a survey to the peoples of this community. And the survey was particular, in one particular area. Question number one, would you be supportive of exempting senior citizens from having to pay to park in the city of Medford? I believe our seniors should not have to encounter any frustration in their daily lives. And that's part of the base commentary. And on the second page of the survey, there were four questions, and the very first one was, do you think senior citizens should be exempt from paying or parking at kiosks and meters? And I believe it was October 23rd, and the debate that we had She publicly announced, once again, seniors should not have to pay, and she was making that a priority. This is now September 20th, I mean, strike that, March 23rd. This is a huge issue, because no matter where I go walking around this city, and I'm quite sure members of this council have heard the same thing, you know, the seniors of this community believe that they're going to be entitled to this discount. It was a campaign issue. It was a campaign promise. It was a campaign press release. It was a double-headed story. And it was a survey they went out. I believe, in all honesty, if you're going to make promises such as this, you need to honor them. If not, have a discussion as to why not. I don't think this council has had any discussion with the mayor and with Republic as it relates to any of the 12 issues that were reported on July 23rd in the local paper and on August 30th, as was presented by then-candidate Mayor Burke, as she is now, Mayor Burke. I just think it's too important of an issue, Mr. President.
[Adam Knight]: Point of information, Councilor Knight. With all due respect to the speaker, this council hasn't had its own questions answered, never mind those that were made in campaign promises, Councilor Penta. So I can certainly appreciate where you're coming from.
[Robert Penta]: I'm just alluding to the fact that this is what I'm hearing more and more as I'm walking the streets. Give the mayor an opportunity sometime, I have no problem with that. But the fact of the matter is there's nothing on the table that even talks about it. That was the number one question in the survey. It was the number one comment. and the press release. And when you lead with something like that, and you're leading people to believe that this is what it's about, and thinking there's a rainy day that's going to go away with some sunshine for seniors, we don't even know if it's going to be 55, 62, 65. I don't know what the number is, but whatever it is, so be it. It's for the senior citizens of this community. And with that being said, I would hope one member of the council, if not the council in general, would basically make the request of the mayor, if in fact she is going to honor that pledge, of granting senior citizens a discount. And when you people have your meeting with her, that as well as the other 12 things that were outlined on July 23rd in the local press, which still haven't come to fruition, need to be addressed. You know, we all ran for politics. Some of us win, some of us lose. But you have to stand by what you're running on and the principles of what you're running on and the comments that you're talking about. And they just can't be there for the sake of being political and making political hay It's just appeasing the people that you're talking to. They've met January 29th. It's obvious that you guys have no idea, and ladies, no idea what took place on January 29th. You don't know what the discussions have been. It's obvious that something is going on that you're not aware of. Councilor Caraviello, I think the conversation that we had a few weeks ago, you haven't even gotten an update to the financial question that you asked. Part of the attachment that you never got, so they're just keeping you in limbo. whatever it might be, I would just hope, and I would ask one of my colleagues, one of my colleagues that are presently here, if they would put that in the form of a motion for a report to get an answer back on, because I think it's in all fairness to all the seniors in this community, it was a major campaign issue, and it still hasn't been addressed.
[Adam Knight]: Chair recognizes Councilor Knight. I found the request, Mr. President, to be a moot point earlier in this meeting. The council has requested to sit down with the mayor and the administration and Republic Parking to speak about the program and the direction that it's going in. So I think that this action has already been taken. It has. The chair determines that. So on the motion of council on night.
[Robert Penta]: Well, Mr. President, let me ask you a question. How could that be determined when that issue has not even been brought up? You've had other financial issues brought up, but you haven't had the issues of the senior citizen parking. It's separate and distinct unto itself.
[Adam Knight]: I believe that the, can the clerk please read back the amendments to the paper that were passed earlier this evening?
[Fred Dello Russo]: And the Senior Citizen Discount was part of a motion that was filed by this body unanimously within this term. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: I beg to disagree with you, Council President DelaRosa. There's nothing in the records that even reflect that. I'm making that as a public request right now to have that as part of the official agenda when you folks meet.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I'm offering away the motion. But this program of parking has many aspects, and I don't see the harm of asking.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Marks that this be part of the meeting that we have. All those in favor? All those opposed? Carries. The records of the meeting of March 15, 2016 were passed to Councilor Marks. Councilor Marks, how would you find those?
[Michael Marks]: I ask that they be tabled, Mr. President. I'm sorry? I'd like to table them.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On motion, Councilor Marks the table the marked 15th records. All those in favor? All those against? Records are tabled. On motion for adjournment by Vice President Lungo-Koehn. All those in favor? Oh, one more thing. One more thing. Citizen, please state your name and address for the record.
[Robert Cappucci]: Thank you, Mr. President. Welcome. Rob Capucci, 71 Evans Street and through the chair. Thank you, Councilor Knight. I was out to dinner the other night and a citizen sitting next to me has worked for the Lawrence Memorial Hospital for 23 years. And I know the gentleman who spoke before me, Councilor Penta, when he was on this body, he brought up the merger that never went through and such. But to be brief, this gentleman who worked for the Lawrence Memorial for 23 years has told me there's doctors that are leaving and that the hospital is up for sale. If this body could, unless you know already, find out for sure what's going on so that the citizens of Medford know what's going on with their local hospital, the urgent care, the emergency care there, if in any way one of you councillors could could possibly reach out to the current leadership of Hallmark and maybe have them come before this body to discuss it. That would be highly appreciated. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I would move that forward. I believe it's been- Could you give me some language? Give me some language.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Vice President Lungo-Koehn that the administration inquire with the hospital as to the status of its saleness or non-for-saleness.
[Michael Marks]: Council Max. And I just would like to recognize the last speaker, Mr. Capucci, just won the election as Republicans, uh, city committee person. And I think he deserves a great round of applause for his tireless efforts on the motion of council along the turn for approval.
[Fred Dello Russo]: All those in favor, all those on the motion for adjournment by council along the current, all those in favor of meeting adjourned.
|
total time: 18.31 minutes total words: 1501  |
total time: 5.17 minutes total words: 576  |
total time: 2.86 minutes total words: 270  |
total time: 4.0 minutes total words: 427  |
|
total time: 12.23 minutes total words: 868  |
total time: 5.23 minutes total words: 480  |
total time: 10.08 minutes total words: 524  |
total time: 5.92 minutes total words: 464  |
|
total time: 4.64 minutes total words: 485  |
total time: 2.22 minutes total words: 210  |
||