[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? Present. Councilor Knight? Present. Councilor Langley-Curran? Present. Councilor Marks? Present. Councilor Penta? Present.
[Paul Camuso]: President Camuso? Six members present, one absent. Please rise to salute our flag.
[Joe Viglione]: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands,
[Paul Camuso]: Paper 14-692, City of Medford notice of a public hearing. A public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council in the Howard F. Alden Memorial Auditorium, City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Mass., on Tuesday evening, October 28, 2014, at 7 p.m., on a petition from Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., for a special permit to amend its hours of operation in accordance with Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, Section 94-145B, to operate extended hours at its business at the Middle Glen Mall, Locust Street, Medford, Mass., on said site being located in an industrial zoning district. The proposed hours are 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., 24 hours per day on up to 10 days per year between Thanksgiving and Christmas Day to accommodate Black Friday and Christmas season shoppers. Petition and plan may be seen in the office of the city clerk, Medford City Hall, Medford Mass. Call 781-393-2501 for any accommodation slash aids. TDD 781-393-2516. The city of Medford is an EEO-AA-504 employer. For information, contact the city clerk, 781-393-2425 by order of the city council. Signed, Edward P. Finn, city clerk. Advertised in the Medford Daily Mercury, October 14th and October 21st, 2014. I will now open the part of the public hearing for people in favor of this petition. In favor.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: Name and address for the record, please. Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Council, my name is Robert Abruzzi. I'm an attorney with offices here in Medford at 92 High Street. I'm here on behalf of the petitioner, Coles, in support of this petition. With me also this evening is Ms. Serena Bierce, who is the district manager for Coles, the district she is in charge of, consists of a total of 12 stores, 11 of which are in Massachusetts, one in Southern New Hampshire. Obviously, one of these stores is the Medford location. So at Cole's other stores, they typically open for Black Friday and on several days, maybe as much as a week leading up to Christmas, up to and including Christmas Eve. Here in the city of Medford. You're in favor, sir? Yes.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. Just the public hearing, in favor and against at this point.
[SPEAKER_14]: I've already indicated. Do you want me to present the case at this point? We're going to have the public hearing. All right. And then you can present your case.
[Paul Camuso]: All right? Anyone else in favor? Seeing and hearing none, I now open up this portion of the public hearing for those in opposition. Opposition, seeing and hearing. Name and address for the record.
[MjGBHu28DvM_SPEAKER_08]: Hi, Bill Barabino. 3920 mystic valley parkway, suite 109. So my concern is I didn't, I got a letter a couple of years ago that they were extending the hours, I think in the morning. And I didn't come to the hearing, you know, but I knew that they, that's what they were doing. And at night, early in the morning, I get woken up and both my, my wife too. And so when I saw this, I felt that my obligation to take my time out of the day to, I appreciate Kohl's. I mean, I like Kohl's. I appreciate them trying to make a successful business. However, what you have is 109, which is right next to, essentially, the mall. And so I live there. I'm an attorney. I have an office there, the same office, 92 High Street. We both, I know I own and pay those taxes timely. That being said, my wife lives with me. She's a dentist. She has to drive from Medford to Lowell. And she has to do that every day, six days a week. Her parents live with us. One's 83 years old. He's in good health. The other one is my mother-in-law. She is 74. She's got heart problems. She doesn't sleep that well. She's been taken to Mass General a number of times. And we're fortunate where the fire department here is so quick to respond that we couldn't imagine going anywhere else when she has had to leave to go to Mass General, which has been several times over the last half decade. But given that we've had an increase in traffic, I think the last time they increased it, And it's cumbersome, not so much for me, but for my wife. And she's got to get up. She's doing surgery all day. And it's a big problem. And I just don't see how this is just going to disrupt our ability to have a nice sleep. Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: Anyone else in opposition? Opposition? Seeing and hearing none. Attorney Abruzzese.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman who just spoke. However, I would ask the, uh, the council to take note of the fact that the, the, uh, condominium building he's talking about is to the rear of the property. And, um, the activity would primarily be in the parking lot in front of, uh, in front of calls. We're talking about a total of, uh, not more than 10 days per year. Black Friday and perhaps five or six days leading up to Christmas. I think it's appropriate. Coles is indirectly a big taxpayer and everyone has a right. Obviously, there should not be any disturbance to the neighbors, but I think that the impact would be minimal in terms of the building, which is behind the shopping center. and not in the front parking lot. I know that Councilor Knight has spoken to me about having a police officer on duty for the Black Friday holiday, and the petitioner is certainly willing to go along with that. And I think it's appropriate. I would ask the Council's indulgence. And if there were to be any problems, we certainly could address them. I think that, you know, we're in a position where we want to try to support business as much as we can, and this is also a service to the local shoppers as well.
[Paul Camuso]: Chair recognizes Vice President Caraviello, and then Councilor Dello Russo, chairperson of licensing, for a recommendation. Zoning, I apologize. Councilor Knight. Councilor Knight. Zoning, and then Councilor Dello Russo.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I've reviewed the paperwork, and I find everything to be in order. I've had conversations with Attorney Abruzzi and also with Ms. Pierce relative to requiring a police detail, especially for the Black Friday night. And they've been willing to accommodate that, Mr. President. So I'd be willing to move for approval, provided that we amend the paper to require a police detail on Black Friday. And I think that it might be a good idea to have a 90-day review, whereas this is an open-ended allowance.
[Paul Camuso]: On the motion of approval as amended, Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, I want a second approval and with the amendment that this permission for hours be restricted to Coles and not to the location.
[Paul Camuso]: On the motion that this stays with that particular portion of the Meadow Glen Mall, known as Kohl's. Kohl's. Exactly, known as Kohl's. So if it changes eventually, this no longer goes with a new business that may be there. On the motion as amended, Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Camuso. Mr. Bruce, Attorney Bruce, when you say 10 days, they specified which days?
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: They, well, it would be The expectation is probably four or five days, actually, leading up to Christmas Eve. I've put a limit not to exceed 10 days, depending upon what day of the week Christmas falls on. In some years, it may be, you know, maybe a full week prior to Christmas. This particular year, Christmas, I believe this year is on a — I believe it's on a Thursday, so we're probably only talking four days this year. And it would be appropriate, I think, for the council to require that when the particular days are determined that Coles notifies the city clerks so that you have a record of which particular days or notify the police department. A condition like that might be appropriate.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, my concern would actually be with the police department. We've met with the chief of police. Oh, geez. I believe that was the end of September. Chief of Police was before the council. I'm not sure exactly when he said it, but he said one of the biggest callers to the police department with regards to retail stores is Kohl's. And I think that's good with the fact that Kohl's is proactive trying to catch, you know, shoplifters, but it also takes a lot of time from the police officer's daily business. I would make that a requirement. If you only need the five days, maybe you could just I think 10 is a little excessive between Thanksgiving and Christmas. But I think the chief of police definitely needs to be notified two weeks in advance of which days Kohl's is going to be open 24 hours so that he can prep the department and make sure there's enough officers. I like the idea of a police detail, especially on Black Friday. I don't know if that's something that the council believes maybe should be all four days. But that's just my concern. And you also have neighbors that are complaining about the possible noise, while crime is something that you definitely don't want to wake up to in the middle of the night. So I would recommend that the chief of police have to be notified of the days, the possible days that the colds will be open for 24 hours.
[Paul Camuso]: On the motion as amended, Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: I'd like to ask the gentleman to come back up. You indicated that there was — the noise was a disturbance?
[MjGBHu28DvM_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, and I'm glad — thank you for letting me come back, because the noises wouldn't come from the — I don't think I'd have any problem with the people coming into the store, that area. What happens is you have the — what I assume to be third-party contractor vendors delivering stuff. So that's the concern. So when they back in, first of all, they make the beeping sound, which just, and then there's a long corridor there in back of poles, and it just sort of echoes into the whole thing. So once you hear it, I mean, you know it's a truck and it's clear what it is, but it's only that's my concern. So I don't know, was that your question? I'm sorry.
[Robert Penta]: My question, I guess it runs along that with Councilor Langel-Curran relative to it. the 10 days being undetermined, but more importantly, um, this idea of being open from 11 at night to seven in the morning, which would allow them to have a 24 hour operation for up to 10 days. Is that correct? So could we put it also further stipulation that no deliveries take place during that period of time? If this is just for shopping and shopping alone, then I'm okay. But if deliveries are going to be an issue and if that's an issue, If I'm understanding you.
[MjGBHu28DvM_SPEAKER_08]: If there was no deliveries, that would solve my concerns, probably in full.
[Paul Camuso]: Can you address the microphone, sir? I just saw.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: Are you saying that on occasion there have been deliveries prior to 7 in the morning?
[MjGBHu28DvM_SPEAKER_08]: I'm not saying it's calls. I mean, there's a whole host of stores, so I don't want to put calls on them.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: We don't have any problem stipulating that there'll be no deliveries before 7 a.m.
[Robert Penta]: No, between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: Right, prior to 7 a.m. Not a problem.
[Paul Camuso]: On the motion as amended, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I agree with the restriction on delivery. I think that's a wise move. Also, where the gentleman stated, Mr. President, that he believes it's deliveries from other parts or other stores within the mall that we as a council through the city clerk send a letter to Meadow Glen Mall to make sure that no deliveries are happening prior to 7 a.m. in the morning. I think that's only appropriate for the neighbors and abutters. I agree with council at night. I like the 90 day review. And I also agree with councilor Lungo-Koehn that 10 days to me sounds a little excessive. I think we should probably put a cap on it, maybe at five days. That would be something that, I think would be amendable to me. I don't know how my other colleagues feel, but, uh, I would vote in support of this with the restriction on the deliveries and also with the 90 day review and also with council Lungo-Koehn brought up about limiting it to five days, uh, rather than 10 days. And as, as was mentioned, uh, this is open ended. So next year there's no need to come before the council. This is going to be in perpetuity, right?
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: Uh, it, uh, yes. Uh, um, you know, provided there are no issues. Obviously, the council always has an opportunity to bring the petitioner back in.
[SPEAKER_14]: Point of information, Councilor Dello Russo.
[Michael Marks]: This is amended with a 90-day review. Right. My issue is actually the number of days. I think 10 is excessive. The 90-day review was offered by council.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: I think I would like, you know, depending, again, depending upon what day of the week Christmas is, I'd like to have the opportunity to have at least a week during the Christmas season. if you could agree that the Black Friday plus up to seven days during Christmas season for a total of eight. But as I say, in most cases in this particular year, since Christmas is on a Thursday, I don't see this as being more than four or five days this year, but I would like the opportunity to have at least up to eight days.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I think it should be specific days. So the police department, knows when this is going to take place. For example, every Black Friday, if we're going to do this, if this is going to be approved and approved from now until Kohl's is no longer there, I think the police department need to know that it's going to happen on Black Friday and it's going to happen three days before Christmas. You can't have, although, you know, it's an amendment right now to have the police notified within two weeks prior to, You're going to have them every year wondering when the 24-hour market, you know, when Kohl's is going to be open for 24 hours. I don't know if we've done this for any retail store, so I want to set good ground rules now in case there's other stores that want to follow the lead, whether that's in the Meadow Glen Mall or not. We need to make sure that the store is safe and that the police department know that there is going to be an establishment where there's a good amount of shoplifting like in any retail store, and they need to be aware of it. You know, we know what happened to other Kohl's in the past, so I think we need more specifics on which actual days Kohl's is going to be open for 24 hours.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information, Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Does the department store hire during the peak shopping periods internal store security?
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: They do.
