[Paul Camuso]: I'd like suspension of rule number 33 to take item 15-012.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of councilor Camuso to take item number, uh, zero one, two, all those in favor, all those opposed. I have a number 15-012 offered by councilor Camuso. Be it resolved that the Medford city council, uh, sorry, that the city of Medford, establish a long-term stabilization fund to help offset any major projects such as the police station in the future. Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Mr. President. As we're all aware, the city has several accounts, the overlay surplus account, the linkage account, water and sewer enterprise, certified free cash account. I think it's about time that this city council asked the mayor to have an actual account in the budget. for long-term stabilization of this community. You know, the mayor's not going to be here forever, and we want to make sure that there is a stabilization fund in place so that in years to come, this city can be financially stabilized. In the past, I know Budget Director Burke, as a member of this council, often called for a capital improvement fund. And I just think this is a good way where, come budget time, we could actually ask the mayor, hey, we would like to see X amount of dollars put into this actual account. And I just think it's something that we have to do to think about the future of our children, that someday we'll be the leaders in this community, and to make sure that we set it up in a way that will be financially stable for years to come. So I'd like to make a motion for approval. on setting up an actual municipal city account for this purpose. On the motion of approval by Councilor Camuso, Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: On that account, I agree with my colleague of having that done, but I think we've, we've been talking about this for almost a year and a half. And I believe in the year 2014, while you were serving as president, and that was the number one priority of the Medford city council to have an account or something that would basically relegate itself toward addressing a police station. I know we have the chief of police here tonight, I know he would welcome that. I know that the members of the, uh, method police department would welcome it, but it still has to come from the mayor. And I just really wouldn't want this to be, um, some type of a, um, lip service going forward without having some kind of an agreement that money would be put aside on an annual basis or that we would put a yearly program together. And maybe by the end of the third year, the money would be there rather than waiting. As the mayor has alluded to, it'll be seven years before, and he's not going to be here in seven years. We all know that, you know, thank God. So with that being said, I think maybe a redirection as to not only setting up the account, but maybe taking a dollar amount, making a request to take a dollar amount, either out of our free cash or on the stabilization account, as we did to take money out of the account of our deficit as it relates to our retirement fund. It's in a total deficit. And we've asked to take each on an annual basis of $500,000. to at least start the ball rolling. The mayor is yet to respond from that, because it's obvious that it's not on his plate to be thinking about. And I agree with you. I think something needs to be done. I would rather put a dollar amount from a budgetary item in here to tell the mayor that we're serious about doing this, or your resolution is serious, rather than just making a request. So I would up the anti-jar resolution. To pick an account, take a dollar amount that we know we have over $7 million in free cash, we could take something out of there to get the ball rolling.
[Paul Camuso]: I can understand where you're coming from, and I do not oppose it. The intent of this at this point is to open the line item account so that it's an actual line item come budget time. And then at that point, I think that would be the appropriate opportunity as we're going through the budget line by line to say, as a council, we'd like to see X amount put in there. As we know, there's many accounts throughout the city budget right now that are funded for $1. But if you want to put a dollar amount, amend the paper to put a dollar amount in there, I would support it. But ultimately, if the mayor decides that he's not for that dollar amount, I think we have to be reasonable here and first set up the account. And moving forward, fund it in a manner that will stabilize our community for years to come. So if you want to put a dollar amount, I'll support it. But if he doesn't agree with that, I just would hate to have him say that this is the end of it, and at least a small dollar amount to get the ball rolling. Because if we do this every year, or if he appropriates the money throughout the year, too, at the end of the year, oftentimes, we're transferring money around. I would like to see it going to a stabilization fund rather than the free cash account. Because ultimately, big projects like the police station are going to be bonded. And if we can have money in an account for that specific purpose, and I have to be clear, This is not for the new police station and the new police station only. This is for the stabilization of our community for major projects like the police station, like other things that may come up. So I just don't want to be misleading to the community like you had mentioned, Councilor. So if you want to put a dollar amount, I'll support it.
[Robert Penta]: I have no problem putting a dollar amount in there. We have other buildings. I mean, we can just look at that building right up here in City Hall. This has been going on for well over two years. Now what they did is they've covered the hole in the ceiling rather than fix the hole in the ceiling. And as part of the frame that goes around, it's still ready. We don't know whether it's going to come down or not. We can go to the public library, and we can look at the public library and look at the thousands of dollars that's needed over there in the public library. Councilor Caraviello, when he first came on, I think it was on his 11th month, he gave us a paper that had $1.2 million worth of needed repairs. and the new schools within our community. And during this past year, the schools, the city council passes a budget that gives an increase of over $2 million to the school department. And what do they do? They add more administrators and to an overgrowing need. Maybe that doesn't even need to be needed. Maybe we ought to be looking at teachers and more classroom things that are necessary. So the stabilization account, I've got no problem with that council, but I'd rather prioritize that because the council did make an agreement in January of last year, that the police station will be their first priority. I mean, I'm assuming that the council is still on board for this. Maybe we should ask the Councilors. I mean, what's your priority? Is it the police department or is it just for all municipal buildings as needed when needed?
[Paul Camuso]: Well, you know what? Uh, it's my motion at this point, I'll even strike out the police station, uh, wording and just set up the account. It takes four votes of the council to set up the account. And I think we have to just set up the account with the intent of big projects like the police station. Because you're right, council, I don't want to pit group against group and things of that nature. In order for the mayor to utilize the money, he's going to need the votes of this council anyway at some point. So if I can, Mr. President, strike out the word such as the police station in the near future and just set up for any major projects. And if you want to put a dollar amount, go ahead.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So that amends Councilor Camuso's motion And Councilor Knight has patiently waited.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much, Mr. President, and thank you, Councilor Camuso, for bringing this resolution forward. In my time on the Council, I've seen similar papers to this where we want to set up an account, whether it be for capital improvements or a rainy day fund. And I think it's a good idea. I think this is something that the city needs to build upon some of the commentary that Councilor Pinter has made. I think funding this account is going to be vital. Setting it up is one thing, but funding the account is certainly something else. I would be very wary, however, of going forward and putting together an actual dollar amount. I think that the way we might want to look at this is whether it be a percentage of free cash or whether or not a threshold is met and then a certain percentage can go up. If we have $6 million in free cash, then no less than 5% will go into the stabilization fund, something like that. We can get very creative with the language here. I think that we can really get some bang for our buck. provided that the administration's on board, Mr. President. This is a paper that I'll be supporting wholeheartedly, and I ask my council colleagues to join me, commend Councilor Camuso for bringing it forward. Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. Just a question. Are we talking about taking the funds from free cash and the other surplus accounts, or are we talking about a line item in the budget?
[Paul Camuso]: This would be an account, a line item in the budget, a municipal account. set up by the mayor's office. And going forward, naturally, if the mayor wanted to put any money from any of those other accounts into this account, he'd have to get votes of the council. So I'd be happy with it, setting the account up with the $1 amount and working with the mayor throughout the calendar year and years to come to fund it as we see fit.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, I mean, I believe that the city should have an account for municipal buildings and infrastructure in general. I just, um, I think this, and I think it's a good resolve. I think that it's something that the council probably should sit down in a committee of the whole meeting with regards to even in, in, in hopes to invite the mayor and possibly have him, you know, round table, you know, where's the city going with regards to reserves and, you know, stabilization fund, how much reserves are we going to have? in these four or five accounts before we say, OK, enough is enough. Let's either start taxing the people to the max or start putting money into a stabilization fund for infrastructure. I think we need to see the big picture, because the free cash, overly surplus, water-retained earnings, those accounts keep getting higher and higher and higher. And Director Burke was before us probably a month ago and said, we don't have to go out to bond on anything anytime soon. But yet we always have the argument that we need the AAA bond rating. So I think we need to figure out as a whole where we're at, how high those accounts should be or the city wants them to be before we can give the taxpayer a break and before we can start adding money to a stabilization account. So I just think the big picture is worth a sit down with the committee.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So as you say, if I just may briefly from the chair to summarize that either lower the taxation for what this money that we're amassing, spend it on something that gives the people their money's worth.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Or put it in a stabilization fund. I don't think we should be taxing any more than we already are, which would include a stabilization fund. I think we have money that is left over each budget time that gets certified as free cash. And maybe a percentage of that should go into a stabilization fund. I don't think we should tax above and beyond what we already are taxing for this fund.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you on the motion.