[SPEAKER_14]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I, I'm not satisfied over the fact that we're going to give this thing out in finitum because this is the first tryout. Um, regardless whether it's cold or anyone else, if you give it to them, it's going to set a precedent for any other type of store within the city of Medford department store or what have you claiming that the Christmas season, you know, it's going to be helpful to their business. I've got no problem and allowing it to go through for the first year and on an annual basis has just come back because if everything works out satisfactory, there should be no problem. But we're setting a precedent here to allow one department store, large as it might be, taxpayer as they might be, but there are a lot of small business folks here in the city of Medford, and they're taxpayers too, and they should be looked upon equally. And I just think we're setting a precedent here that we're not gonna be able to offset because if Coles gets it, three or four other people or five or six, no matter what part of the city they might be in, might be just coming down here. That's number one. You can go to Wellington Circle. You can go to the new mall down there. And I can see them wanting to operate and open during that period of time. Restaurants to accommodate businesses that are going to be open during that period of time to satisfy people. I've got no problem in having a designated amount of time. I have no problem allowing it for this year. I have no problem in giving the extended hours. But I am not in favor of making this a rule in perpetuity, to be honest with you.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: But I think one of the councilors has suggested a 90-day review. So the council would have the opportunity to review in 90 days whether or not there are any problems during this season, and assuming there is not, not require coals to come back again next year. If there are problems, then they could be addressed at the 90-day review time.
[Robert Penta]: Well, whether it's 90 days, or one day, or a year from now, the management of coals could be entirely different. Issues could take place after the 90 days that could present a problem. I just — listen, I've got no problem with it, but I just can't — to me, 90 days means nothing. I just think they should come in on an annual basis on a case-by-case. Because if we grant it for one, it's going to be very hard for us to be argued of being arbitrary and capricious and not allowing it to go to somebody else.
[Adam Knight]: The Press Thank you very much, Mr. President, and through you to the gentleman. Would Kohl's be amenable to providing the dates that they would like to be open? say maybe the day following Veterans Day to the Chief of Police, would that be enough time? Sure.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: I mean, I think we could specify now. It wouldn't be anything earlier than seven days prior to Christmas. So, I mean, if that's the kind of specificity that the council is looking for, you know, you know, between, between the dates of December 18th and December 25th, Black Friday plus, uh, up to seven days between December 18 and December 25. I mean, that's — those are specific dates, so — Mr. Rubinstein.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President — December 24, obviously. The sad reality of retail in America is that it's become, unfortunately, common practice for retail stores of this magnitude to engage in these extended hours. We can perhaps spend another evening talking about how this is a commentary on society. I don't know. But that's not our purpose here. They've made a reasonable request of us. It's a matter that allows such a retail establishment to compete with peer stores to remain competitive. Maybe none of us like that idea that people are out shopping at 3 in the morning, but, you know, this is America. They've made a reasonable request, and also we've put very reasonable amendments to this request, one of them being a 90-day review. And so with regards to precedent-setting, at that point of 90 days, Well, it's all fresh in our minds, fresh after the holidays. We'll have them in here and review it. And if at that time that we want to limit it to four days, we can do that based on the experience of how this went during this holiday season. If at that time we say, you know what? This was nothing but a nightmare. We're not going to let it happen anymore. We're going to rescind this permission. Or my suspicion is that we're going to get to nine days and say, It went without any unexpected incident, and it may continue. So I think, again, I'd like to move the question as amended. Vice President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I agree with my Councilor De La Rosa here. You know, the holiday season is a very important time for these stores. They've only got so many days. And now they're facing more competition from the new assembly mall. All the outlet stores over there. And I'm sure they're going to be open in the same hours as they are. And it's not fair to us to saddle these guys with these conditions. They said there's going to be no deliveries after a certain hour. They're going to have a policeman there. They're going to specify the days. And like I said, come 90 days, if it doesn't work out, then that'll be a story for next year. I feel it's unfair to say no to these people, and all the other cities and towns are doing it. And then we complain that all our people are going elsewhere.
[Paul Camuso]: So. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Just last, if we can move that as an amendment, what Attorney Bruzee said for Black Friday and seven days between December 18th and December 24th.
[Paul Camuso]: Are you withdrawing your original motion?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: No, as well as notifying the chief specifically.
[Paul Camuso]: Your original motion, councillor, was for five days.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I didn't move that as an amendment. I just said I thought it was excessive.
[Paul Camuso]: It was an amendment, so. Are you withdrawing that amendment for the new one?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, I don't believe I made that as an amendment, but.
[Paul Camuso]: It was, the clerk has it written down as an amendment. So on the... Councilor?
[Michael Marks]: I think Attorney Bruese was amendable to eight days, which this covers. So maybe we can make it eight days rather than five.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: That's right. Total of eight.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Total of eight. Total of eight. That's what I meant. Yep.
[Paul Camuso]: Total of eight with the notification for the chief two weeks before. Is that our veterans day? Veterans day. Sure. Okay. On the motion, as amended.
[Michael Marks]: And a letter to the Meadow Glen Mall regarding deliveries that take place between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. in the morning, other than Kohl's. Yep. I want to send a letter to Austin to refrain from truck deliveries between those hours. We have that. On behalf of the neighbors. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Some of the amendments I'm okay with, but I'm still concerned over the fact that you're going to review it in 90 days. I think if I was a proprietor in the Meadow Glen Mall right now, and I knew that they could be open during those particular hours, I think I'd be coming here next and just saying, well, I'd like to be open, because you just gave it to them. And if I was a food establishment in the Meadow Glen Mall as they are, I think they're going to come in here, and they're going to want extended hours to accommodate the people who are going to be possibly shopping all night long. And then if you go to Stations Landing, and if you want to go over there, and if those stores want to be open, I've got no problem with it. I don't understand why you just have to give it. Why can't we just give it out for this first year and see where this goes? See how many other people want to apply for this 24—I mean, they're trailblazing right now. They're setting the trademark as to what they want to do. And let's just see how many other people come in. It'd be a shame to have somebody come in here and want to have the exact same thing, and they get shot down because, quote-unquote, either the neighbors or someone, you know, want to object to it because they don't want to be disturbed during those particular hours. You can put all the amendments you want onto this thing. That's the only thing that bothers me. You know, I just don't think you should be able to give it out in perpetuity, because if you give it out in perpetuity, and if you bring it back in 90 days, and for whatever the problems, and even if there were problems, and you were going to address them, they still have the thing in perpetuity. And to get rid of that, as both attorneys know, it's going to be pretty hard, because you haven't specifically laid down rules that could cancel out that rule of perpetuity while they're extended forever. I've got no problem voting for it, but I want to amend it that it just become, on an annual basis, a first-time basis, and let's just see where we go with this. It's as simple as that.
[Paul Camuso]: That is an amendment? Yes. The amendment is in direct contrast with the paper, so we're going to take a separate vote on Councilor Penta's amendment first, and then we'll take the paper as amended. On Councilor Penta's amendment, all those in favor?
[Robert Penta]: Aye.
[Paul Camuso]: All those opposed?
[Robert Penta]: Roll call vote.
[Paul Camuso]: Roll call has been requested. A yes vote is for Councilor Penta's amendment. A no vote is to take a vote on the paper as amended prior to his proposal. Annual rather than perpetuity. Yes is to have it just this one year. A no vote will be the original intent of the paper. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: I want to understand my Councilor colleague's comments. Why would you think it would be so difficult for us to rescind the perpetuity that allows them to do it every year automatically? Why would that be so difficult by a vote of the kind? Just say in a year, two years from now, we say, you know what? Even after the 90-day review, we no longer like this.
[Robert Penta]: What's the reason? Point of information.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information, Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Is perpetuity the proper legal term to this? Is this granted in perpetuity? No, it's indefinite. Or is it indefinite? Indefinite.
[Michael Marks]: Indefinitely.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Because there's a difference in the word. Imperfectuity is... Forever. Forever and ever, till the Lord walks on this earth again. So I don't think that's in anything that we give. Thank you for your clarification. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: My question was to my colleague. Why you would think that?
[Robert Penta]: Because this is the first time this is appearing before us. And I think being for the first time, let's just see how it goes. I'm not about to give away the store on the very first time somebody comes here and then have another person come and get denied because maybe they just don't cut the same—it's not cut the same way, whether it's their neighbors, whether it's the neighborhood, whether it's the location or what have you. I can just see other people wanting to have the same issue, have the same argument, and I've got no problem with that, and I think we should address them one at a time. Give it to them for the first year, I've got no problem with that. Even if you want to review it after 90 days, cut it to five, call the police chief, chief of police. And if everything works out great, and the gentleman in the back there, they have no problems, they come back again next year, it shouldn't present a problem. But what are we going to do in the meantime? I ask all of you, if company X comes in now, and they want the same thing, what are we going to do?
[Michael Marks]: Honestly, I think we have to base every request on its own merits. And you're right, if it was a business that was nestled in a neighborhood that wanted to open 24 hours, I would look upon it differently than a business that's in a mall establishment. And even the abutter stated that the front entrance would really have no bearing, people coming through the front entrance, on their sleep and so forth in the buildings. So I think you have to take every petition on its own merits. But my question was just whether or not and a year from now that we as a council can rescind this vote. And I believe we can do that like on any Tuesday night, and I don't think it's a difficult process. And if this didn't work out for whatever reason, I'm willing to take a vote to rescind.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. If I may, from the chair, I hear what both Councilors are saying. Would the attorney be amenable to, every year, a 90-day review, just in case there's not a mob rush three, four years from now? We'll just review it after 90 days as a council, and if there's no, basically put the 90-day review.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: I guess I'm not sure how that would work. I mean, what I want to avoid is the necessity to come back every year. I'm completely comfortable with the council reviewing this. you know, in 90 days and see how it went as Councilor Dello Russo went. I'd also like to point out that, I mean, we're not being trailblazers here. There are a number of establishments that are open 24 hours a day now. You have Stop and Shop. You have a number of 24-hour permits, correct, Mr. Clerk? Correct me if I'm wrong. So we're not being a trailblazer here.
[Robert Penta]: This is... But they've closed at 11 because of the business.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: And we will be closing at 9 or 10 o'clock, 358 days a year.
[Paul Camuso]: The first vote is on the amendment of Councilor Penta. A yes vote is for Councilor Penta's amendment. A no vote is... Well, the amendment... Tell them what the amendment is. The amendment is to have... The amendment... Councilor Penta's amendment is to have this as a trial this year and this year only. A yes vote. A no vote will be for the paper as presented, as amended by the Medford City Council up to this point. Before I call the roll, we have a gentleman in the audience that would like to speak, I guess.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Andrew Castagnetti, Cushing Street Method Mass. I hate to go against the man upstairs, and once upon a time there were blue laws in this state. However, as one of the councilors stated, it's the state of the times, it's capitalism, so to speak. It's been a long discussion. I believe in the spirit of compromise, especially with council, they're making some great points. Maybe you people might want to consider a one-shot deal, and for eight days as a compromise. And then you don't have to worry about 90-day review. It can come back next year. Because if it becomes an issue after 90 days or prior to 90 days, unfortunately, this country is strong on litigation. You don't want to go down that road, I would think. This is my thoughts. Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. The clerk will call the roll. Yes vote is for Council Appendix Amendment as stated earlier. A no vote is for the original paper as amended. No. Six in the affirmative. Six no's. One in the affirmative. The paper fails on the main motion as amended for 90 day review for a police detail on Black Friday. That this goes along with the business only and not the property. That the chief be notified by Veterans Day of the days you anticipate to be open. No deliveries from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. And that we send a letter to the Meadow Glen Mall regarding all deliveries for the entire mall facility. And the petition stays with Kohl's. and not the facility itself. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: I'd like to amend it one step further and have a report back from our city solicitor as it relates to if we are going to give this as an indefinite license for a period of time, that the city solicitor report back to the council under what conditions can the city council terminate? It's different than giving the license from 11 at night to seven in the morning. You're giving something indefinite. And I believe that this case law, as Councilor Bruese and the gentleman behind him is aware of, this case law that substantiates the fact you just cannot pull a license just because you're granted it because you feel something went wrong. It has to be of substance. And we don't have any of that information. This is the first time we're doing this. We're basically at a loss to even know what rights do we have, if anything, because you're giving the license. The license is predicated on two particular issues, number one, number one, the indefinite period of time, and number two, the hours of operation, making it 24 hours. Cancelling out to 24 hours could be within the purview of the Council, but to eliminate the indefiniteness, I think that needs to be reviewed.
[Paul Camuso]: All right. On that motion, but for the viewing public, this is not a licence. This is a special permit. Basically, it's a variance on the original licence.
[Robert Penta]: It's a license to extend the hours for 24 hours. It's a special permit. Permit. It's a special permit under zoning law. Excuse me, you're speaking from the chair. I'm speaking, and I'm setting the facts straight. You're not setting the facts straight, because there's two issues here. The other part of the issue is this. You're giving the special permit an additional- Special permit, not a license. You're giving them an additional privilege, and that is granting it to the licensee for an indefinite period of time. It's not a permit Councilor. It's not the same as giving the license. I mean the extended hours, the extended hours. Thank you. There are two separate issues.
[Paul Camuso]: You just corrected yourself. Thank you. This is a special permit on the original license. The clerk will call the roll. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, uh, if, if this is a special permit, as was stated, then we as a council can put conditions on the special permit. So, and we did correct. We can also put a condition on the indefinite period of time. If Councilor Penta feels better about that, we can put some language in there stating that even though this is for an indefinite period of time, that if there are any concerns or complaints brought before the Medford City Council, that the license will be reviewed. The special permit will be reviewed automatically. And that way it's in there, the language at least gives us an option to review it and a possible revocation of the license. I would offer that if that's... No.
[Paul Camuso]: No, that's the 90... What Councilor Marks is stating, this is going to cover us years down the road. Right. The 90 days is for this current year.
[Michael Marks]: So, we put a condition on the indefinite period of time stating that if there are any concerns brought before the Medford City Council relative to the extended hours of operation at Coles that the Medford City Council either hold a hearing or review the special permit and make a decision on the special permit.
[Paul Camuso]: So the special permit... Does that sound... I mean that's... That's a show cause hearing.
[Clerk]: You can do that anytime.
[Robert Penta]: It would only be relative to the extended of hours from 11 to 7. I think what Councilor Marks is alluding to is the second part of this extended hours, it's a request to be indefinite. Councilor Abuzi, let me ask you a question. Maybe we're looking at this thing, we should be looking at this in two separate ways. Coming in and asking for the extended hours is one thing. Maybe the petition should be separate and broken down to have a second one to have it become indefinite. Yeah, well, you've been here numerous times.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: That's not the way the order is read.
[Robert Penta]: You've been here numerous times. You have never made a request to have any one of your petitioners be indefinite. This is the first time.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: A special permit, by its very nature, is indefinite.
[Robert Penta]: No, it isn't.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: Yes, it is.
[Robert Penta]: No, it isn't.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: Yes, it is.
[Robert Penta]: On an annual basis, Mr. Clerk, don't they have to renew their application with you?
[Clerk]: Special permit, any variance in zoning goes with the land. You've already made a condition. that it will go with Kohl's, but as long as Kohl's is the operator of this facility, this special permit will go to them. If they go and sell the business to whatever market it doesn't go with, then it always stays with Kohl's. You've made that condition by Councilor De La Ruza, that this is a Kohl's permit. If you did not make that condition, like stopping shops or whatever, they would just stay with the land, but here you already made that condition and it stayed with Coles. I don't think there's a need for it then.
[Robert Penta]: So it's not going to be indefinite unless Coles, you know, they stay 50 years. Can the clerk read, can the clerk please read back with council Max, what's the inclusion going to be as the amendment?
[Clerk]: You know, I have to, you know, we're, but it's, it's about the indefinite period of time that if, Mr. Clerk, if Councilor Marks can have the floor.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, maybe if we give initial approval tonight and ask that the city solicit a review language that would cover what we're talking about, that may be... You said something I think could be manageable.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information, Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: If I understand correctly, this is amended to include a 90 day review. So with so many special permits we've issued over the years, that if at the time of that 90 day review that we're not pleased with the operation, knowing full well that petitioners come to us, And there's concerns, and they're getting it with the 90-day review, that if it's not going to work out after 90 days, if we see problems there, it's a telltale sign to us as a council that it's not going to work, and that the special permits rescinded, or modified, or whatever.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor Marks. Just if I could, and I hear what my colleague's saying, but the 90 days is for this year. Next year, there's no 90-day review. If something happens next year, we just want to make sure as a council that we have the authority to revoke the extended hours. Right? Is that what you're saying? We just want to make sure we have the authority to revoke, because there's no official review next year. The attorney said he doesn't want to come back every year for a review, which I don't blame him. Of course not. I don't blame him. So we want to just put language in there that allows us, and maybe we don't need language, Mr. Clerk.
[Fred Dello Russo]: My point is that I don't think we need language. We've done show cause hearings on certain situations.
[Michael Marks]: So should we not ask the city solicitor?
[Fred Dello Russo]: I think that would be a wise idea to ask. I think so. But I'd like to also see this granted tonight so that they can make their business plans.
[Michael Marks]: I have no problem granting it with the contingency that the city solicitor provide language to us within the next several days. I mean, we don't meet for two weeks now because of election next Tuesday and the following. If that's amendable.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: I mean, you can, you can also, if I, if I may, you can also, uh, uh, I believe, uh, choose to adopt whatever additional language you want when the 90 day review comes about.
[Michael Marks]: We could do that. Meanwhile, as the attorney stated, we can ask the city solicitor for his, opinion on the language within the 90 days. And then we'll attach the language.
[Robert Penta]: My only concern with that would be if in fact the city solicitor were to come back and indicate that the extended hours does not represent the same intent of making the thing indefinite or indefinite to the extended hours. I would be more amenable to going back to your resolution relative to the fact that language be included as part of this, um, that, um, this be reviewed on an annual basis as it relates to the being indefinite. First year is 90 days. Then after that, you really have nothing after the first year. So I think it would be beneficial. I mean, Councilor Bruese may not be here the next time. They may have new management folks at Coles. And there may be problems that could have taken place during the course of the year after the 90 days. I don't know, because none of us know. We can't predict the future. Once again, I'm only concerned about the license going forward. I mean, this indefinite period of time and having another petition to come before us.
[Michael Marks]: So why don't we do this? Mr. President, not to belabor the issue. Why don't we approve this year as was stated asked within the, uh, with the 90 day ask, uh, just allow for this year and then ask the city solicitor to come back with his opinion on language that would allow us to review it every year. Is that, does that sound acceptable?
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: Does that mean I have to come back next year?
[Michael Marks]: No, no. Once we get the language, then we will take a vote on the language.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: Councilor Knight. You know, this is, this is not, it's not the type of situation. I mean, it's expensive for, for, for goals to, you know, send an attorney each year for a few, a few days. Now it is, you know, it is something they want to do to accommodate their customers, but it's not, you know, cost-effective to do this on an annual basis.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, in looking at the language that we have here, we have a 90-day review. 90-day review is about March 25th. If we amend the language to say there's an annual 90-day review upon the conclusion of the issue of the hours, I don't understand what the problem would be. Why don't we just amend the 90-day review to be an annual 90-day review? It has to take place before March 25th annually. If it doesn't take place before March 25th annually, the permit remains. It's fine.
[Paul Camuso]: And we'll notify Coles if there's a problem during that 90 days to be here representative, because there are some permits that we review without the petition.
[Adam Knight]: Further, Mr. President, I've made a number of phone calls to Mr. Bruese about this issue, and he's been more than responsive and more than willing to address some of the concerns that I had before we came to this meeting this evening. So I don't have any reason to believe that that wouldn't continue.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: So the understanding is that the council will review it annually on a 90-day basis, and the petitioner will not have to appear unless requested to do so.
[Paul Camuso]: All right. And this is not the only Black Friday shopping establishment that has a 24-hour permit. Ocean State Job Lot currently has a 24-hour license for the whole year. But they only utilize it during Black Friday and some holidays. And that was granted from the original stop and shop from councilors many years ago. And it went with the land, not the business. All right. On the motion, as amended. I'm going to read the amendments now. 90-day review, annually now. Councilor Knight? Councilor De La Russa, you withdrew your original one to now include annually? Councilor? Yes. OK. We got the police detail on Black Friday that it goes with the business and not the land, that the chief of police is notified by November, by Veterans Day of each year, which days they plan on.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: As to the specific days that they intend to open.
[Paul Camuso]: No deliveries from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., and that we also, Councilor Marks, excuse me, an amendment to send a letter on behalf of this council to the Meadow Glen Mall regarding overnight deliveries for the entire mall. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: The police officer for Black Friday, I believe the police officer is for the eight days.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: No. No.
[Robert Penta]: Why?
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: It shouldn't be necessary.
[Adam Knight]: Why? Meadow Glen Mall has detail. That was my amendment, Mr. President. That was my amendment. And when I watch the news and I see what happens down in Alabama and Oklahoma on Black Friday, when droves of people push their way through the door and kill workers at Walmart and kill workers at these big box stores. I think the big rush is going to be Black Friday. I have a number of people that I know who I'm friends with who, all Thanksgiving long, can't wait to pack up their bags and get rolling at midnight to go out there and go shopping. Everybody's chomping at the bit. It's historically a day where most of the problems happen. That's why I said Black Friday would be something that would be amenable to me. On the motion, the clerk will call the roll.
[Robert Penta]: So what's your problem with having a police officer? Expense.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: The expense, and it's not necessary.
[Robert Penta]: It's- So you're going to guarantee from 11 at night to 7 in the morning, without having a Method police officer there, that nothing's going to take place in that storage- No, I'm not going to guarantee anything. Is that what you're saying?
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: They have their own security, and if there does become an issue, it will be addressed. But it shouldn't be a requirement.
[Adam Knight]: Point of information. Councilor Knight. Um, because we have this 90 day review, if anything does happen during that period of time, we can call Coles and have them back in there and we can discuss any other public safety concerns that we have after this initial issuance of a license and an immediate special permit. I'm sorry.
[Paul Camuso]: And an immediate public safety threat that the chief deems a public safety threat. We don't have to wait for the 90 day review. We can have you in here the following Tuesday after it's duly publicly advertised. Point of further information, Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: If it becomes problematic, we shouldn't have to mediate conversations between a store and the police department. They're all adults who know what's necessary, and should the police deem it necessary, they can make a requirement.
[Paul Camuso]: Vice President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. The mall has security. I'm more than positive that Kohl's has their own security. You know, to put a further burden on them by putting a policeman every day of the week is foolish. Councilor Knight, other than that one day, I mean, that's pretty much the bulk of the rush. I mean, you know.
[4FrRjkCyMqA_SPEAKER_01]: I mean, Kohl's is not the kind of a store that has a $600 computer that they sell for $2.99 that everyone's busting the doors down to get at. You know, it's.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah, I mean, that's it.
[Paul Camuso]: and they'll hire a detail. If they're busy enough where they need it, they're going to do it. All right. On the motion, a yes vote is for the original paper as amended. A no vote is no. Clerk will call the roll.
[Clerk]: Vice President Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Dela Russa. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Long and Kern. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Penta. Yes. President Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Yes, by a vote of 7 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative, the paper is passed as amended. Thank you. Item 14-717. locations of poles, attachments of fixtures, and underground conduits. You are hereby notified that, by order of the Medford City Council, a public hearing will be held at the Howard F. Alden Memorial Auditorium, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, City Hall, Medford, Mass., at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, October 28, 2014, on a petition by Light Tower Fiber Networks, 80 Central Street, Boxborough, Massachusetts, 01719, permission to construct and install a fiber optic service to 101 Main Street, Medford, and that's for the Mass Iron Air. Description of access, Emerson Street at the intersection of Main Street at utility pole number 6088-1241 in the city of Medford by installing fiber optic service lateral from pole 6088-1241 on Emerson Street, crossing Emerson Street to service Mass. Eye and Ear at 101 Main Street. The underground utility work consists of to dig a service on Emerson Street 24 inches deep, from electric pole number 6088 slash 1241 westerly on Emerson Street, 20 feet, turning northerly 30 feet, crossing Emerson Street with an additional eight foot dig to the back edge of the sidewalk to enter the property at 101 Main Street, where we will dig an additional 40 feet to enter the building at 101 Main Street. Light tile will place one schedule 40 PVC conduit encased to 101 Main Street. Light tile will backfill with suitable fill free of large rock and debris, placing caution tape 12 inches above concrete encased conduit. Motions for the brief synopsis. Most of the paper is what I just read with all the specifics, which I just read. We're down towards the bottom of the paper. And any conditions that were put on this, this was approved by the chief engineer. This was approved also by the superintendent of wires with the normal conditions that the engineer puts on most papers as far as repairing the temporary trench. And it shall be asphalt, base coarse. It shall mask the existing thickness of the existing pavement, but not less than four inches in depth. uh... the concrete sidewalk panels that are disturbed shall be saw cut at the joints and new concrete replaced asphalt shall be replaced in kind and before beginning the work the vendor shall notify digsafe and shall obtain applicable permits from the engineering division the contractor shall utilize city of medford regulations and standards for restoration as well as remove all debris related to its work underground work will be done and there shall be no disturbance to the city of medford sidewalk or roadways Approved by the superintendent of wires. Call 781-393-2425 for any accommodations slash aids. TDD number 781-393-2516. Signed Edward P. Finn, city clerk. Plans can be viewed in the city clerk's office. 781-393-2425. And I'll open up the public hearing for those in favor of this paper. In favor. Name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_04]: Good evening, Mr. President, members of the council. Todd Fargnoli, Lightower Fiber Networks, 80 Central Street, Boxborough, Massachusetts.