[Paul Camuso]: That was not the intent. We can't tax any more until next December anyway. So I just want to be loud and clear. This is not to raise taxes or anything. It's taking the existing funds or and or come budget time to put funds in it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Councilor Penta, counsel along with current Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I think we've all voted in the past to create capital improvement funds. Uh, this is also a great idea. I agree with Councilor Knight that we do have an existing fund, which is called free cash. It's nothing more than the taxpayer's money. And that has existed for many years now. And every time this council or members of this council have tried to use the free cash to either lower taxes or do some infrastructure improvement, we heard over and over again that they didn't want to tap into the free cash. because it might hurt the bond rating. So I'd be very hesitant on saying if we set up an account in the budget that we're going to be able to get the mayor, who's been very hesitant on using that free cash for other issues, to put money from free cash into this particular line item. So eventually this line item will have to be funded by an increase in taxes. There's no way around it. So when we vote for the budget and the mayor just say wants to put $400,000 in this stabilization fund, that's going to come from the taxpayers. Meanwhile, we already have $6 million in free cash sitting out there. So I don't want to see, to be quite honest with you, I think it's a great idea to have rainy day funds and everything else, but I believe we already have the means to do what we want for capital improvement. Not on a major scale of building a police department, but on a smaller scale, we do have cash available to do infrastructure improvements. So I'd be very hesitant on setting up an account that is going to be additional, something that's going to be over and above what we already have out there. As Councilor Camuso mentioned, We have linkage money that business owners give to the community by city ordinance when they come in and build or renovate to a certain size in this community, they have to pay linkage money. We have the free cash. We have the water and sewer enterprise account that has multi millions of dollars in surplus in those accounts. And I realized those accounts can't be used for a lot of different issues only for water and sewer issues. But, um, I think it's appropriate that we sit down, Committee of the Whole, whatever subcommittee, discuss this first before we make a step forward about putting this in the budget. I think it's a great idea, but I think it merits some discussion first. And I, as one, think we should proceed with caution when we want to create a new account, because the only one that is going to fund this account is the taxpayers. There's no way around it. And I want to make sure that Uh, we, we know what's going to happen before we move forward. Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Councilor mocks. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Well, two points. I think everybody has a whole host of good ideas over here. Um, I can see two points happening here. Uh, the history of the city for the last four years at the end of each and every year is accumulated a surplus of approximately a million dollars. So each and every year we've had close to a million dollars, anywhere from nine 70 to over a million, a million one that gets itself certified and free cash as a result of the end of the year. Now, if I follow what Councilor Knight has alluded to by maybe taking a percentage, maybe we can take an idea, following what you are saying, Councilor Camuso, put a dollar in to start it, and then take a percentage, maybe one, two, or three percent of whatever the surplus is going to be at the end of the year before free cash comes in, and that way you're not taxing the people because you know at the end of the year there's a surplus that it's not the people who are not going to have to pay for. That would be one way of moving the money around without having to put a separate account as Council Mark said a little too because he's right. It's going to come from the taxpayers one way or the other. So if in fact we're fortunate or the taxpayers pay enough into paying their taxes into the city and for whatever reason is unfortunately or fortunately each and every year in June we have a surplus certified by the Department of Revenue close to over a million dollars and that's how we get our accumulation of over seven million dollars. It was almost seven and a half, eight million dollars for which the mayor this past I believe November presented before the council a whole host of issues for which we voted $1.23 million from free cash to satisfy those requests that he had, which leaves us with approximately $7 million. So I've got no problem creating the count. That's all I want to do at this point. But to fund the account, I think it should come from the surplus, if any, in any particular year that the city council ends its fiscal year, June 30th, and whatever is certified as a remainder in free cash by the Department of Revenue and I think Councilor Lungo was right, maybe we should just go to a Committee of the Whole and come up with a percentage of whatever it might be. Following Councilor Marks' commentary, the Mayor's gonna be on board with this, and if he's not gonna be on board, you know, I mean, he doesn't talk to us about anything, so this is gonna be something that's gonna have to be creatively done between and amongst ourselves. So I would support your resolution, putting a dollar in there, a dollar in there, on the condition that we have a Committee of the Whole meeting for the purposes of deciding How we're going to maintain or put the money into that account, my choice, preference would be whatever the surplus is at the end of the year, certified by the Department of Revenue and Free Cash, then we have to decide amongst ourselves, 1%, 2%, 3%, whatever it is. That's a no cost to the taxpayer at that point in time, and at least it gets ourselves going, whether it's for a police department, whether it's for City Hall, or for whether it's the $1.2 million in school repairs that are necessary. It needs to be done. There's no question about it. So that would be my amendment to the resolution.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Did you get that Mr. Clark? Any clarity for the clerk?
[Clerk]: Are you referring the paper now to the committee? No. In doing all this stuff? No. Are you trying to split the resolution?
[Robert Penta]: I'm amending his resolution to say that I will support it to put a dollar in there.
[Clerk]: I will support it by way of an amendment.
[Robert Penta]: The council is going to have to vote on this. It's an amendment. It's his resolution. We have a resolution.
[Paul Camuso]: If I can, I agree with Councilor Penta totally. Which cleanup? Making it an amendment or do you want to add your name to the original paper and we can do whatever you want to do. I know the two part prong approach. Establish the account and then do what Councilor Lungo and Councilor Marks said. After the dollar account is established, it's just a line item in the budget. It may not be funded for 10 years. We have things that are funded.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Our vote doesn't establish an account. It's a recommendation. It's a recommendation to the mayor. I don't. So, so before we make a recommendation to the mayor, I rather dot our I's and cross our T's and make a recommendation based on maybe something with council and I mentioned about a certain percentage. Uh, I don't see why we shouldn't send this to a committee, the whole first, and then take a vote on it after to send it to the mayor with our recommendations. I think that makes more sense than just asking to put, uh, the mayor put an account out there. And once, if you say he does establish the account, Our process is meaningless after that. I mean, we can go to them and say, Mr. Mayor, we do this and this, but it's meaningless. I'd rather hand them the full paper.
[Paul Camuso]: Mr. President, I agree with Councilor Penta. I support your amendment wholeheartedly. I'd like to establish this and then send this to the Committee of the Whole. for discussion to fund it in the future, prior to the budget this year, but as far as getting the, this council has to be proactive by getting that account set up, even if he does it, he may tell us no, he's not doing it, but at least get the account set up. There's no harm in doing that, as Councilor Pence has stated, and I thank you for meeting me halfway, Councilor Penter, on this.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: I think everybody's made some very good points here. I think it's important to point out, though, if there's no account, then there's, no place to put this money. So I think that the establishment of the account is going to be critical in this success. I also think that moving forward, we probably should sit in the Committee of the Whole and discuss what we'd like to see happen. And we can do that every single year, and we don't have to set necessarily a criteria that's going to be carried on from the day that it's implemented until the day that it's ended. We might be able to propose three or four different options as to how to fund this account once the account is exactly established. based upon the financial picture, the financial snapshot that we received at that point in time. So I can certainly understand Councilor Muck's point where he says we can create the account. Once the account's created, then we lose all control and oversight over the account and our recommendations are just going to be that, just recommendations. Whereas if we have this paper in the committee of the whole and we sit down and we vet it properly and we go on to really create a program and we present it to the mayor for him to either accept or deny, then it's on him as to whether or not he wants to establish this capital improvement trust fund. or long-term stabilization account, a rainy day account, or whatever you want to call it. So I certainly could see both sides of the issue here, but I think that the most important thing really is establishing the account first and foremost. And once we get the account established, then we can figure out what we're going to do and how we're going to fund it. And we can do that every year during budget time.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. We still have yet to receive a clear amendment from Councilor Penta on how he wants to amend the main motion, which was already amended by Councilor Penta, uh, Councilor Camuso to remove the term such as the police station.
[Robert Penta]: Before we get the, before we even get into that, I think it needs to be understood that one of the reasons why we're doing this is because of a police station possibility issue. or of our public library, or our municipal buildings, or our school department buildings. I mean, we have a whole host of issues here that taxpayers are paying for on a daily, annual, weekly basis here. So my resolution is to establish, and it also is recommending to the mayor, establishing a stabilization account for the purposes of reviewing our municipal buildings. I would like the idea of putting the priority with a police station first. I mean, you can do what you want. And then go to a committee of the whole meeting for the purposes of how are we going to recommend further to the mayor where the monies would come from. And if we follow it, Councilor Marks is alluded to providing it doesn't come out of the everyday tax payers rate because we're dealing with surplus clarification, council, vice president.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I just think what you're saying now is different than the actual amendment you said to the clerk 10 minutes ago.
[Robert Penta]: But what do you have? Tell me what you have, Mr. Quirk.
[Clerk]: Oh, I just wrote just what you just said this time.
[Robert Penta]: OK. It says the same thing.
[Clerk]: I mean, sorry.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Which is actually a recapitulation of Councilor Camuso's motion.
[Clerk]: But I just had a motion. Set up the account and have a committee of the whole. Set up the account. Keep it simple. With your purposes of going to a committee of the whole meeting, the purposes are to establish where the money is coming from. That's really what I condensed it into.
[Fcwn-qU-L9c_SPEAKER_13]: Yeah.
[Clerk]: In which it could be municipal buildings or whatever.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I'm assuming, but I think council, the intent of this is few municipal buildings. I'm assuming that's your priority here.
[Paul Camuso]: It's a stabilization fund for years to come. I put the police station in, but you were brought up a very good point. The library needed this 1.2 for the school. So just set up the account as a stabilization fund. And then the committee of the whole sort of keep it simple at this point.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: do we, one more point of clarification. Did we establish a fund like this in 2003, 2004?
[Fred Dello Russo]: The clerk seems to think so.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If we could get a clarification on that.
[Clerk]: You know, you have to be confirmed by obviously the auditor, but we, we did these establish stabilization in the early 2000, 2003 and the money came from, uh, from free cash, excess free cash. Uh, and then it was used to lower the tax rate. I believe also Mr. President, my office year, but I mean, but I think the account, I'm just saying that I think the account actually exists unless, unless the city had closed it down because of inactivity all this time. But there was a stabilization fund. It's like, it's not part of the budget. It's really, it's like a revolving account and it's one way. Well, it's an ongoing, see with free cash, certain free cash, you have to use it all up. before the fiscal year ends. So you take free cash. Now you put it on this thing and it becomes ongoing now, but it has, but you can't, the mayor has to recommend, uh, where the money goes to, but it can't, but it has to be voted on the council to allow it to go to that.
[Robert Penta]: But the council has made recommendations in the past, not a stabilization account. but for revolving accounts for which the administration has adopted.