[Paul Camuso]: Can you give a quick, brief synopsis, and then we're going to open up to people?
[SPEAKER_04]: And then we'll bring you back if we have more questions. Yes, Mr. President. Light Tower is looking to trench approximately 83 feet from a utility pole to 101 Main Street in Medford, Mass., for the purpose of delivering new fiber optic services to Massachusetts Eye and Ear.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. Anybody else in favor of this petition? In favor? Seeing and hearing none, I now close that portion of the hearing and open it up to people in opposition. Anyone in opposition to this? Opposition? Seeing and hearing none, I now close that portion of the public hearing and open it up to the city council. Councilor Knight and then Councilor Marks.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much, Mr. President, and through you to the gentleman. Can you tell me who's going to be doing the work? Is it an internal job? Do you have a contractor that's going to be performing the thing?
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes, we contract all of our work out. We don't have an internal construction group that handles the actual trench work. But I do believe that the contractor that we are going to choose has done work in the city of Medford in the past.
[Adam Knight]: The contractor been selected at this point in time?
[SPEAKER_04]: Right now, it's down to two contractors.
[Adam Knight]: The reason I ask, Mr. President, is because I have some concern over the work the contractors have done in the past relative to repairing our roadways to the previously pristine conditions that they are in. But I know that we have some contingencies and controls available here at the city level relative to the applicable permits in the City of Metro regulations and standards for restoration. So I'll rest.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Roughly, how long will the construction take?
[SPEAKER_04]: In the public right-of-way, it should take a day, possibly two days for the trench in the public right-of-way. The private property may take another day. I would say that the total duration, three days, and then if there's any significant You know, permanent restoration, it may take a day longer. I mean, we're talking less than five business days to complete the project from start to finish.
[Michael Marks]: Less than five days.
[SPEAKER_04]: Less than five days.
[Michael Marks]: And just one day on the public way.
[SPEAKER_04]: One to two days on the public way, depending on what conditions we may find when we open the roadway. So, I mean, sometimes the digging's a little bit slower than anticipated. In some of these older cities, there's a lot of utilities underground. We do have good plans indicating what utilities are in the ground. Dig safe will be called in. The utilities will be marked out. However, sometimes it's a little bit slow going, depending on what the earth is underneath the asphalt.
[Michael Marks]: And what's the length of the trench on the public way?
[SPEAKER_04]: 83 feet. And on the private? Approximately 40, I believe it was. Approximately 40 feet.
[Michael Marks]: And where is the trench again on the public way?
[SPEAKER_04]: It's on the Emerson Street side of Main Street at the intersection of Emerson Street.
[Michael Marks]: The intersection of Emerson and Main?
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes. I have a plan here if you'd like to review this.
[Michael Marks]: I have a copy. I just wanted to know if you can explain it rather than look at that.
[SPEAKER_04]: Sure. I mean, right now, we looked at all options to get into this building and try to exclude the necessity of a trench in the public right away. Obviously, it's less cost effective for Lightower as a company to do these types of digs. We typically only dig in the public right away when it's absolutely necessary. We looked into the option of, you know, A lot of the times phone company or the electric companies have these service conduits that enter into buildings and we look to lease those conduits or lease a partial conduit to enter a building so we don't have to take on such excavation and civil construction as this. So, we actually had to license our backbone fiber cable is aerial. So, we have the aerial license to attach aerially. We end at pole 6088 on Emerson Street and we have to dig from 6088, pole 6088 to the building to make connection to the building.
[Michael Marks]: What other options were there, entrance options?
[SPEAKER_04]: that the other options were to look to the local telephone company or the local power company to try and lease a conduit into the building. However, there was none available.
[Michael Marks]: So you did explore that option?
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes, we did. Yes.
[Michael Marks]: I'm not up to date on this. If something was available, are they obligated to allow your access?
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes, they are. I mean, there's certain language in the you know, license agreements that we have with the ILEX, their incumbent local exchange carrier, such as Verizon or your AT&T. There's, we have a contract with them where as a competitive local exchange carrier, we We have the right to ask these ILECs to lease a partial conduit. And as long as the ILEC has the capacity to do so, they're obligated under an agreement that has been previously executed between Lightower and said ILEC, namely, I mean, in this case it would be Verizon. They're obligated to give us that conduit. We pay them for use of that conduit. So we pay, we actually, we pay them for you know, looking up, there's three phases to the licensing process. The first phase is engineering. They look up their capacity internally. Phase two is make ready and phase three is licensing. And we have to pay, you know, engineers to go out and survey in the field and see if there's actual capacity for them to, you know, to surrender that conduit to us for lease, things of that nature. So they are obligated to give us conduit if we license it and they have the capacity to do so.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. I have a motion for approval, Mr. President. Councilor Mayne.
[Adam Knight]: Yes, Mr. President. In thinking a little bit more about the location, Emerson Street is a one-way, if I do recall appropriately, one way up to Maine, up to the gate, correct? So I guess I have some curiosity as to how exactly traffic would be routed around this project for a week. And with that being said, I'd also have concern relative to the traffic that would be coming in and out of Tedeschi's and crossing over out of the gate and out to Emerson onto Main. And where would that traffic go? Because I think the way that Tedeschi's is set up right now, the parking spots are all slanted so that the cars are directed to go down to the back of the parking lot, exit onto Emerson, and back out onto Maine. So those are some concerns that I think we have here, Mr. President. However, the Mass Eye and Ear Institute is one of the premier research hospitals in the country. And I think it's a privilege and an honor to have them here located in Medford. I also think that without the technology that they need in order to operate, we're going to be doing them a disservice, Mr. President. So I, too, will be supporting this resolution. However, I do have some questions and concerns relative to the actual traffic flow and traffic mitigation that's going to be in place. And I was wondering if the gentleman could speak to that a little bit, if possible.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes, and President, through you to Councilman, we do have a traffic management plan drafted up currently to address these types of you know, issues, making sure that traffic remains fluent in the area of the work. I have a traffic management plan here that we can leave for you to review. Appreciate it. Also, when we do this type of work, we hire, you know, depending on the area, we'll hire at least one police detail. In this case, the TMP calls for two police details. So we'll have a police detail at the location of the trench on Emerson and a police detail at the intersection of Emerson and Main Street to monitor traffic. That satisfies my questions, Mr. President.
[Paul Camuso]: All those opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_04]: Thank you very much.
[Paul Camuso]: Item 14-718.
[SPEAKER_04]: Excuse me, Mr. President. I would like to leave this behind if you would like to review it.
[Adam Knight]: You've got the police officers that are going to be there. They're going to be performing detail work on the site. I'm sure that it'll be in compliance with the traffic plan, which is in compliance with the established rules and regulations that we have in place.
[SPEAKER_04]: If you don't need it, I'll take it back.
[Adam Knight]: I don't need it. I'm satisfied based upon the plan.
[SPEAKER_04]: Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much.
[Paul Camuso]: Location of poles, attachments of fixtures, and underground conduits, Medford, Massachusetts, City Clerk's Office. You are hereby notified that by order of the City Council, a public hearing will be given at the Howard F. Alden Memorial Auditorium, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, City Hall, Medford, Mass., at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, October 28, 2014, on a petition of Teleport Communications America, LLC. Subsidiary of AT&T Corporation, Sienna Engineering Group, Inc., for permission to lay, maintain, and operate underground conduits with cables, including the necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures under and across the public or ways hereinafter. Named Fulton Street from existing utility pole number 143 to P. Utility pole to the P. Property pole number 143 to the property of 59 Valley Street, one four inch PVC conduit, approximately 138 feet in length. The conduit shall be placed at an approximate depth of 48 inches and in accordance with the requirements of the city of Medford. Wherefore it prays that after due notice and hearing as provided by law, it may be granted permission to excavate the public highways and to run and maintain underground cables. Said underground conduits, Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Respectfully, a motion to allow you to give a synopsis of the rest.
[Paul Camuso]: Brief synopsis is the petitions before us with the particulars that I just stated off of the original petition. This has been approved with the chief engineer, as well as signed off by the superintendent of wires with the natural language that they put in all of these papers to restore it to its original condition. This 393-2501, for any additional accommodations slash aids, TDD number 393-2516, signed Edward P. Finn, the city clerk. And also for the viewing public, these plans can be viewed in the city clerk's office. At this point, I open up the public hearing for people in favor. In favor. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Before you do that, I believe it's important that you read the last paragraph. That's a state law necessity. Starting with?
[Paul Camuso]: Before?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, before.
[Paul Camuso]: Before beginning work, the contractor shall notify DIGSAFE and shall obtain applicable permits from the Engineering Division. The contractor shall utilize City of Medford regulations and standards for restoration, as well as remove all debris related to its work. Underground work will be done and there shall be no disturbance to the City of Medford sidewalk or roadways. The Chair opens up this portion of the hearing for those in favor. In favor. Name and address for the record with a brief synopsis, and then we'll bring you back up for additional questions if the council has them.
[SPEAKER_03]: Good evening. My name is David Edgar. I'm with Sienna Engineering Group. We're consultants for Teleport Communications America, and we're here to speak on behalf of the petition for a grant of location to install a conduit from pole 143 on Fulton Street at the intersection of Maple Park Ave to the property of 59 Valley Street.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. Anyone else in favor of the petition? In favor? Seeing and hearing none, I now declare that portion of the hearing closed. Anyone in opposition? Opposition to the hearing? Seeing and hearing none, I now close that portion of the hearing and open it up to members of the council for recommendation and or questions. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[SPEAKER_03]: How long roughly will this construction take place? I would anticipate this construction could be completed in three days. Three days? With restoration, including restoration.
[Michael Marks]: And also, do you have a traffic plan?
[SPEAKER_03]: I don't have one with me, but our contractor that will be doing the work will bring one in when they obtain the street opening permit from the city's engineering department. And what will the hours of the construction be? If the city has not imposed any restrictions on the construction, it would be approximately 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.
[Michael Marks]: During the weekdays or weekends?
[SPEAKER_03]: During the weekdays, yeah. I'm not aware of any time restrictions imposed by the city on this.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, too, just if I may add, and I know this is standard language, but what you just read, the last sentence says underground work will be done and there should be no disturbance to the city of Medford sidewalk or roadways. Doesn't make sense. We know that they're going to disturb. They're digging up the roadway. So that sentence really doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe if we can have that reviewed by the city engineer. It doesn't make sense. I know it's her language, but it doesn't make sense.
[Paul Camuso]: It should read something as it should be returned to its original state.
[Michael Marks]: Right. I don't recall that language in other petitions, but previous nights, but I would motion for approval, Mr. President.
[Paul Camuso]: On the motion for approval and with the B paper going to the city engineer for that clarification, Councilor Dello Russo.
[SPEAKER_03]: What is the purpose of this project? It is to provide fiber optic service to the building at 59 Valley Street.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. You're welcome. Councilor Knight. Yes, Mr. President, through to the gentleman. Is the work done in-house or is there a contractor that's going to be doing the work?