[Clerk]: But this is like a revolve. But I'm just saying, we have made the recommendations before. In the council, they did make a recommendation to take whatever money was there at that time to go to the tax rate, which had happened. I think it's zero balance in there now. But it did happen before. So it doesn't become part of the budget, though. It just becomes like a revolving account.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Councilor Petro, will you allow Councilor Marks to have the floor? Yeah, go ahead.
[Michael Marks]: with the city clerk is stating, we should check into, we should be prudent and check into if there is a stabilization account already established. I would prefer to use a stabilization fund outside of the budget. And I would caution the members of the council that once the mayor gets a report from us stating that he'd like to see a stabilization account within the budget, he'll go off and create one in the budget, He may put $4 or $5 million in that account. You're not going to have any say in that. All you can do is vote up or down in the budget or reduce the budget. So you'll have, just say, $4 or $5 million in an account this year. Taxes are going to go up because it's not part of the free cash. And then he's going to say the council requested that this take place. And then to use that line item in the budget, It's not a vote of this council. So the mayor could take that money out and do another project similar to the peace garden in the square or whatever else he wants to do. So I don't, I wouldn't be so quick tonight to just create a line item in the budget. I don't know what that gets us. I rather sit back, have a committee, the whole meeting discuss this first. Maybe we can bring in in Baker, the finance director, the treasurer collector, the mayor himself, Anyone else, and discuss this first, because I'm not quite sure a line item in the budget will be the appropriate way of keeping a stabilization fund. I think it's a great idea, but I think if we could do it outside the budget through these revolving accounts, makes more sense, and also the council would have input eventually when the mayor wants to go into these particular accounts. He would need support of the council, and there we can make sure, yes, we approve that project, Mr. Mayor, because it's on the council's priority list as the police department or the library or wherever it might be. It could be road improvements, uh, crosswalk improvements. It could be anything. So I, I, you know, I can't vote tonight on, uh, just, uh, getting a line item in the budget and then discussing it after the fact, because I've been around here a number of years and, uh, you know, I, I rather do it, uh, all together. I rather have a thoughtful plan that's outlined, before we just do a knee-jerk reaction about putting something in the budget that makes us feel good. I mean, we all want a capital improvement plan. We've all voted on it three dozen times. But, you know, it's ultimately up to the mayor. And I'm not sure, you know, the feel-good reaction we're going to get tonight saying that, you know, we created a stabilization or a capital improvement fund as a line item in the budget is going to accomplish anything more than just that. Creating a line item in the budget, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. Then Councilor Lange, Vice President Lange.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you, Mr. President. I know that there's been recent discussions from the Baker administration that there may be an edict or requirement that municipalities do establish a rainy day fund or a stabilization fund. Until that comes to fruition, you know, that's just rumor, that's just talk, that's just hearsay. However, this is something that may be coming down the line, so I do think it's important that we stay proactive on it. The resolution reads right now, be it resolved that the City of Medford establish a long-term stabilization fund to offset any major projects. I think that language is good enough in itself. I think we can now figure out what course we want to take, whether or not it's a budgeted line item, whether or not it's a separate account, whether or not we can sit down and negotiate, discuss, and plan a way to implement this.
[Unidentified]: Point of information, Mr. President?
[Adam Knight]: Point of information, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: I know that's what the resolution reads, but I'm almost positive Councilor Camuso recommended, as part of this resolution, to put a line item in the budget. So that's different than what you just read. Right. And I'm going to get to that. Yours is more of a general statement, where he was specific, saying he wants us to vote on putting a line item in the budget.
[Adam Knight]: I'm coming around full circle to that. Oh, OK. Thank you. Yeah, so, you know, in looking at it, I think that, you know, that the language of the resolution is what the language of the resolution is. We have a number of members here that are all pretty much on the same page in terms of supporting the idea and supporting the theory. So I think it might make sense to support the theory, support the language that's before us. Then we can sit down with the committee of the whole or a subcommittee. We can have Anne Baker, the budget director, we can have the May account and sit down with us and figure out what it is they can live with. Whether it's not, there's something that if they're willing to put a line item budget in, if they're not, if they want it in the budget and we don't, that's okay. We can negotiate, we can discuss, and we can plan ways to implement this and ways to fund this sitting down at the same table all together as opposed to it's an us versus them. This is what we say, what do you say? Why don't we say, let's set up the account, we all agree that we need an account. Then we can sit down in the same room and figure out exactly what the plan is. A mutually agreeable plan that we can all live with in terms of how we're going to fund this and what direction we want to see the account going. Thank you, Council Knight. Councilor Lococo.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. Just simply, I don't, I can't support something when I don't know if there's actually an account already set up. So I don't know how any of us could vote to, if we want a stabilization fund, how we can vote to increase it to two stabilization funds or two accounts. We need to find out that information first. I would rather have a committee of the whole meeting before we vote on something like this, but at the very least we need to know if this account already exists. I mean, I cannot support this tonight if I think that the account already exists, because I definitely do not want two accounts having the same purpose. I think this is, you know, we just found out what the resolve was completely, you know, entails, we have all different ideas, and we have questions of if a fund already exists. So I think this really needs to go to the Committee of the Whole first. And I don't think we have anything scheduled for next week. Maybe we can set it up for next week. Over to questions.
[Fred Dello Russo]: There's a motion for approval on the floor from Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: As amended by Councilor Pence.
[Fred Dello Russo]: as amended by councilor Penta and myself and yourself. Yeah, based on this language, I'm at roll call vote and further amended by councilor Penta to be followed by a committee of the whole meeting.
[Robert Penta]: Right. Once approved, following the language that's written, followed by a committee of the whole meeting, roll call vote. And you have that almost a clip.
[Michael Marks]: Just a point of clarification.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Just a point of clarification. So we're voting on the language that currently exists under Councilor Camuso's resolution.
[Fred Dello Russo]: As amended with also the further amendations by Councilor Panta, which was a recapitulation of the amended resolution of Councilor Camuso with the further amendation to bring the whole matter once approved to the committee of the whole.
[Michael Marks]: But we're not approving a line item in the budget.
[Fred Dello Russo]: That was not in the language. That's not in the language. OK. All right. And before we take the vote, we have a citizen patiently waiting at the podium to briefly address us. Thank you, Gene. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Jeanne Martin]: Gene Martin, 10 Cumming Street. It's a great idea in theory, but it's not plausible. We have been living off of federal grants. We've been living high off of the federal hog for a long time. Mayor McGlynn was good at bringing home the bacon from the federal government. We have lived at a standard of living that we're not going to be able to move forward on. Mayor McGlynn has not put 5% in for every single building for maintenance. You can try to put money in this account, but it will get raided for some other reason sooner or later. The federal government does it with Social Security. They do it with the Transportation Trust Fund. They do it all the time. When there's a bunch of money and they need some emergency, they pull it out. That's what's going to happen in the city, I'm sorry to say. I don't see how the program's going to work. It's a great idea in theory, and you can do it in your personal life, but the government isn't good at saving money and putting it aside. And as for the police station, I have one thing to say, which I know you took out. But the mayor was ready to bond for the water taxi. He was ready to bond for the garage. He was ready to bond for the old house. But he's not ready to bond for the police station. And I don't see why we have to wait and put money in their side for $2 million a year until we get $30 million in there to buy it. I just don't see it. It's an emergency. Watch the news. Paris was up in flames last week. We're going to have more and more problems. We have school shootings. We have all kinds of crime. And to have a a police station that is inadequate and up to par. I mean, it technically is up to par, but it could be a lot better, and it could save lives. It could do its job much better, and the people could do a job much better. So while it's a good idea in theory to have this rainy day fund, I just don't see how you're financially going to be able to pull it off. But thank you very much for listening.
[Robert Cappucci]: Thank you, Ms. Martin. Sir, please state your name and address for the record. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm Robert Capucci of 71 Evans Street. Just very briefly, I know you're a busy city council. I kind of agree with the previous speaker. I wholeheartedly agree with the intentions. Lord knows our city's roads need improvement, our buildings. We need a full police force with a better facility. But I don't think creating a new account is the route to go since we already have accounts, free cash accounts, surplus accounts, and there may well already be an account that exists. Through the chair to Councilor Knight, as an elected member of the Republican State Committee, I work with advisors to the new administration, being a Republican governor. And I can tell you firsthand, there are cuts coming that will continue with the cuts of the previous administration, and might even be a little bit deeper, because after the transition happened, or during the transition, actually, when he was governor, elect Baker, we come to find out that there was actually a shortfall of another billion dollars that we didn't know about. So the cuts are definitely coming. But Medford is in a unique position with this new parking program that contractually requires you to spend $250,000 a year on infrastructure that will be set up, if I'm correct, maybe the chief can come up and correct me, or the representative from Republic, This funding will be spent on infrastructure repairs based on how this city council rules those monies are to be spent. So we are in a good position to actually do something very good for the citizens of Medford and maybe even the state at large. We have all this surplus. We now have, which is about to start getting enforced in two days, a new windfall of money coming in. This isn't going to hurt our bond rating. It's actually going to increase it. We can make Medford with a new casino coming in and all sorts of jobs. People are going to be looking for a place to live. Now is the time for this city council to act. We already have the account set up. I don't really think we need a new account to be set up, but what we could do is reduce property rates. What we could do, property tax rates, that is, excuse me. What else we could do is reduce business fees. Massachusetts requires, each town and city to establish an excise tax, but there's nothing stopping us from setting that excise tax rate to zero. We can make Medford one of the most attractive cities to move to in the Bay State with a new casino coming in and job prospects. There was an article a few weeks ago how all cities and towns across the Bay State are trying to be the new Somerville. I'd like to see the next article. come to say, let's try to be the new Medford. I hope you'll take into account what I've said, and thank you for your time.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Mr. Capucci. There's a motion for approval as amended by Councilor Camuso, as amended by Councilors Camuso and Penta. Roll call has been requested. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Robert Penta]: Could the clerk read the motion out loud, please, as amended?
[Clerk]: to establish a long-term stabilization fund to offset any major projects such as the police station in the future, amended by Councilor Camuso to strike police station from the main motion. And Councilor Pentez to establish the stabilization fund for purposes of, uh, missile buildings, uh, and so on and, uh, uh, and provide a dollar amount, uh, towards this.
[Robert Penta]: And, uh, it's not, no, no, that wasn't what I said. Went to a committee, the whole meeting, you know, it's all, why don't you just refer to a committee that passed the main motion and delete as a police station and refer it to the committee, the whole meeting of the council come up with a criteria. So moved. All right. Your motion minusing out the police station. and we're referring it to what can be the whole. Yeah. Yeah.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight, we're all on the same page. Be it resolved the city of Medford established a long-term stabilization fund to help offset any major projects. Upon passage of the resolution, a committee of the whole be established with officials from the administration to discuss the funding thereof. Perfect. Councilor Knight, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Robert Penta]: Also in the meantime, Council Max, he wanted to find out if in fact you're going to report back to us. If there already is an established stabilization account. The clerk will report back to us.
[Clerk]: If there's an account. Yeah. It's an amendment. We'll probably get referred to the auditor.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Can we make that a B paper?
[Clerk]: Make that part of the amendment. Yes. Yes.
[Robert Penta]: Make that part of the paper.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Oh, well, what if I don't want to vote for the paper, but I want to vote for the B paper? Okay.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Or you can sever the amendment.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Sever the motion, please.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Sever the motion. So we'll have a separate motion. So the second, second one comes first. Yes. So on the motion of a council Lungo-Koehn that the city clerk, uh, after consultation with the proper bodies report back to the city council regarding the previous establishment of a, such a fund. All those in favor, all those opposed motion passes onto the main motion as amended. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso. Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Kern?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: No.
[Clerk]: Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Penta? Yes. President Dello Russo?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. With six in the affirmative and one negative, the motion passes. On the motion of Councilor Camuso, under suspension to take item number 15-011. All those in favor? All those opposed? Item number 15-011, a petition for common vitriol license by Michael Del Signore, 16A Marshall Street, Medford, for simple fare delicatessen located at 460 High Street, Medford, Mass. Would the petitioner please come forward and state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_07]: Michael Del Signore, 16 Marshall Street, Medford.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Del Signore, we have the Chairman of the Licensing Committee, Councilor Caraviello. How do you find this application?
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. President, I have reviewed the papers and I find them in order, and I motion for approval.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of approval of Councilor Caraviello, and seconded by Councilor Camuso, tell us a little bit about your establishment.
[SPEAKER_07]: We're going to be a deli. We're going to feature some pasta dishes and takeout dinners. We're going to expand on the current concept. It's the Medfidelli. I don't know if anyone's familiar with it. But keep their core and just expand it a little bit to add some more offerings for dinner time rather than just the sandwiches.
[Fred Dello Russo]: All the best. Good luck. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Your license is granted.
[SPEAKER_07]: Thank you, Council.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion to revert back to the regular order of business by Councilor Camuso. All those in favor? All those opposed? Item number 15-009 offered by Councilor Penta. Be it resolved that a continuing of last week's public comments regarding the mayor's new pay to park revenue enhancement program be discussed. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, last week we had a four hour marathon discussion as it related to the mayor's new pay to park enhancement program here in the city of Medford. And as we all know, there was a full host of folks here, approximately 50 people who were involved, who had a personal interest in this particular program, came. Many of them spoke. A lot of people came to listen as to what was going on. As a result of that, there were many concerns that were brought up. Unfortunately, I don't think the local press has been able to pick up on all of it yet and their commentaries. That's neither here or there. Some concerns from last week to this week have developed. And I know the chief of police is here, and I know there was some continuation of changes that took place at the traffic commission today. But I have some particular issues since last week till now that I would like to bring up. The first one is the fact that this was supposed to be a major program here in the city of Medford, a major development that would have an impact on the taxpayers of this community. But if you'll notice very nicely, there was no ribbon cutting ceremony for this one. You didn't see a whole host of people coming out into the city while the mayor cut the ribbon for this wonderful new tax me to death program. You didn't see that, and you won't see it either. And last week, Mr. Chief, when you were here, two particular locations, one in West Method on High Street in front of a couple of residential homes, And on Boston Avenue, in front of a bunch of residential homes, those kiosks are still there. And the 15th is two days away. And if I understood everybody's comments last week, not only yours, but also the folks from Republic, they indicated that those were going to be taken away and removed because they were misplaced or whatever it might be. Thirdly, talking about the location where you go to get your parking permit. As of yesterday, from folks that I have spoken to, maybe it came in today's mail, but people who sent their applications in on the 1st of January, or the first week of January, looking for their resident parking permit, they have still to get in the mail the two passes for guests, whoever it might be, coming to their homes. And also, when they went to pay, they didn't get a receipt. So if any of you folks out there did pay, didn't get a receipt, so be it. But for the two particular folks from both parts of the city that went there, They went out there, and they got no receipt. A major concern is if it's not here in City Hall anymore. You can't come to City Hall and buy your resident parking permit. You have to go to the spot on Main Street on the Somerville Line. And to do that, you have to pay $10, same thing that you would have paid here in City Hall. But they're telling you, if you have a smartphone or whatever, or your computer, you can go online, and you can get it that way. But of course, They extort another 30% out of you. They charge you $3 more to do it that way. So by doing it that way, they're making another 30% on the fact that you're a resident of this community. You want to get a resident parking sticker for where you park, where you pay taxes. And now they want to charge you 30% for the sticker that normally costs 10%. Also, a validation program was brought to our attention last week. And it started off by addressing certain hairdressers in this community. One in particular in the West Medford area. And as a result of that, as we all know, a lot of these hairdressers have senior citizens and maybe younger folks. But a majority of the senior citizens that come there, they have a two or three hour window to do what they have to do. So the questions become, as I'm going around to six of them now I've gone to, And as I go to them, I mean, what are they supposed to do, get them off the chair, run outside? They can't move the car because you only can stay there for two hours. But they want to know how a particular hairdresser in a particular part of this community can get a special validation program so that person can give out numbers and number plates to the Republic people so on a particular day, They won't tag those people. I mean, this is absolute insanity on a particular day. What are we going to do? Play this game one day, one day at a time? Let one hairdresser know and another hairdresser not know? There's no fairness to that part of the program. Also, nothing has been presented to us that tells us there is a statutory law that allows a private for-profit out-of-state company to issue parking citations, which has historically been a police department job. That's a big issue. And I know, Chief, you may not have the answer for that. But I'll tell you this. If you do have the answer for that, then I think what you need to have presented before here is that your Metro Police Department took a vote to give up that part of their job to a private nonprofit out-of-state company. People want to know that, and I want to know that, too, because that's a huge issue in this whole program. Last week, it was Councilor Knight who brought up the issue of the signs in the city. There's a contract that says, Republic will replace and paint the signs. Rightfully so. It's part of the job that the Medford highway department have. And if the mayor abdicated that responsibility away from the highway department, then he violated his own contract with his own employees here in the city of Medford. And it's as clear as the bell. And I think it's in a section three of the RFP that went out this past spring. So these are a few issues that are going on. We're not a poor community. This is the funny part about this thing. You're sitting on huge surpluses of money, $7 million in free cash, $8.5 million in water and sewer, and just on the water and sewer account. Your water and sewer account bills just went up, and you're sitting on $8.5 million of your money that you keep paying more and more in each and every year, whether you have a stabilization account, a surplus account, whatever it might be, or your real estate account. This is a program. that had absolutely no thought process generated out to the entire community, never mind the business people, but the taxpayers of this community. This past Saturday, if you drove through Medford Square, as I did, and I walked through it, and you go through the downtown areas of West Medford and South Medford and North Medford, and you will start to see people not going into these stores. So I go and ask some of these proprietors, why? Because they're not going to go in there for five minutes, go in there to pick up a cup of coffee, or get a sandwich and put $0.25 in it. And if they can't get a spot there, they have to go look for a, what do you call it, a kiosk. And by the time they go to the kiosk and come back, and if they use a smartphone, pay $0.35 to put $0.25 into the machine. So now you're up to $0.60 for 15 minutes. It makes no sense at all. Republic comes from Tennessee. They're here for only one reason, and that's to make money. They're not your friend. They're not our friend. Their only friend is your money that you put into that machine. So good luck to them. They won the bid. The mayor won the bid with him. But the other part of the program is, if you're all going to be treated equally, then everyone that works in this city, in this building, the fire department, police department, school department, your parking spot that you get in this city is what you consider a perk. It doesn't go with your job. Now, he's opened up Pandora's box because there's an IRS rule and regulation that allows a perk. If you're getting a perk on your job, which is parking, there's a cost factor that goes along with that. And right now, as of the IRS rule and regulation as of 2014, it's up to $250 a month. And the crazy part about the whole story is up to $250 a month. So if an employee in this building comes here, we're now going to have to figure out what is the value of that free parking spot that they get here on this piece of property. But if you take a train or a bus to Boston every day, you get $130 a month. So where's the logic in between there of wanting to take cars off the road and use public transportation when they're giving you a higher perk for your job to park your car on an employer's location, which is the city of Medford, as compared to taking a train from the private industry? Those are some of my comments right now. It's just, this is just so hard to understand. And the poor part, the hard part about it is, you know, I know every business wants to make a go of it. But you can't have competition in one part of the city and not be addressed the same way equally in another part. You can't go to a market in one part of the city, and you can sit there all day long and go to another part of the city and go to a convenience store, and you get a 15, 30-minute parking spot. As I said to you last week, Chief, with all due respect, in South Medford, you have 15 minutes, you have 30 minutes, you have one hour and two-hour parking, all in the same block of stores. Now, that's hard to understand, and if you're going to try to treat everyone the same. Last week, one of the things that did resonate, I will tell you this, it's dark out right now. You go outside after 4.30, 5 o'clock at night, and you're driving down the street, and you're not used to what a kiosk is, or you can't find it, you can't see it, or the weather isn't clement, or whatever it might be, and there's snow. Either you're going to lose the customer, or they're not going to find the kiosk and get tagged, or more importantly, the city's going to have an obligation, because in your RFP in there, I believe the question was asked, I think it was you, Councilor Caraviello, asked the question, when it snows out, who is gonna be the responsible party to make sure that those kiosks are clean on the sidewalk for somebody to get to? So those are some of my initial comments, Chief, and as I said to you again, this is the Chief of Police, and I happen to like him, and he's my friend, okay? But he doesn't deserve to be up here. It's not his program. It's Mayor Michael McGlynn's program. He's the one that should be here answering the questions, And I know you're doing the job for him, Chief, but I just think it's unfair. That's just my opinion, and I'm saying it publicly. Thank you, Councilor Penta.