[SPEAKER_03]: There will be a contractor that will be doing the work. A project like this, we will bid out to three AT&T approved contractors, all licensed, and we'll be able to provide a bond to the city.
[Adam Knight]: And a contract that hasn't been selected as of yet? Not yet. There'll be a project manager on hand in case there are any complaints? If there are any complaints, they can reach out to me and I'll be certain that they'll be taken care of. Terrific. Thank you very much. I'm satisfied, Mr. President. I yield.
[Paul Camuso]: On the motion of approval, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Item 14-724 offered by Councilor Penta. Be it resolved that the Tufts Curtis School be discussed. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I know this has come up in a few times during our annual budget meetings, and I know Councilor Marks has brought this up as it relates to, um, um, let's just say the school in and of itself. Okay. I got a phone call from a parent, um, as it related to, um, something that was taking place at the school over there. And then she indicated, uh, I indicated to her, Had she spoken to Mr. Volpe, who was the principal, and she says, Mr. Who? She says, there's no Mr. Volpe. He's no principal here. And I says, what are you talking about? She says, yeah, there's a new person. There's a different person with a different name. And then I come to find out, and I think we should get to the bottom of this, because this is part of our budgetary process. I understand that Mr. Prior Principal of the school is up at the high school with another job getting paid the same amount of money. And the question now becomes, when did this all take place? I believe we were told during our budgetary meetings by the superintendent that there were some concerns, they were going to be addressed, and we would be kept informed. Well, I don't think anybody, unless anybody in this council knows, that the principal has left, a new one was hired, and he's up at the high school getting the same salary with another job. I think it's things like this, you know, I think she was more amazed to think that I wasn't aware of what she was trying to tell me. So, I mean, I don't know if anyone behind here has any information, but I think it would be important, um, and informative if we got a report back. Um, and I don't know who's going to tell us this, um, why he left and why he's not the principal anymore and why he's up at the high school and who's the new principal of the Tufts Curtis school.
[Paul Camuso]: Yeah. On the motion of Councilor Penta to ask the school committee, the superintendent,
[Robert Penta]: I would say it would be the superintendent, because he must have done the hiring, and it would be nice to know what's the job that he has up at the high school, what's that salary, and what's the job of the lady or the man who's now the principal of the Turtus Cuff, and what's that salary? It's a confusing little story. I think amazed at me that I didn't know because I just made an assumption that he was still there as the principal.
[Paul Camuso]: I know one councilor, you're just letting me know. So you're not alone councilor. On the motion to send this to the superintendent for a report, all those in favor. Make that a roll call vote.
[Robert Penta]: Roll call vote has been requested by councilor Penta. And to have it included Mr. Clerk, the name of the person who is the new principal. When was that person hired? What is the salary? And the gentleman who was the principal there, Where is he up at the high school, and what is that salary? You got it?
[Paul Camuso]: Roll call has been requested by Councilor Penta.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? No. Councilor Knight? No. Councilor Lungo-Koehnan?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Penta? Yes. President Camuso?
[Paul Camuso]: Yes, by a vote of four in the affirmative, five in the affirmative, two in the negative, the motion passes. Item 14-725, offered by Councilor Penta. Be it resolved, the city prepare a forward paying program starting with, in a clerical error here, this is to read, according to Councilor Penta, 500,000 rather than 5,000. No, 500 is written. 500 rather than 50. Is that correct, Councilor? It should be $500,000. Yes. OK. A year. I'm going to start again. Be it resolved the city prepare a forward paying program starting with a $500,000 a year payment from the free cash account to begin offsetting the city's unfunded pension liability. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, we've had this discussion numerous times in the past as it relates to the unfunded liability that the city has been involved in. And nothing, there's absolutely been no discussion by the city. There's been nothing coming forward. It's bad enough we've had our discussion relative to the water and sewer account sitting on $8.5 million, and ratepayers are getting no relief. But we have over $6.5 million in our free cash account, and it would be a good beginning if we started with a $500,000 a year and just moved itself forward. You know, if this council wants to leave itself with some type of legacy as it relates to its fiscal responsibility, this would be one of them. I don't think we should be given anything by the way of the administration. Well, we're going to come in here and we're going to bond this to get ourselves going. It doesn't go that way. This city, the people in this city have been taxed to death between the state and the feds and the city and everything that's going on. But if we're sitting on this kind of money and we know we have this debt to pay, we should be upfront about it and start doing it and not leave this for any future city councils. or any future administration to come in as being a headache. We get on an annual basis a federal reimbursement from Part D. Last year, we got $335,000. We got $335,000 from Part D, which is the Medicare Part D reimbursement. We were also identified in the state retirees annual review as having an 11.3% 11.31% return for the last five years on our investments. But if you look at Malden and if you go to other cities and towns which have a higher rate of return, again, I think it's something that this council has asked for before to maybe to sit down with our retirement board and to go over the type of investments that they have and see where maybe we can streamline and make more and understand why and how other cities and towns can do better. It's not that we're doing that bad, but if somebody can do better, then we should be able to have that ability to look forward as well as that. But I think this is a serious bone of contention. I think this is something. This isn't something that maybe we can or can't do. This is something we have to do. This city is obligated to pay its unfunded liability as it relates to its pensions. It's well into the millions of dollars. This isn't the hundreds of thousands. It's well into the millions of dollars. And I think if we start nibbling away at it with $500,000 in the first year, setting the example, and each and every year going forward, as we're paying down the at-present cost on an annual basis, it'll greatly reduce the trauma, the fiscal trauma, because that's what it's going to be when the city has to financially realize they've got to pay for this thing. I believe it's 2029 is the deadline, 2030 is the deadline. And we're no closer to having this thing resolved. And each and every year, as the years go on, this keeps getting itself compounded. So, with that being said, Mr. President, I spoke to Ann Baker about this, a city auditor, and she believes it's a good — it's a good move forward. At least we're addressing the subject matter, and that's what we need to do. And let me just, once again, say we shouldn't be leaving this type of a debt for any future council. And if the administration doesn't want to address it, Shame on them. This is taking a very proactive approach going forward and recognizing this debt has to get paid. And to get it paid, knowing that we're flush in our free cash account right now, and it's been an accumulation through the years to get to $6.5 million, I don't think this is going to hurt the city's bank at all. And at the same time, we're addressing the subject matter that needs to be addressed. So that being said, Mr. President, I'd like to move that by a roll call vote to our city auditor and our finance department. and get the city on some kind of a system here that addresses this financial liability that it needs to address. Point of information.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information. Councilor Dello Russo, then Councilor Knight.
[Fred Dello Russo]: If I could just ask, what is the amount of money owed?
[Robert Penta]: I believe it's in excess of $20 million the city owes. Thank you. Councilor Knight. It's unfunded pension liability.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilor Penta, for bringing this issue up. I certainly agree with some of your points. However, I urge my colleagues to move with caution. Recently, I believe this fiscal year, GASB, which is the Government Accounting Standards Bureau, has come out with a number of papers which will change the way that we're allowed to forecast and we're allowed to report our liabilities on our balance sheets, which means that if we're reporting liabilities that are less than what we have, our balance sheets are going to be off and we're actually going to go and owe more money. So if we owe more money on our liabilities that aren't showing up on our balance sheets now but will be later on, and we're spending money of our free cash to offset this, we might have a perilous effect on our bond rating, Mr. President, because we're going to be taking money out of our reserves to pay for this unfunded liability. With these new reforms that are coming in place and these new reporting requirements, I think that we need to move with caution. I think we need to get a report back from the Retirement Board as to what steps they've taken to address the generally accepted accounting principles that have been adopted by the federal government and passed down to the state. I think that it's important to understand that the unfunded liability is really a mismatch between the estimated returns that we have on our long-term investments and the estimated assets that we have. So in looking at what's happened, the GASB group has really taking a look at the way that we forecast. And municipalities usually forecast at a rate upwards of 8 percent, while private sector pension plans usually forecast at around a rate of 4 percent, which is a little bit more in line with what the actual returns on investments are. Now, as I've done further research, I've seen that the 25 largest pension systems for municipalities are returning at about 7.5 percent or 7.25 percent. So there's certainly some concern here, Mr. President. I think that we need to be on strong financial footing. We need to make sure that we keep money in the bank, and we need to be sure that we don't have a perilous effect on our bond rating before we move forward and start, you know, issuing annual checks for $500,000 a year to offset this pension liability. It might not be enough. It might be too much. There might not be a break-even there, and our bond rate is going to start to drop, and our pension liability is going to go up because of the new reporting requirements, Mr. President. So I urge my colleagues to proceed with caution. For those reasons and the uncertainty, I'm going to be voting against this resolution.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Dello Russo. I'm sorry, Vice President Caraviello and then Councilor Dello Russo.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I agree with Councilor Penter. We do need to stop paying this off. This has been one of my bones of contention during every budget. But before I vote for this, I'd like to sit down with the retirement board and Baker and our budget director to see exactly where we stand and what this $500,000 does to us. if we're using the correct formula going forward. So I'd rather have a committee meeting on the whole before I vote on this Mr. Penta, just to see where we stand before we allocate any further funding. Though I do agree, the amount that's owed is quite large, and if I'm not mistaken, I think Ian Baker said like 2032 or 36 was the projected date that they have for it to be funded. But I'd like to see where we stand with all these people before we make a commitment.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, I want to thank Councilor Penta for bringing this up. And I'm supportive of this, but I think perhaps before we do vote on this and set a dollar amount to it, the wise course of action given the information that Councilor Nigel shared with us and also Councilor Caraviello's concerns would be that we meet, perhaps the Finance and Budgeting Committee meet with all those persons who were mentioned by Councilor Caraviello to examine the matter. But it is a critically serious issue and it needs to be addressed and dragging our feet on it is not the right thing to do. So you're perfectly right there, Councilor Penta, that this should be moved on. I think the way to do it would be to develop a plan with those pertinent persons and start to move on it. And we can do it within this budget cycle. Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Camuso. I was going to agree with Councilor Caraviello that we sit in subcommittee with Anne Baker. The same exact people, Ian Baker, budget director, and the retirement board. I would like to learn a little bit more. I'm not ready to make a vote on it tonight, but I agree with my colleagues. And I thank Councilor Penta for bringing this up.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Mr. President, as I said before, I'm going to disagree with my colleague, Councilor Knight, because the facts that he has are not representative of the cost that's presently out there. The city of Medford, for example, on a return for its money last year, received 11.96%. But you go to Northbridge, they had 15.29%. Norwood, 15.84%. Peabody had 15.34%. Pittsfield had 14.91%. Plymouth had 19.66%. And then you can go down to these other cities and towns. Weymouth had 18.2%. Winchester had 12 point. Winthrop had 14 percent. Woburn had 18 percent. And we can go down, and the question then becomes if our investments aren't meeting or keeping up with those folks, those folks who apparently are doing better than the city of Medford, why? And maybe we should be looking at taking a lesson from how they do their investments. That's number one. Number two, this is a debt obligation that we owe. And if this city is going to keep worrying about its bond rating, its bond rating has got nothing to do with paying off a debt because you show me the alternative other than taking it out of the money that you already have, other than going out to bond to want to pay for this thing, which would be the most ridiculous way to go. This city administration is paralyzing, is taking money away from Medford taxpayers that either could be used for paying debts such as this or municipal improvements. This is just two particular areas. And if you're going to keep being worried about a bond, well, what's the next big thing to get bonded around here? The police station? Well, then let's do it if that's what we're waiting for. But according to the mayor, that's a seven-year-old process. This is something that's alive and well. It's in front of your faces right now. This is a debt obligation that's owed because the city, for which has been this administration for 26 years, has never put a dime into paying or paying down on this debt obligation. And now it's in front of us. And it's real. And it has to be addressed. I'm not worried about a bond rating. I'm more concerned about if we have money sitting in the bank that can start to help to pay this debt down, then that's what we need to do. For God's sakes, you get $8.5 million in a water and sewer account, and the city administration is afraid either to lower the rates or have a program set. Those are the only two things you can do with a surplus. And he's being allowed to just get away with doing nothing and letting the money accumulate. And here you are, $6.5 million in free cash. But you also have a debt obligation that exists each and every year and continues to grow. This is not going to go away. This isn't a political issue. This is a real, live, physical debt obligation that this city owes. And with that being said, $500,000 is a drop in the bucket. It's a beginning. It's a beginning to understand that we are going to address this problem. And if we're fortunate enough to keep going and having free cash, then maybe that's the best way to just keep going. Because I don't know any other way other than going out and, again, banging the taxpayer overhead by way of a bond or some other financial encumbrance that they're going to have to pay for this. And they shouldn't have to pay for it. But when other cities and towns, other cities and towns can generate that kind of money by a rate of interest return for their last year, and we did 11 percent. We're somewhere in the middle or thereabouts. But there are other cities and towns well ahead of us with their interest returns. Then I think we need to have a — sit down with the Retirement Board and Baker and all our financial people. But that's not the point. This issue has got to be addressed. And the best way to address it, knowing right now that we're flushing at least one particular account, then let's get to it and let's start on it. And let's not worry about, oh, my God, we might go from a triple-A to a double-A bond rating because we used money that the taxpayers have that are generally theirs that's not being used for anything else. We're waiting for this administration to decide the next thing he wants to do to use the money on. And then maybe when he leaves next year or two years or whenever he decides to go or gets beaten out of office, that administration is going to have to deal with it. That city council is going to have to deal with it. And then it will affect every single thing that a budget has. But if there's a commitment that's built in now, and it represents the fact that we're addressing this debt that wasn't started by this council or councils before, it's been sitting there for years, because no city administration wanted to deal with it, now's the time to do it. All you have to do is pony up, however you want to do it. Do you want to have a meeting? I've got no problem with it. But as Councilor De La Rosa, you alluded to it, it should be addressed this term, and the first payment should begin during this legislative session that we're serving in.