[Fred Dello Russo]: We're going to allow the Chief now to address us. There have been some further developments vis-a-vis a meeting of the Parking Commission and Traffic Commission today that I think the Chief may be sharing with us, as well as clarifying any of the items so politely brought up by Councilor Penta.
[Leo Sacco]: Thank you, Mr. President. Leo Sacco, police chief here in the city of Medford. I live at 227 Elm Street in Medford. I'm going to bounce around some of the issues that Councilor Penta brought up. And the main one that's of concern was the issuance of the parking citations by a private company. That was a matter that was negotiated with both police unions, the Medford Police Patrolman's Association and the Medford Police Superior Officers Association. in the year 2013, when the contract was settled. It's not that the police officers gave up any work. This is shared work. So police officers can still issue citations. That job has not been taken away from them. This program has been put in place to augment the police officers' work in the field. So it hasn't been taken away. It's not something that they've lost. They bargained, and bargained in good faith, And it will augment their duties. And we know what's happened over the years with the numbers of personnel dropping. We've not been able to keep pace with all of permit parking situations, the time limit enforcement. There's always another demand on the police officers' time. Would it be great if we could have hired another 20 officers? That certainly would have been. But could I guarantee that we would have consistent, steady parking enforcement? No, I wouldn't be able to do that. because there are always some other obligations. Going back on some of the other issues, yes, we did speak about those meters or kiosks in front of the homes. The one on High Street was answered last week, 418 High Street. I believe that kiosk, the one at 418 High Street in West Medford, in front of a home, I believe that is scheduled to be removed.
[Robert Penta]: There's just two of them in front of them. It's one in front of the apartment building and one in front of the two family house.
[Leo Sacco]: The apartment building is right next to the Brookline bank. The apartment building has off street parking for its tenants. I believe that one would stay, but this, the, I believe it's a single or two family home at 418 is scheduled to be removed. I've looked at the meters of the kiosks on Boston Avenue between university or just before universe, just before Bellevue. Coming from Winthrop Street, just before Bellevue, there's two homes, and then there's several homes between Bellevue and Fairmont, and then Fairmont to University. In the Fairmont to University stretch, there's a bus stop and a driveway. I don't believe there's a parking spot that's lost. Between Fairmont and Bellevue, there's another large driveway. There may be one spot. And then from Bellevue going further up on Boston Ave towards Winthrop, there's probably two or three spaces there. The problem with that is actually in front of that home, when the meters were removed in the early 1980s, there's still a pole in the ground that shows that there was a meter in front of that home back in that day, when we had meters in the past. That is a very busy location for the businesses on the hillside. the auto body shop, the Dunkin' Donuts. There's no guarantee that the residents in that home would be able to park there. I've spoken with Mr. Nash, who's present with me this evening, from Republic Parking. We spoke earlier about the possibility of registering those plates of those residents that live in that home, so if they are parked there, they would not have to pay the meter. They would be okay. So that's a work in progress. I would strongly recommend not eliminating those spots from the meter program until we see what the demand is, what the level of demand is. If it shows that it's going to be open on most days, then we'd probably consider removing it at that time. But that's beyond me to be able to say removing anything only because we can't violate some contractual obligations. And that's something that I would have to research with the city solicitor. So it's not like those have not been addressed. Those have been looked at and been taken into consideration. And we're going to look to see what we can do about correcting the problem that's there. But it's not as big as it appeared.
[Robert Penta]: Let's go back to West Medford. You said 418 High Street, where the residents are. But you can go right across the street, and there's a kiosk that's in front of a house that's residential on the top floor, a dentist off on the bottom, And there's two residential there, and then there's a funeral home. And there's one before the funeral home, and there's one after. Now, we won't get into naming other funeral homes. There's other funeral homes that have nothing. And you can park there all day. I mean, how does this work?
[Leo Sacco]: We've gone over that past several meetings.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information, Mr. President? On this particular matter, I know it's, I want to choose my words carefully here. If the council wants to expand the program to bakeries and sub shops and other businesses, then bring the motion forward and I'm sure that people will support it. But just to start talking about this business, that business and stuff, I just think it's unfair because if you want to expand the program, bring it forward if you think there's some inequities out there. But just to throw generalities out there, no one knows what you're talking about.
[Robert Penta]: We're not talking about generalities. I think the chief knows what I'm talking about, and I think Mr. Nash knows what I'm talking about, because we've had this discussion before, and nothing has changed. Nothing has changed for the locations. And as a result of that, we're taking a like subject matter, a funeral home. How come in one part of the city there's nothing and another part of the city there is? We can go to convenience stores and do the same argument. We've already done it with hairdressers.
[Leo Sacco]: It goes back to the original report that was done, which was not Republic's report. It was a report that was done for the city to put the RFP on the street to get bids. And based on that report, that was what was in there. That's what it contained. As I stated several times, this is built to grow.
[Robert Penta]: But who checked the report? Why would you put something in front of a residential home? Where's the logic to that?
[Leo Sacco]: It does happen. I mean, there are occasions, because during the course of the daytime, the residents in that home are not there. people are in the business district parking in front of those homes. That's also a location that we have a problem with. People would park, walk down the street and get on the commuter rail and be gone all day and tie up all of high street. We're making modifications in those various areas right now to make them both a business permit and a time limit. So if you don't have the business permit, you're stuck with a time limit. If you have a business permit, you'd be able to park there because the residents are gone during the daytime, during the course of the time, that those meters or kiosks would be in effect. The residents are gone from those homes. They are not using those spaces. Those spaces are being occupied by, today, being occupied by commuters. On the 15th, they'll be occupied by people that are visiting the square or people who work in the square who are validly permitted to be there. And they'll be gone when the residents come home at the end of the day.
[Robert Penta]: I hear what you're saying. How do you justify, if the contract was signed on October 10th, and this is now January, what, 13th? They had three months. They had three months to look at all these locations and saying, hey, wait a minute, this doesn't make any sense. Why would you put something here in front of a house? How would you take one business and put it in front of one business and not another business? And then I think you made the comment last week. that this is just the beginning. There's going to be more to come as it relates to this. I mean, if this is just the beginning now, what's going to happen when you start hitting all these other locations? You can go from Salem Street, outside of Salem Street, all the way down to Medford Square, and there's nothing. There's nothing on the streets there.
[Leo Sacco]: And that's not fair. I didn't say that it would be growing by leaps and bounds. It may grow based on the demand. We know what's going to happen when we have the enforcement, and that's in the restricted areas. you're going to push the problem elsewhere. So it is going to create some, you know, some other needs for us to correct, whether it be just time limit enforcement or meters or kiosks. But the plan was developed to call for a certain number of kiosks, call for a certain number of single head and double head meters. And that's what's in place today. And we're really not going to know the impact until it's up and running and it be modified from there. Thank you, chief. Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Yes. A couple of questions for the chief. And then, uh, I actually have a statement I want to make. We got in this pocket program, but first, um, the outcome of the handicap parking, did you get to the bottom of that?
[Leo Sacco]: Yes. Uh, chapter 40, section 22. I called councilor Karen Viola last week. It was his question to me, chapter 40, section 22 and chapter 40, section 22. A allows person who has a handicap plate, placard or disabled veteran plate to park in, any spot on any public street, uh, for any length of time and not have to pay for the legal spot in front of a hydrant or intersections. It has to be an illegal parking space. Exactly. Okay. And not 20 feet from the car or within beyond the 20 feet from the chief.
[Paul Camuso]: Um, just to follow up, um, this was something that, uh, today I, I saw a child almost get hit by a vehicle today. at the corner of Playstead Road and High Street, there's a vehicle that parks there every day with a handicapped plate in an illegal spot. It's painted yellow. It's painted yellow as clear as day. And it's between two crosswalks. If I've ever seen a dangerous situation, that child came right out, and it was after the crossing guards were gone this afternoon. That vehicle should not be there. And I've often said it as I was driving by, I'm just surprised that it doesn't get tagged, doesn't get tagged, doesn't get tagged. But today there was almost an awful accident. I think you have to do something about that vehicle. They have a legitimate handicapped sticker, then park it legally. Don't park it illegally where someone's going to get injured because you're blocking the crosswalk. That is unacceptable as far as I'm concerned, Chief. And I think you have to deal with that situation because it's every day. It's every single day. And I almost saw a kid get hit today and I would have felt horrible. If someone got hurt, and I didn't bring this to your attention earlier, but today it stuck out like a sore thumb.