[Paul Camuso]: Vice President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, not only do we have this debt going to people that have already retired, but I want to see where we're going forward for these younger people that are coming down the line. I mean, when was the last time this formula was re-evaluated? Has it been increased, decreased over the years? That's what I want to see. Going forward, I mean, what's in the past is done, but there's a lot of young people that are working in the city that depend on this pension for when they retire in the next 20, 25, or 30 years. That's the part where I'm concerned, Are we using the correct formula going forward?
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. That's what I was getting at. You know, with GASB making these changes to the actual accounting and reporting principles that are in place and the federal government adopting them as generally accepted accounting principles, the city of Medford is going to have to take a look at the way that we are doing things. I'm not saying that this is a bad idea. I didn't say that at all. What I'm saying is I think we need to tread lightly and we need to use caution because we don't want to make a decision that's going to have a long-term dramatic effect on our financial viability. Now, I understand what Councilor Penta is coming from, saying, well, we're never going to have financial viability if we have this unfunded debt and this unfunded liability. However, if we're looking at how we're going to pay it off and we have the free cash sitting in the bank collecting 1%, And we can take that money out and bond it for 2 or 3 or 4 percent because we have a AAA bond rating and then use that to spend down a pension liability that's going to get us a return to 15 percent, like he says. I don't see how we're losing money. But that's a question for another day, Mr. President. I'll certainly support the paper to go to committee to ask these questions that we have to get better informed and to properly vet the issue before we make a demand or make a — ask the question for the mayor to expend $500,000 annually to fully fund the pension system. I know that we've gotten a report back from Ann Baker. I believe it was in April. relative to the plan that they currently have in place. However, I don't have any understanding or any commitment or any knowledge that the city's actually looking at these new accounting principles and these new accounting standards that have been put in place. That's why I asked my colleagues to tread lightly. That's why I think this issue needs to be vetted a little bit further before we can ask this question and make this recommendation, Mr. President.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. Councilor Fenton.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, to bond 2 percent, maybe you misspoke. You said maybe we should just go out and bond for 2 percent. and that money will generate some money. Why would you be going out to bond 2% to pay? When you go out to bond, you're bonding for something. I think you misspoke. I don't understand what you said. You said you bond for 2%?
[Adam Knight]: You're saying we're getting returns of 15%, 20%, right? Other communities are getting returns of 15% or 20%, right? Those are, yeah. So if we bond the money for 3% and we invest that money and we're getting returns of 15%, I don't see how we're losing.
[Robert Penta]: That's not the investment that's going. If you look at how the Retirement Board invests its money, and if you read the State Investment Board Retirement Program, it's to pay for the investments that you have right now. We're talking about the unfunded liability. It doesn't make any difference what the Feds or Gatsby or anybody else says. You're going to have to—and whatever the new accounting practices might be, they still can't get you away from the fact that you owe this money. And however you owe this money, if this money is put aside in a special account to offset it, so be it. We're not putting up $6 or $7 million. We're starting at a $500,000 beginning here.
[Adam Knight]: But what I'm saying is, why not? Why aren't we putting up $6 or $7 million if that's going to address the problem and address the need and address it now, in the real time, right now? Why aren't we doing that?
[Robert Penta]: Well, then if that's the case, then maybe we should have Maybe the meeting should be the following. A, that we have a meeting with the city's retirement board. Ann Baker, she's our auditor, and I believe she sits on the board anyway. What is the total amount of the unfunded liability? The unfunded pension liability, how much is that?
[Paul Camuso]: As of which date?
[Robert Penta]: As of today. As of today. The unfunded pension liability as of today, number one. Point of information, Mr. President.
[Adam Knight]: Point of information, counsel. If the federal government has changed their standards and they're making the municipalities and the states report their unfunded liabilities differently than they have required them to do in the past, then this information and data that we're getting isn't going to be accurate. If they're not reporting the liabilities the way that GASB and the way that the generally accepted accounting principles are calling for, then they can give us all the data in the world. But if they're not giving us a forecasted You know, if they're not giving us a forecasted, estimated liability that's done properly, it's garbage in, garbage out.
[Robert Penta]: Well, that's Councilor Knight's opinion. As of right now, let's just see, what is the unfunded liability? How is that determined? If you want to use the Gatsby, the new federal, I don't have no idea. Let's just see, because they're the ones that have to deal with this on a daily basis. The unfunded liability, what's the due date that has to be paid out? And Committee of the Whole?
[Paul Camuso]: Committee of the Whole. Sure. Committee of the Whole. All those? Councilor Marks, and then Councilor Dello Russo.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think the one good thing is we're all in agreement here, behind the reeling, from what I hear. And I think it's prudent to have this particular meeting. I thank Councilor Penta for starting the ball rolling on this. This impacts a lot of people that are in the retirement system, and it really needs to be reviewed by the city. And as was mentioned, the longer we wait, the bigger the unfunded liability becomes. And at some point, it's going to become something that we're not going to even want to approach because it's so unapproachable to figure. So I thank my colleague for bringing this up.
[Fred Dello Russo]: If we could just amend this to include the Director of Personnel, Budget, and Finance.
[Robert Penta]: As amended. And also further, can we get a separate report? What, if any, finances, financial remuneration does the city of Medford get out of the Medicare drug subsidy?
[Paul Camuso]: And the updated actuarials, we should have it.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, we can do that.
[Paul Camuso]: Is that it? Yep. All right. On the motion. Roll call vote and have that voted. Roll call has been requested for a meeting of the committee of the whole to discuss this with the retirement board. And Baker as her role as the retirement board member and the city auditor, as well as budget and personnel director, Stephanie Burke.
[Robert Penta]: Eddie, you have that? Because you look like you had a little.
[Paul Camuso]: Yes. But we want that information at the committee.
[Robert Penta]: Right. If we can get that information ahead of time so we can discuss it.
[Paul Camuso]: So we have some information to discuss.
[Clerk]: Vice President Cavanaugh. Yes. Councilor Dello Russo. Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Lungo-Koehn? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Penta?
[Paul Camuso]: Yes.
[Clerk]: President Camuso?
[Paul Camuso]: Yes. By a vote of seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, this paper has been referred to the Committee of the Whole. Item 14-726, petition by Jeannie M. Martin, 10 Cummings Street, Medford, to address the Council on Police and Fire Headquarters and Personnel.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, just a point of order.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of order, Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'm concerned. I think we've had a report on this in the past couple weeks from this petitioner on the same subject.
[Paul Camuso]: We certainly have. Is it similar in nature to your last few weeks' discussions?
[Jeanne Martin]: Let's see, anything new? School shootings. School what? School shootings. School shootings? Yes. Can I speak about that? Sure. Thank you. Just last week, there was another school shooting. Starting in the 1990s, there were 35 school shootings without including Columbine. resulting in 59 deaths and 105 injured. On April 20th, 1999, in Littleton, Colorado, Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Cabald opened fire on 15 kids, killing them and injured 21 others. The 2000s get worse, up to and including Sandy Hook Elementary, where 28 were killed and two were injured. October 24th, 2014, Jalyn Fryberg opened fire in his school's cafeteria, killing three and injuring three more. We live in a grand theft auto and call of duty culture, and we need to do something about this. I would suggest that we increase our numbers of police to handle this, and that we also need a police station. We need a new police station to handle cyber criminals. And I know it's repetitive, but it needs to be said. Because if we don't say it, who's going to? Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: Is there a motion? On the motion of Councilor Knight to receive and place on file. All those in favor? All those opposed? The ayes have it. Item 14-727, petition by Joseph Viglione, 59 Garfield Ave, Medford, to address the Council on Arts slash Media Center. Name and address for the record.
[Joe Viglione]: Joseph Viglione, 59 Garfield Ave, Medford, Massachusetts. Thank you, City Council. The April 29th Medford transcript noted that the owner of the Springstep Building, Elizabeth Grady Company CEO, Joan Walsh, wanted the building to stay in the arts community when Councilor Caraviello floated the idea of having Springstep be the new home of Channel 3. Rather than start with a $4.5 million building, a sports host colleague of mine suggested that we look at 101 George P. Hassett Drive. The building next door to City Hall has been gutted internally. I took a look at it today from the window. It is perfect for a build-out. A new nonprofit would benefit by purchasing this entity, but to effectively do this, A new AXS TV Corporation needs to be built, one that has City Hall's help in this endeavor. With the Mayor's Community AXS TV Committee having given its report, with zero information from the Mayor's Office on the future of AXS TV, Mayor McGlynn is now in violation of a good faith obligation to the taxpayers, cable TV rate payer subscribers, and the businesses, civic groups, and residents of Medford. This City Council needs to be proactive As I've said so many times before, Winthrop and Stoneham own their own buildings, and the previous nonprofit that was running Channel 3 squandered monies. Those monies spent in almost 30 years could have purchased a new building. This city council needs to put pressure on the mayor until he lives up to his contractual obligations to the residents of this city who are paying the freight. And the clock is ticking because April 20th, I believe, is the Comcast renegotiation date. I am not here looking for a vote of the city council, some symbolic gesture. I am here to demand this council protect rate payer monies or be voted out of office one year from next week, Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015. This council needs to step up and help form a new non-profit. Let us now invest in a new non-profit and a new building that the arts community, public access, and the Medford arts community together can share to improve life in Medford. Now, I'm talking to lawyers to litigate soon if the mayor continues to ignore us, because as I said, the clock is ticking. The mayor has a contractual obligation now. My fear is that come April 20th, he may say, well, well, I've heard them. They all want access, but I don't want it. And it shouldn't be up to one individual. That building is beautiful for what we need, and it's been gutted. I hope this city council can just go take a gander over there, maybe tomorrow, maybe in the next week. because you have a week off next week because of the election, two weeks in fact. This is the time that I'll be formulating a plan. I'll be talking to citizens about maybe forming a new non-profit. And that building sitting right there, 101, I don't know if it's available. The owner is in Winchester. The company, the corporation is called Medford Square Realty. It's a great idea. It's just sitting there. It's gutted. We could build it out. We could put a radio station in there for 24-7 emergency. Captain Barry Clemente could use the radio station, and these stations are free. There's a new company now. There's Blog Talk Radio Charges. There's another company now that allows free Internet radio, and I could put a transmitter up there. I've told this council before. I've run radio stations. A $2,000 transmitter, we can have a part 15 FCC radio station where people can tune in for snow emergencies, for any other emergencies. I'm passionate about this. This council knows it. This is very important to me. And the whole access thing is going to be changing as CBS and HBO just, Mr. President, they just went on the Internet. And I think you probably read that. So everything's shifting to the web. We need an access center. That building, we could clean it up because there is trash around it. There is graffiti on it. And it's 100 yards from City Hall. We have to have some self-respect in this city. It's just right near City Hall, and it's a disgrace right now. And we need to improve it. Thank you.
[Jeanne Martin]: Sure. Jean Martin, 10 Cummings Street. Can I speak on this? Thank you. Oh, thank you. Every day that goes by, this city misses out on an opportunity to digitalize our history, our sports events, our concerts, our plays, our events at the Condon Shell. And it's going to require the citizens of Medford to come forward to create the new non-profit. And I want to thank Joe for all of his hard work and everything that he went through. I want to thank him for that. I personally don't think that buying the new building is a good idea. We need to buy a new police station before we buy a new building. But I do believe that we need to rent a space downtown in Medford Square someplace have an access station, start using it, and getting this stuff digitally recorded. If the new thing is to put it up on the computer or the iPod or the iPad or whatever the new i thing is, then fine, let's digitalize it and put it up on that for everybody to see. We're missing out, the mayor doesn't want to do this, but the people, the people can step up and they can do this. The people are going to have to come forward from the arts community. They're going to have to demand this. If they don't demand it, then it can't go anywhere. You folks can't do it. The mayor can't even do it. But the mayor could ask the people in Medford to come forward, but he chooses not to. That's on him. But I do believe, I don't miss out on anything. It's the citizens of Medford that miss out on this. because they don't come forward. And they need to feel comfortable coming forward. They need to come forward in mass, 12, 14, 15 of them, and start this thing up. So I'm asking those folks out there to come forward, to build out the new 501c3, to get this thing off the ground. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Mr. President, whether it means buying the building or renting the space, something needs to be done. A few weeks ago, I was led to believe by someone who who seems to be in the know in this building, that the mayor was going to be making his decision, and he was going to be making the announcement that public access was going to take place. I haven't seen it, and it hasn't taken place. But just to go back with a reminder, Councilman Max, I think it was two budgets ago, because the money was not included in the budget, to put money in there for the arts, if you remember correctly. And I believe the resolution was a joint resolution between yourself and myself for $10,000 to be put in the budget. And then when the mayor found out about it, and it was right during the middle of an election period of time, he decided to up the ante to $20,000 or $15,000, I forget the final number, whatever it might be. Never saying a word to the council, because the council all voted on that, and I believe the council even voted to amend it to a higher dollar amount. never a thank you coming back to the council for at least enlightening him or whatever it might be, but because it was a political process or it was political benefit for him. The part that I just don't understand right now is this $303,000 sitting downstairs in the general fund of this city. That doesn't come from the city. It comes from the rate payers for Comcast and Verizon subscribers. That's their money. And they are owed public access. And that's what that money is for. Now, for how unfortunately what took place in December of 2012 till now, and there's no more Channel 3, and, you know, that's a hauntedness unto itself. There's no records. There's no books. There's no validity to what they've done. There's no minutes to the meeting. The Attorney General's Office still can't give you an answer as to what's going on. That's a shame. But that's one part. And the other part of the coin is no public access. And if April 20th is right around the corner, usually before the April 20th, I believe within six months prior to the deadline of the contract, public hearings are supposed to be taking place. And I believe the city of Medford hires this gentleman from Newton. I think they pay him $325 an hour as legal counsel and advisor to the city for cable television. And they usually have these public meetings here at City Hall. I think they're required to have one if not two public hearings before they're submitted into Boston. I just don't know. I guess I'm lost for words right now to you and everyone who might be watching. I was really hoping that the mayor was going to pull the rabbit out of the hat, and he was finally coming to his senses. But I don't know. I can't answer it, because it's a real shame. You know, we have an attorney general candidate from the city of Medford, Martha Coakley. She has gone to every single public access chase around the city of Medford. around the city of Medford, but not in her own hometown that she lives in. And that's a shame. Whether you're voting for or not voting for, but you can't get any closer to home, to the highest elected office statewide. And it isn't because there's no money, and it isn't because you're trying to find a place, because I don't see anybody trying to find it. It's a lack of... It's a lack of free speech being allowed. The other night in Winchester, Pat Jalen and Bob Capucci had a debate. They had to go to Winchester. And it's going to be aired back in Somerville, but the city of Medford, you know, they don't have it. And these people represent our city. Elections are just as important as anything else that goes on public access, whether it's an educational thing, whether it's a sports event, whatever it might be. And, you know, I don't know why the people, when you look at your cable bill each and every month, whatever that dollar is, or $0.98, or whatever the dollar amount might be, you're just throwing that away. Because this city administration doesn't want to seem to have cable access. And like I said, and I apologize for repeating myself, I was led to believe by someone who seems to be pretty good in the know that he was going to do it, but apparently he hasn't done it. So this is two times that this has happened. Judge Jackson, when she did her report, so five years ago, she wrote an extensive report. I think we've all read it. And then the most recent cable committee, not commission committee that the mayor had, and he indicated subsequent to Memorial Day and right after the 4th of July, he was going to make his announcement. This is now almost November 1st and there's no announcement to be made and people keep paying and keep paying and keep paying. So, um, I hear what you're saying, Jeannie, and it's just a shame that we don't have public access here in this city. You know, elections are very important. Candidates have an opportunity. They don't have any opportunity in this city. But you can be rest assured next year, Channel 15 will be proffering everything that the mayor wants to talk about during the election campaign. You know, it's kind of interesting here, and I'll just ask my colleagues about this one. Have any one of you ever tried to have your own press release and try to get a hold of Channel 15 and have them come up and give you the same forum that the mayor gets and use the same people up at the high school getting paid on city time to do a public forum? Try it and see if it works. Try to get an informational piece on the city's webpage and see what happens. It doesn't happen and it doesn't exist. So this freedom of expression and freedom of what goes on as public officials here in the city is only designed for one person because that person's in control of it. And it's very unfortunate. And I would hope people would wake up and realize that, you know, at the rate we're going and if you keep paying for it, And this is a very scary thought, and I'll conclude by saying the following. I could be corrected, but I think I found this out information today that's correct. The mayor does not have to allow public access by right of contract if he so chooses not to renew. The big question then becomes who and what takes that $300,000 or $500,000 or $400,000, whatever the dollar amount is going to be then. It's going to be a damn shame if that money winds up into the general coffers and never been used for public access, and nobody ever had an opportunity to understand why or how, because nobody spec'd up and nobody challenged it. That's an issue right now, I believe, in a surrounding city and town that's in a legal contest, and if that be the case, you know, we better watch out and better be prepared for it. So, with that being said, I thank you for making your remarks, and whether we buy the building, rent the building, or what have you, Gene, or anyone who might be watching, You know, public access does not exist in the city of Medford. It's not alive and well, and you can thank the mayor of this community because he's not allowing it.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Alango-Kern.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Camuso. I actually want to echo Gene's sentiments. I just feel, truly feel, that the city of Medford's missing out. Teenagers, young children, all the way up to, you know, adults and the elderly who you could be using TV access for many, many different reasons, including, you know, the many things you mentioned. It's unfortunate. This council, over a year ago, fought to get TV 3 on the right track. And, you know, what we did was, with every, you know, the citizens' help, was an accomplishment. But at this point, it just went to the wayside. You know, in June, Father Hines was leaving. We thought at that point that the committee, cable committee, would have been done. with what they needed to do, and we'd have a new station up and running. And at this point, we're already into November almost, and we've heard nothing. We've asked for updates, we've asked for reports, we've asked for how we're gonna go forward, and the corner office is silent. That's unfortunate for the city of Medford. It's unfortunate for the candidates to the current election, state, senate, and the list goes on. So I too, I don't know where TV should go, TV3 should go, but I do know that we are paying for it every day through our cable bill, and it's wrong. I think the administration really needs to get in the ball and do what they need to do.
[Paul Camuso]: You'd like to speak again? Name and address for the record.
[Jeanne Martin]: Thank you. Gene Martin, 10 Cumming Street. And that's exactly what he's going to do. He's going to just fade out the whole program come June or whatever, May, April. And he's going to use it like he does the other 3% out of the 5%. Out of every $100 that you pay on your cable bill, $5 is taken out for, supposed to be for public access. I guess it's technically he's within his legal rights as he always is. But $3 out of those $5 is used and thrown into the general fund. And so if he did it with that $3, he's absolutely going to do it with the other two that should be going towards public access, the 1% that's supposed to go to public access. He's going to do that. So it's not my loss. It is my loss a little bit. But it's really, the people that want a voice in this city, they're not going to have one. It's going to be silent. It's going to be more silent than it ever was once there's no chance of public access. So we're missing out on culture. plays, you name it, and they should be working hand-in-hand with the auditorium that we already have. I don't see why a station can't work hand-in-hand with the big auditorium, the Chevalier Auditorium. I don't understand why the mayor wouldn't want that to happen. Well, I understand why he doesn't want it to happen, because he doesn't want to be challenged on his views and his politics and his policies. And that's why he keeps the whole program silent. So thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Dello Russo, on the motion to receive. Would you like to speak on this again? I'd just like to add a little something. Name and address for the record.