[Leo Sacco]: Well, I can tell you, Councilor, I'm aware of that vehicle. I'm aware of the ownership of that vehicle. And quite honestly, I have not had officers go to that address to tell them to move their vehicle, because I think the argument coming back would be that that would be retaliation. Retaliation for what? For their stance on the parking program. Oh, come on. I will be going out there myself on Thursday, and I will be addressing it myself.
[Paul Camuso]: Listen, I don't care who parks there. You could be someone that I disagree in the community with 180%. If you're going to park illegally, and it's blatant disregard for two crosswalks, someone with a handicap sticker should understand and not park between a crosswalk where elderly and senior citizens and other handicapped people use. retaliation for the parking program. This is America. Anyone can speak up for or against any issue, but don't think you're untouchable because you may just, uh, you may just, uh, it's not, it's believe me, the police department is not treating them as untouchable.
[Leo Sacco]: No, no. It's about timing of the message.
[Paul Camuso]: No, I understand. But, and like I said, this was, and I have to preface this, many people have brought that vehicle to my attention before. And you know, you drive by and you see it, it's really not bothering anyone. But when a car came around from high street, taking the right on Playstead Road, and it was a child, and the child actually popped his head back, would you be in agreement that it's a major safety issue? Oh, absolutely. And as well, I've talked to other people that have drove engine two. That vehicle actually, and this was years ago when it was a different car that was parking there every day. I'm not even sure if it's the same owner. But Engine 2 sometimes has to make that swing when they're coming down High Street and making the swing to go down there. And it's gotten the way before they've actually had to do a three-point turn on the way to an emergency call. And last but not least, on that particular matter, the person can legally park in front of their store, from what you're saying. That's correct. Take a spot in front of your store that a customer may park in. Legally, you don't have to pay the meter like everyone else, because you have a legitimate handicap placket. But park it in a safe manner, as far as I'm concerned.
[Leo Sacco]: Well, we are asking the members of the business community to try to park on the outskirts of the business district, so that consumers can park close to the stores. Mr. President, if I may, I know that that's- Can I just make one more comment?
[Paul Camuso]: It's not about- please. Mr. President, Another thing that's come to my attention with this park, and we have to set the record straight on this, a senior member of the mayor's office that lives in this community, one of his longest serving members in that office, has been putting statements on social media outlets that the reason this pocket is in place is because the Medford City Council didn't support a garage. I want to make it loud and loud and loud and clear that the mayor of this community never brought a proposal to the Medford City Council for a garage because he did not have the votes. And if we remember, I, as one member of this council, urged him, urged him to take it to the council, take a vote up or down, and move forward on the issue, just like the Brooks estates and other issues that were before us. I think it was pretty common knowledge that four members of the city council at the time were for a garage, three members of the council were against it. But to throw the red herring out there that the Medford City Council is a direct result for this, that is not only a- Point of information, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: You know, I just don't understand how, even if a garage was built in Method Square, how that's going to help the business owners in West Method. Help the business owners. Oh, if I could, Mr. President, help the business owners in Haines Square, help the business owners in South Method or up the hillside. So a parking garage, that's just a big red herring. And I agree. That's just a big red herring. Uh, you know, this is the mayor's pay for parking program.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Uh, Councilor, uh, marks on your point. Councilor Camuso still has the floor. Councilor Penter on a point of clarification.
[Robert Penta]: Just a point of further clarification. I agree with Councilor Camuso, you know, and it's right, we can agree to disagree. It was never brought before us, but have a member of the Mayor's staff go forward. That's just absolutely crazy. Further to the nonsense to all of this is the man behind our backs went and sought out one of our local state representatives and filed and had him file the transportation bill, $8 million to build the garage. And we knew nothing about it. The city knew nothing about it. The council knew nothing about it. It was a sneaky way to do an end run. Point of information made. clear, Mr. President, okay? This is very important. He brought up a very important issue. If this council is getting tagged for something that they never did, then it needs to be explained why they never did what they're being tagged for, because it was never presented before us.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Penta. Councilor Camusos has the chair.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just to be very clear, this council, the paper was before us for the parking program, and I'm not backpedaling at all. seven members of this council saw the request for proposal, seven members of this council knew what it was going to consist of, the meter slash kiosk, but for someone in the administrative wing of this building to blatantly throw that out there, that that's the result, just because they're probably filled in hundreds and hundreds of calls per day. It's just outright wrong. Put the facts out there, that the mayor didn't bring that garage to this council because he knew he didn't have the votes at the time. And I'll quite honestly tell you, I made my stance known at the time. I was for the garage, and I was upset that he did not bring it forward and just put it behind us. Take the vote, move on to the next issue, like we're supposed to do in the democratic process.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Camuso.
[Leo Sacco]: Councilor Marks, on the floor, did the chief want to make one more remark? Well, there were a list of items that I wanted to address based on last week's meeting that had been addressed in the interim. At the request of Councilor Marks that you be permitted to do so. Please do. I know the last week there was some issues regarding the validation program that was proposed. And that was based on the number of complaints or calls from the business community. medical offices, hairdressers, other entities where a person may park in the square or any of the squares and be longer than the two hour max. We realized that there was some concern about the validation program and through some discussion with the mayor and others, It was proposed to go to three hours in the municipal lots. All of the municipal lots in the city to include the hillside, Haines square, west Medford square, governor's ave, only the middle section, the two rows in the middle that are now two hours will be moved to three. What we call the old Ruth's parking lot over here across the street on Riverside Avenue and clipper ship drive and the Yale street parking lot as well as the small parking lot that's on Salem Street, I believe it's around number 60 Salem, right next to the National Grid building, and also the lot, the second lot behind City Hall, behind One City Hall Mall. That would be business permit or three-hour parking. And as I said earlier, that we're trying to encourage the business people to park on the outskirts of their business district in order to accommodate consumers who may want to take advantage of that. That was at the Traffic Commission meeting today, and it was approved, so it will go forward as a three-hour lot. The senior center, 25 spaces. Initially, 25 spaces have been identified along the fence line. Seniors will be able to park there for as long as they want. It's for senior center use only, and there will be a decal issued to those people who will be registered to use that lot. Now, going back to the other comment about HP placards, Unfortunately, many of their clientele possess HP placards, so they'll be able to park in that lot all day and not be touched. The only issue I've spoken with Pam Kelly, the director over there, on a day when they may have a field trip or something when the spring and the weather is better, we may ask that the bus pick them up at a different location. It might very well be right across behind the Hyatt Hotel where they can park over there out of the way and not bother anyone. So we're trying to make accommodations and things are moving forward on that front. So there's at least 25 spaces that will be clearly marked and identified, senior center only, no fee, and they can be there all day. We know that there's a certain time frame that they're there at the most, what the maximum time frame is. And they'll have a permit that will be affixed to their vehicle. It'll be a new style permit, something similar to the Wrights Pond permit.
[Robert Penta]: Council Penta when you say 25 spots, seniors only senior center use only senior center. So where do they get these? Where do they have to get these permits?
[Leo Sacco]: I mean, these permits will be issued either through the police department or at the senior center with Pam Kelly with a police officer present to get together the information. So we have the registrations and all the information that's necessary. So those, that data can be given to Republic so that they'll have, have it in their license plate readers so they'll know those cars will be all right. Thank you, Mr. Chief. And lastly, there will be two handicap spaces added to the lot at the old Ruth's parking lot. And four of those spots will be four-hour spots to accommodate some of the medical needs of patrons that utilize the building. that there for various medical purposes that they would have to be there. So only four out of those spaces will be identified for four hour spots. Um, I don't want to steal the thunder, but going back to the $3 fee, Mr. Nash did a lot of work. And as of last Friday, I got that matter resolved with the corporate higher ups that that will be, uh, taken off the, off the agenda. The $3 fee that, that council, you had been mentioning the administrative $3 fee, that it will no longer be used and others will be reimbursed. Just a few other items from today's traffic commission. On Governor's Avenue at the corner of High Street to accommodate three businesses that we heard from that right now the parking there is two hours posted. It's been reduced to 30 minutes. There are three parking spaces. So now people can go in, get an ice cream, go into Rose's, get a sub or a roast beef, or go into Salvatore's to get something to go. And they'd be able to in and out of there 30 minutes. So remove that from the two hour limit. We put a handy, a delivery zone, a loading zone. The first parking space on Governor's Ave, next to zero Governor's Ave, in front of the two handicapped parking spaces in front of Governor's Ave to accommodate, whether it be the florist or anyone else that's having a delivery. So it's one spot right there. So there are some modifications that have been done. The Play Academy, the young lady was here last week at 65 Riverside Avenue. Today we passed four. loadings on, drop off, pick up areas between the hours of 8 to 9.30 in the morning and 4 to 5.30 in the afternoon. It would be 15 minutes to 30 minutes to drop children off in the morning and then on the return, picking them up in the afternoon. And we've noticed over the past week there's absolutely no one using that street. So it was a safe area and we could make the modification. And if we see the four spaces are not enough, we're starting with four. If we see that four are not enough, we'll be able to add to it. Play Academy, on their request, was for four. We discussed even more today, but we went with four, and then evaluate.
[Robert Penta]: Can you go back to the parking lot, the back wall, the big parking lot?
[Leo Sacco]: Yes. The big parking lot, the back wall against 15 Governor's Ave, as it's always been, is the only place that people with business permits can park in that lot. So that's the back wall against 15 Governor's Ave. The middle two rows will be three hours because of the number of doctor's offices in that area and medical appointments. We heard that loud and clear from doctors and from patients. And then the parallel that they run parallel behind the building, the existing postings that are there, there's a couple of 15 minute spots and I believe a couple of spots that are one hour spots. Those are not being touched at this time. I think they're one hour. But there's at least two spots that are 15 minutes. So there have been some modifications. And I know it's probably an overused term, but this parking management program is fluid. There will be changes. There will be hiccups. And we're going to work diligently to correct whatever might happen along the way. But we're not really going to know until Thursday when the on street parking enforcement begins, the business district enforcement, and then the 26 with the permit parking enforcement.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, chief. Uh, Councilor Marks had the floor, uh, point of information. Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: I, I had a, I had a check with the chief, but Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, Chief, you're not kidding when you say there's been some modifications. There's been a lot of modifications, and I know this is a work in progress. And I'm waiting the day that you come in here and say that we're not going to do pay-for-pocket. I think that'll be the modification that everyone is looking for, to be quite honest with you. I think all we need is consistent — all we need is consistent enforcement, Chief. And that was the recommendation made by the committee five years ago. But if I could just state, Chief, when this proposal was brought up by the mayor, he mentioned on several occasions with backing from this council that when this program officially starts, that there'd be at least a two-week grace period where tickets would not be real tickets. So for two weeks, Republic would be out there. They'd be doing, when this starts, this particular parking enforcement, and they'd give out a ticket that says, In two weeks from now, this will be a real ticket. Make sure you feed your meat, or make sure you don't park in front of a hydrant, or make sure and give out fake tickets. And I think we all agreed upon that, and I'm hearing nothing about that at all. Nothing at all. And that was a major bone of contention with this council, because of the fact that this city has had lax enforcement for many, many years, and we're going into a program that, in my opinion, is very aggressive. So I'm very disappointed to hear that that's not going to take place.
[Leo Sacco]: I don't know if that's, I'll leave that to Mr. Nash. I'm not sure if that's taking place as of the 15th or whether actual enforcement is going to begin.
[Michael Marks]: I know that there's been a lot of... We just got a phone call saying the enforcement is going to begin on the 15th. I know that. They didn't say fake enforcement.
[Leo Sacco]: They said enforcement. I mean, I wouldn't call even the reminder notice a fake enforcement. It's still an enforcement. It's an education period. Well, it's not costing you.
[Michael Marks]: When I say fake, it's not costing you anything.
[Leo Sacco]: It's far from fake.
[Michael Marks]: But Chief, the reverse has been happening. We're not doing any enforcement now, and we're letting residents put money in the kiosk. How does that happen? No enforcement. The company's not doing their job, but we're asking residents to put money in a kiosk without enforcement. I just don't understand, Chief. And I'm not blaming you. I'm not blaming you. But, Chief.
[Leo Sacco]: I'm here. I can take the blame. I have no problem with that. Well, then I'll blame you then. The fact of the matter is that no one's telling the people to put the money in the kiosk if they're putting it in there. No one has told them.
[Michael Marks]: Chief, you have a kiosk out in the street. You have new signage.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, you had to be down South Met for the other day, okay? When they had two of those so-called ambassadors arguing with people, people telling the people they had to put the money into the META. Councilor Caraviello, I think you're aware of it. Yes, sir. Thank you. So don't say they weren't. They weren't. They weren't telling people they had to put the money into the META, and that is absolutely false. Thank you, Councilor Penta.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Mark still has the floor. Just, just if I could chief. So, so that's where something inconsistencies lie. I know the gentleman's here and I hope he can answer the question regarding the enforcement that's going to take place on the 15th. Uh, my, my second point chief is when this, uh, plan, uh, that the mayor offered, uh, his plan from the get go was to do, uh, enforcement throughout every business district because it was mentioned that start off maybe in phased approaches. Let's do Medford Square first, that's our largest business district, and maybe phase it around. And the mayor was adamant about saying, no, we're doing every business district. And I agreed with the mayor at the time. But now we're seeing spot enforcement. We're seeing areas on Salem Street that are commercial areas that have kiosks and other areas that have nothing. And I would agree with the gentleman from Dab's walk that came up over the last couple of weeks. How can you have a sub-shop in West Medford that the customers have to pay 50 cents to go in and get a sandwich, but on Salem Street, they don't have to pay anything. I, as a customer, might say, you know what, I'll drive three minutes up the street and save the 50 cents. You have to treat every business the same. There's no way that we can phase in this type of approach, Chief. So whether the consultant plan from years ago said put kiosks in certain areas and not others, the city had to take a long, hard look and say, we have to treat everyone fairly. And that's not happening right now, Chief. And I would hope that happens sooner than later.
[Leo Sacco]: Well, I think you know that you notice there's some gaps in the locations because some of the districts that you're referring to as business districts, you know, maybe it was a misstatement, but the fact of the matter is the major business districts are being affected by having the meters and the kiosks and the enforcement. Some of those other locations do have time limits, not all of them, but some of them do have time limits. It's not pay for parking chief. It's not pay for parking, but it's still time limit, which wasn't enforced before and will be like park in Salem. And I believe down at the other end of high street where Joe, Joe's pizza, Giles liquor store, believe it's time limits there as well. And if I go throughout the city, there are time limits. Well, there used to be, I don't know.
[Michael Marks]: But Chief, I guess I'm saying we need consistency throughout the community. That's all I'm saying. I get that.
[Leo Sacco]: I understand that some people will look at it and say it's not fair because the shop has a meter and, as you said, funeral powers and whatever. But it is built to grow if it proves necessary. Point of information, Councilor Grusso. I don't disagree with that. It's just that there are a certain number of meters that were allocated many hours in Grusso. Point of information, Councilor Grusso.
[Paul Camuso]: Built to grow after the program's already established. The point of information I have is some of these ones, they're not in. a major square, as long as the time limit is enforced. The whole purpose of this is to keep the turnover so that if there's a bunch of stores together, it's not just one business that's getting all the parking. It's for the turnover. That's what we heard loud and clear, at least from the Chamber of Commerce. If it's like Joe's Pizza, I don't want to use names, but down in the Arlington line, if they're parking cars out there all day, it's only affecting Joe. That one establishment, if you go down to Haines Square or West Medford or Medford Square, and you park a car out there all day, you're having a residual effect on all the businesses that can't have their customers parked there. So I think the rationale was to do the major ones first. Is that correct for that reason?
[Leo Sacco]: That's correct.
[Paul Camuso]: Because it was the turnover thing that the Chamber of Commerce was looking for.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Correct. Thank you, Councilor Camuso. Councilor Marks, you still have the floor. And other councilors are waiting.
[Michael Marks]: Turnover is created by consistent enforcement, not by kiosks, not by meters. That's not what turns spots over, it's consistent enforcement. So I don't want people to believe that just because a kiosk is out there, cars are gonna move on. That's not the case. It's enforcement that moves cars along. My other point, Chief, was I received a call from a woman that stated that she has a tough time finding out clearly where pay-for-parking starts and ends in a particular business district. So when you pull up, and I would agree, sometimes it's very confusing when you pull into Medford Square and you don't know where the pay-for-parking really ends. The signage might point this or that way, but it's very difficult and there's gotta be a better way of marking where pay-for-parking is. I think that's important and something that should be looked at, Chief.
[Leo Sacco]: I'll look at it. If you could tell me a specific location, I'd be glad to go out there and look at it.
[Michael Marks]: Well, I think it's in, she mentioned the Medford Square, but I think it's in all the business districts that it's difficult on the fringes I'm talking, not in the heart, but in the fringes of the business districts to see where it stops.
[Leo Sacco]: I do know that there's a lot of signage out there. It might be confusing for some people, but there is a lot of signage pointing in directions of where the kiosks would be that they'd have to pay if you know, if they're in that parking space, but certainly look at it. But, and the other issue too, as we've discussed in the past is actually marking, physically marking parking spaces. So you don't have one car straddling and taking up two spots. So actually designate the actual parking stall.
[Michael Marks]: And just my last point, and I mentioned it last week, chief, but it's a major issue. It was an issue that was brought up five years ago when our committee that we sat on, about having citywide resident permit parking. And with this enforcement, like you mentioned, you're going to see people start to go into the neighborhoods. And those streets that don't have permit parking, that abut business districts, are going to take a brunt of this. And there's not going to be any enforcement on those streets, Chief. And to have a permit, when I go and get a permit, and my permit as a resident of Method, a taxpayer, that's only good for my street, is ridiculous. I should be able to park on any street in the city. We should have one resident permit parking that covers all residents. It should be issued free every year to residents. The $10 charge is, to me, a charge that we could forego. And every resident should get a resident permit parking sticker. And then we can keep out, because I think the issue is that we're seeing people from other communities. I live near the Orange Line, so my street's filled up. I don't live on a resident permit parking street, every morning it fills up with commuters. I can see them coming in, I see them with their briefcase, I wave to them, and they're off for 8 to 10 hours. Now, Chief, that should be consistent throughout our whole community, and that would cut it all out. It would cut all those people that are coming into our community, parking on our side roads. It'll cut out all those people that are going to the business district and saying, I don't want to pay 50 cents. let me go up two streets and I can park there for several hours. It really needs to be looked at now. And I know you said we're going to look at it down the line, but that should have been looked at five years ago.