[Joe Viglione]: One more time. Joe Villione, 59 Garfield Ave, Medford. Councilor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, you're right, and I brought up computers before. The classes for the computer is so essential. I'm learning more about Final Cut Pro than I ever learned before, and it is so important because they keep upgrading these systems, and I'm an old-timer. As Councilor Penter, I was at Wakefield, and the president told me that they had three political shows. Catherine Clark, before she was a Congresswoman, Candidate Wong, and then there was a third person. The elected officials had their own shows, which they have in many, many towns, so you people are all missing out. And I talked to Stephanie Burke about the radio idea, and this is interesting. She said, there is money available from Homeland Security for just such a thing. So I'm glad we had this discussion tonight, because now I'm going to go back to Stephanie Burke with that idea. And the final thing, as far as owning the old building, thank you, Jeanne, very much for your kind words. I just think owning is a tangible, and the money doesn't dissolve. So we have something, and the arts community has something, but I like the idea of the Chevalier, too. Thank you very much, City Council.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And both speakers brought up some very valid points. And Jeanne, you're 100% correct. Every resident in this community is losing out. You know, even if you're not involved in local cable or want to produce your own show, the fact that we don't have the opportunity to look at high school sports on our local access. I remember the days where they used to have live feeds and you could watch the Medford High football game live on local cable for those people that couldn't get to the game. Council President, I think it was you that a year or two ago asked that all the boards and commissions, their meetings be taped. On channel 16, which I thought, and I think it was voted by this council, an excellent way of providing transparency in this community and allowing residents to get involved or look into the process of government. And I thought that was an excellent suggestion, but again, The residents are being stifled because there's no access in this community. Several weeks back, we had what I would say is one of the largest meetings in this community in the last 25 years regarding parking enforcement. And that's an issue that's going to impact every resident in this community, every business owner in this community. And we couldn't get that on local access to show the meeting. The meeting was taped. We couldn't get it on local access. However, every other event, Mr. President, if you look in Channel 15, is the mayor cutting a ribbon, the mayor going to the dog run, saying how we're going to have a dog park, telling people we're going to have a dog park in the near future. You know, it's almost laughable what is happening in this community now. As Councilor Penta said, you have one person controlling all access. all media access. Even the cameras here that are on the blink every so often, we have to beg the mayor to fix the cameras so viewers at home can watch our meeting without the tape going off and on, without the voice going up and down. You know, it really is a shame what's going on. And I, as one member of the council, Mr. President, think maybe it has come time that maybe that we do look at a class action suit, Mr. President. And I don't take this very lightly when I mention it, Mr. President, but there's no reason that ratepayers' money, week after week, month after month, year after year, is going into funding something that we're not providing to the residents of this community. And it's no different than resident permit parking stickers for years that may have had residents buy permit parking stickers and never enforced permit parking in our city. Never enforced it. It wasn't until one of the news stations came down and did a story on it that it uncovered many people parking on our streets, on resident permit streets, that didn't have stickers from other cities, days on end, and no enforcement, Mr. President. So, there seems to be a pattern here with the mayor of, you know, in one breath saying, leadership that works, and on the other breath, doing absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing. If I look in the local media again, in one of the websites, and see another picture of the mayor walking around promoting candidates running for public office and not doing his job here at City Hall, Mr. President, to me, that's grounds for termination right there. We have so many issues that really, you should not see the mayor at a ribbon cutting for the next five years. His head should be buried in that office, working on the issues that he has promised the people and the residents of this community for the last several years. And the inaction in this community speaks volumes. It speaks volumes, Mr. President, on what's going on throughout this city. And what you're hearing now is a sense of frustration, because it's not one issue. It's many, many, many issues that are starting to build up. And people are starting to get wise to it, saying, you know what? Enough's enough. Enough's enough in this community. And whether it's the cable, whether it's parking enforcement. And just if I could, Mr. President, on parking enforcement, Councilor Prenta brought up and I won't steal his thunder, a few weeks back, the fact that the language that supposedly the mayor had added to the parking contract that stated there'll be two 30-minute free parking spots in each of the five business districts, and that there'll be a certain number of single head meters in each of the five business districts, as Councilor Penta so eloquently stated, That language was never included in the final contract that was signed. And I asked the city solicitor, and I'm not going to speak on his behalf, I said, why is that language not in the contract? And he said, that language is outside of the contract. He said, there's a lot of language that is included in the request for proposal that is not in the contract. but enables the city to move forward on issues like providing additional free parking spots in the community. So when the mayor came back to the business owners and said, I'm going to give two additional free 30-minute parking spots in each of the five business districts, he didn't have to negotiate that with Republic, the Tennessee company. He did that unilaterally, and he did it without any vote of this council and without any other support. In my situation, Mr. President, I would ask that the mayor increase that five-fold, that at least 10 spots, free 30-minute pocket spots be in each of the business districts. And maybe at some point we'll get to a point where Republic says, hey, this changes the financial impact of the contract and we can no longer do this unless we negotiate a new contract. But the fact is, Mr. President, the mayor was able to do that without any support of Republic or this council or any vote in this community. And I think, Mr. President, what we're seeing right now is not leadership from a mayor, but dictatorship, Mr. President. And that's what we're experiencing now. After 28 years of the same dictator, we're seeing that it's no longer consensus and trying to find out what's best for our community, Mr. President. It's someone just leading as a dictator. And I think that's a sad commentary, what's happening in this community. And I hope residents of this community get wise to it, Mr. President.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Castagnetti, Andrew, Cushing Street. Don't recollect. I'm trying to blank. I'm not here to challenge anyone. It's not my style. It seems to me, however, in a city of this size, they should have TV3 broadcasting or government access. Surrounding towns and cities are doing it. And he's sitting on the money. He's raping his money. I don't know. It's just a sad state of affairs, especially during an election month coming up. You would think there would be a It's a great avenue for politicians to talk about what they think is important to help the citizens. It's a sad state of affairs. It's a complete mystery. I wish it gets back on the air so the community can use their monies. Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: The motion of Councilor Dello Russo to receive and place it on file. All those in favor? On the motion, Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: I don't think we should receive this and place it on file. I think this should be forwarded. That's the only motion right now. Who made that motion? Councilor Dello Russo. Well, I will amend the motion to not be received and placed on file, and have this forwarded to the Mayor, and to have him make an answer. Do you intend to, and when do you intend to have public access up and running in the city of Medford? It's as simple as that. Well, let's just do it again. You know something? And the more he doesn't respond, it just shows his arrogance and, as Councilor Marks has alluded to, his dictatorial attitude toward everything that's going on. He's got no right. He has absolutely no right to sit on $303,000 and not explain to the taxpayers what he's trying to do.
[Adam Knight]: Point of information, Councilor Knight. I believe the paper that was before us was for the gentleman to address the council on whether or not we should purchase an arts and media center. That is the paper before us. Thank you for your point.
[Paul Camuso]: On the motion to send this to the mayor. Yes. All those in favor? Roll call vote, Mr. Mayor. Roll call has been requested. Can you read back from the board what exactly we asked for? The motion is to send this to the mayor on where he is going.
[Robert Penta]: Does he plan on having a- When does he intend, where, and when does he intend to have public access up and running in the city of Medford?
[Paul Camuso]: On the motion, the clerk will call the roll.
[Clerk]: Vice President Caraviello. Councilor De La Russa? Councilor Knight? No. Councilor Kern?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Motz? Yes. Councilor Panda? Yes. President Caruso?
[Paul Camuso]: No. By a vote of five in the affirmative, three in the negative, the motion passes. Four and three. I apologize. Jeannie was against it. All right. On the motion to go suspend rule number 33 to take the papers in the hands of the clerk. All those in favor? All those opposed, the ayes have it.
[Adam Knight]: Communication from the mayor.
[Paul Camuso]: Do we have another paper there? I apologize. I was laughing at my miscalculation. 14-728, communications from the mayor, council president, and members of the Medford City Council. I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body appropriate $173,400 from the sale of Lots and Graves account to the Cemetery Department salary account. This recommended appropriation is requested in accordance with page 40 of the fiscal 2015 budget. The Cemetery Department salary account is reduced each year in anticipation of an appropriation from sales of Lots and Graves. In addition, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body appropriate $159,759 from perpetual care to the cemetery department expense budget. This recommended appropriation is requested in accordance with page 41 of the fiscal 2015 budget. The cemetery expense budget is reduced each year in anticipation of an appropriation from perpetual care. Signed, Michael J. McGlynn, Mayor. Is there a motion? Motion for approval. Vice President Caraviello, all those in favor?
[Adam Knight]: Aye.
[Paul Camuso]: All those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion to take papers in the hands of the clerk.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Councilor. President Camuso, I think the end of suspension has to do with ending the meeting. I just wanted to bring up, we got a response from the mayor with regards to the mayor's office with regards to The ledger sheet showing funds received and directed to fund for City Dog Park, I don't think this was brought up, 60,000 from J.F. White and $1,766.93 was a donation from Boston Volunteer Solutions who ran the Doggy Fun Run 2013. Supposedly there's more funds coming in from the Doggy Fun Run 2014. I wanted to question if we could send a request. I believe there's also a dog show three or four years ago that was raising money specifically so Medford could open a dog park. So that would be my question to the mayor's office, what monies were included in that. And I just want to bring up the issue again. I was in South Boston over the weekend and I saw, it was a beautiful day, a little chilly, but beautiful. There's a dog park in South Boston and is, nothing more than a fence. And there were more people and dogs in this dog park, right on the water. It was beautiful. I just stopped. I was doing an ALS walk, and I stopped and looked, and I just threw my hands up. My husband's like, what's the matter with you? I'm like, what is the problem? Well, what's $200,000 about that? Yeah, it's definitely, I mean, we have $62,000 here, and more money's coming in from the doggie fun run. Councilman Marks has a petition going out and he's chaired this issue and this council has voted numerous times for a dog park, but I couldn't help myself. Number one, we got some of our answers and number two, just to see a fence with a few barrels and some turf, you know, it wasn't turf, it was cheap material and everybody was out having their coffee and there was probably 20 dogs in the dog park. I just wanted to bring that up all this council can do is just bring up issues again and again because eventually they do, some of them do stick. So again, I believe this city needs a dog park. We have the money here for it. There's a number of spots that I could recommend as could any of this city council. And I just really hope the mayor moves forward.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. On that motion, all those in favor? All those opposed? The ayes have it. Why we're on this? We are under suspension of the rule. Okay, offered by Councilor Knight, in light of the upcoming celebration of Veterans Day, be it resolved that the Medford City Council adjourn this meeting on 10-28-2014 in honor of the men and women serving in our armed forces.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I felt it was appropriate that we bring this resolution forward this week, whereas we're not going to be meeting the week of Veterans Day. As we all know, the country has been embroiled in turmoil for a number of years overseas in the Middle East. And we've had many men and women return to Medford and return to Massachusetts, suffering from the effects of being overseas at war. I think that we've seen a number of people come back from being overseas that are suffering from traumatic brain injury. I just think that it's nice that we raise awareness and that we thank the men and women who've actually dedicated their lives and dedicated their time and dedicated their souls to protecting our freedoms, our democracy, and our country.
[Paul Camuso]: All those in favor? All those opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you, Councilor. And just a reminder, there will be no council meeting next Tuesday evening because of election day. And the following Tuesday, there will not be a meeting either because it is Veterans Day. So therefore, we'll be meeting in three weeks from tonight. Offered by Councilor Knight and Councilor Camuso, be it resolved that the Medford City Council extends its sincere and deep condolences to the family of Martin Ford on his recent passing. If we could please rise for a moment of silence. And just one announcement. Last week, when the topic came up during our meeting regarding ballot questions, the chair was in doubt whether we could take a stance as a body or not. I got advised this week by the appropriate authorities that an elected body can take a stance on ballot questions, but they cannot take a stance on individual elected office, for governor, state rep, lieutenant governor example. So I did seek out that answer because I was Didn't know the answer last week, so that is where it is. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And also, last week, the issue of the South Method neighborhood safety walk was brought up to a resolution offered by myself. And we had a number of South Method residents here. And at the time, it was mentioned that there was a violation of the open meeting law if more than four members of the council attended this particular meeting. And where part of my resolution was to try to expand this particular safety walk, I sent an email to the city solicitor and also the city clerk. And I believe we all got a response back via email from the city solicitor, Mark Rumley. And I just would like to read it for the edification of people that may be watching, I don't want anyone to believe that there was any doubt that there was no violation of the open meeting law at this neighborhood walk. But it says, dear Councilor Marks, you have asked me whether the attendance of city councilors at an event organized by a private citizen group for the purpose of addressing neighborhood safety and other related concerns could potentially be a violation of the open meeting law. My answer is that the attendance by City Council is at such an event would not be a violation of the Open Meeting Law. The basis for my conclusion is that General Law Chapter 38, the Open Meeting Law applies to public bodies. According to the facts you have presented to me, the neighborhood safety walk was organized by a private citizen group and was neither scheduled by the City Council nor was it subject to the Council's direction or control. It was therefore essentially an opportunity for the participants, including the Councilors, to observe conditions in a particular neighborhood rather than to make decisions through a vote of a quorum or the city council. Even though the private citizen group that called for the walk was concerned with public issues, i.e. neighborhood safety and related issues, it is not a public body as it is not an entity within the executive or legislative branches of state government or within any county, district, city, region, or town. I hope this answers your opinion.
[Paul Camuso]: Respectfully, Mark Rumley. Thank you very much, Councilor Marks. And also, I'm glad you brought this up because the Attorney General's office is actually the oversight authority on this particular matter now. It used to be the District Attorney's office, but within the last four or five years, it changed under the jurisdiction of the AG's office. And the AG's office, if anyone wants to call them, if any deliberations or anything come up at a meeting, whether it's public body or not, it could be constitute a violation. So I know at your meeting there was no deliberations, but even talking about something that maybe the council has jurisdiction over, and I'm glad you asked the question to the city solicitor though. But any further questions, you can ask the Attorney General's office, who is the authority, and they will give guidance to any public body. On the motion of the records, the records were passed to Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: How did you find the records, Councilor Knight? Mr. President, I reviewed the records and I found them in order. I took special consideration to look at the South Medford neighborhood walk to be sure that everything there was in order. There were 13 amendments and they certainly all look like they were right to me, Mr. President, so I'd move for approval.
[Paul Camuso]: On the motion of approval of the records, all those in favor? All those opposed? The ayes have it. On the motion for adjournment, all those in favor? All those opposed? The ayes have it.
|
total time: 21.93 minutes total words: 2139  |
total time: 10.22 minutes total words: 984  |
total time: 5.31 minutes total words: 429  |
total time: 7.47 minutes total words: 565  |
|
total time: 30.83 minutes total words: 1795  |
total time: 17.3 minutes total words: 1064  |
total time: 2.97 minutes total words: 286  |
|