[Leo Sacco]: Well, I don't disagree that it should have been looked at five years ago, but we all do have other jobs to do other than just, you know, being a member of the traffic commission. I don't disagree. And I think some of the information we've already received from Republic based on the registrations they've taken for permit parking, If there's a need, at least at a minimum, to go area-wide or zone the permit parking. And it may develop into something that will be city-wide permit parking. But that's something we're going to get further data as we go between now and June. I anticipate that we will have a traffic commission in June, traffic commission meeting in June to address things going forward for the, for the new year, say 2016. So we'll either have citywide or zone. I can't predetermine that until I see what the, what the load is for all of that. But because they're on board and they have the license plate readers, they have all the data. Everything is in the technology. we would be able to access all this information that we weren't able to do before because everything was done by hand. We'll be able to now determine what the, what the need really is and whether it be citywide zones. Yes, there's absolutely a need to revise the 1970s document for permanent parking. There's no, absolutely no doubt about that. But for everyone that says that there should be, you know, that I should be able to park on any street, a person on that street doesn't want the person from the neighborhood from the neighboring street on their street. We get that complaint all the time, all the time, no matter what street you're on. If you have permit parking, the street that's diagonally across from you, if there's no parking there and now they're parking your street with a permit, they're going to be the ones that will flood the meeting and say, no, no, we want it just for our street. But we're willing to go that route because now we're going to have some information.
[Michael Marks]: Because the system allowed that for years. I might live next to a street that has resident permit parking. I can't park on this street, but they can park on my street. So it became territorial. If you do it citywide, chief, everyone parks where they can. And I realize there's going to be problem spots. You know, there's going to be certain streets that maybe residents want to park on so they can jump on the T. And those are the things we're going to have to look at. But this needs to be done citywide.
[Leo Sacco]: It will be. But there's a lot of stuff going on right now, as you said in the beginning. I mean, there's been a lot of modifications. So, that was something that was too big to tackle at the very beginning. It will be something that will be addressed, I can guarantee you. Something will take place for the 2016 permits.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I just want to say, and Councilor Penta said it correctly, that I appreciate the Chief coming up here so far every week. Um, he, he's been forthcoming with his answers. If he doesn't have an answer, he, he researches it. Uh, he's been the face of parking enforcement, whether you like it or not, chief. And, uh, you know, and I appreciate that chief. And this was a large endeavor. Uh, the city for years stuck its head, its head in the sand and didn't want to do anything. And, uh, it would have been nice to have the mayor present his proposal. This is his baby. He should have presented it, but you're up here presenting it. And I appreciate that fact. But it would also be nice to hear from the mayor. I mean, his sign says, leadership that works. But it only works when the heat's not on, I guess. Because when the heat's on, he's nowhere to be found.
[Leo Sacco]: The only thing I can say on a lot of this is that pretty much everyone in the city realized this was coming. They knew that we had been talking. We've been talking about this for a number of years, and I know there have been several council meetings that people were saying that the recommendation was put forward, nothing has been acted on, it finally got acted on. But then even when it was acted on and a company was hired, there really wasn't a lot of discussion or pushback from the community. It only actually got off the ground when people started seeing the physical structures on the street. And that's when everyone said, boy, this is real, this is happening. And that's pretty much what I said last week. I mean, it's a new day. It's here. It's going to begin. And as I said, we're going to need your patience. We're going to need the public's patience. And we're not looking to croak anyone. We're looking to get things done and get it done right. And if there are problems, we're going to rectify it. And if there are other locations that require the enforcement, they'll be done as well. I think you're going to see a big or tremendous leap, especially in the enforcement of resident permit package. something that really has been on the back burner for a long time. Can we ask the gentleman from Republic about the grace period? Absolutely. I'm sure there's some other things he wants to address too from the business end.
[Fred Dello Russo]: There's a number of Councilors waiting patiently to speak.
[Fcwn-qU-L9c_SPEAKER_13]: What I can tell you about the grace period that we've been instructed, I don't know about the two weeks, but for the first month of the program, Anyone that violates the pay the meter aspect ordinance would receive a warning for their first offense. Any ordinances that were already in the books, we've been instructed to issue citations on those. So items such as, you know, over the time limit that already have been on the books with the city, those would not be getting a grace period. But the new, if you do not pay a meter, your first offense would be a warning. And that will go on for the first month. Response starting January 15th. Starting January 15th. Yes, sir. So until, until February 15th. Yes. So, but I mean, you can't do it every day. So if you did it, once you did it once, you'd get a warning and then you would be subject to a ticket at that point. Thank you. And I'm sorry, Dan Nash. I'm district manager with Republic Park. Yes. And did you have anything else you want to address the council on? Two other quick things that I think came up. The validation program since the traffic commission passed the three hour, Um, zone and all the municipal lots. The validation program has actually been put on hold and won't be, won't be done at this point. Uh, we're hoping that the three hour allotment and the lots will help, uh, all the businesses, um, discussing the visitor passes. Anyone that comes into the office as of today was walked out with their physical visitor passes and the mailings for all the visitor passes have begun today. So we're kind of going alphabetically through the various streets. Anyone that comes into our office as of today would walk out with their visitor passes in hand anyone that came in prior today They started going out in the mail today So they'll be getting their visitor passes and within the next two to five days So what happens if somebody The 15th comes and goes now they don't have a residential permit is not gonna be enforced as January 26 They won't be in violation. Okay And lastly, in light of what Councilor Knight said last week about the DPW and hanging the signs, we're actually working with the DPW now for any signs and anything that needs to be hung, and Republic will be paying for their services for that. That's most to us. That would have to be something you'd have to talk to the mayor's office about. employees. They did ask us how many hours we had staff out there. Exactly. We reported the hours back to the administration as to what we did and how long we did it for. It was one day about 40 hours.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Cavriel has patiently waited for a number of issues.
[Richard Caraviello]: I spoke to the mayor the other day about this. The ambassadors that you have floating around the areas, is there a possibility of keeping them on a little longer because You had them on last weekend, and in all fairness, it was zero degrees out. I mean, even if you wanted to learn about the thing, it was impossible to stand out there and figure it out. Would it be possible to keep them on a few more weeks, a couple more weeks, seeing that it's been a little extra cold out?
[Fcwn-qU-L9c_SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, we'll put a few more out, and we'll take the ones off that we're giving misinformation and asking people to pay the meter.
[Richard Caraviello]: Well, not so much with the misinformation, No, because I say last week it was, it was zero degrees out there and understand out there and have, you know, have somebody trying to explain to you. I mean, it was a, it was fruitless.
[Fcwn-qU-L9c_SPEAKER_13]: I agree. And there'll be a handful of people out on Thursday when we start doing the enforcement and trying to educate the people before we start ticketing.
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay. Chief, I see there was no talk about the reducing of the hours from eight at the late o'clock from seven.
[Leo Sacco]: Actually, there was some discussion today, and we actually had a motion at the end of our meeting. It was brought up by a business person in West Medford Square asking about moving from 7 to 8. Most of these small businesses do their business. And we did toss it out there to the members of the people who were present in the audience, and they all thought that 8 to 6 would be more appropriate. It would help businesses and restaurants at night and what have you. We took a vote, a motion. to go eight to six, but we have to check with the city solicitor because now we have to check the contract to see if we're in violation because the RFP called for 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and that's 12 hours a week that we have to make sure that we're not, we can't violate the contract. That's the bottom line. So we will be checking with the city solicitor to see what the contract language allows us to amend those hours. But it seemed to be a strong sentiment after the business people left the room, that we really should be doing something at 7 a.m. At least on the 7 a.m. plan. 7 a.m. So we actually, the motion we made was 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. That's a lot more acceptable.
[Richard Caraviello]: We're just waiting to see what the city solicitor says. And one more question. Watson Avenue over by the Tufts garage. Yes.
[Leo Sacco]: I don't see any kiosks there. Is that a reason? They have to put the pad on cement. It's an asphalt surface on the sidewalk. They need to have a cement pad for the kiosks. The weather hasn't been agreeable. So that whole stretch from University Ave on both sides to College Ave, and then from College Ave all the way down.
[Richard Caraviello]: I saw the kiosks in the Boston Ave area. I didn't see them on the other. I didn't know if that was part of the other. They're going to be on the track side.
[Leo Sacco]: from university to college, and they're going to be on the garage side from university to college. Will those be two-hour spots? They could be all day. They could pay $5 and be there all day. Because we figure that they're either staff, students, or faculty for Tufts.
[Richard Caraviello]: And the same thing with College Avenue as well. And I was in Haines Square on Friday. And on Yeomans, is the kiosk there? I'm sorry? Does the kiosk on Yeomans have? But it's against the building. It's actually against the Citizens Bank building. I mean, so it's kind of, you know, you can't.
[Leo Sacco]: Yeah. I'm not sure if that's going to be planned to remain there or be moved someplace else. I'm not sure.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah. Let's say it was dark and I say, if you didn't know that it was there, um, he would just walk right by it. And I say, I parked on Yeomans and, uh, I kind of noticed it by accident. And there's really only a couple of spaces there too. So it's. And when Councilor Marks had mentioned earlier about the limitations of where the parking is. If you notice in Boston, they have the signs outside of the kiosk so you know that the parking stops at this sign. And Councilor Marks is correct. In Medford, are we able to park past the kiosk? How far down does the parking go?
[Leo Sacco]: It's not— Well, in some cases, you know, the kiosk is in the middle of a block, so you have four or five spaces on either side.
[Richard Caraviello]: I understand what you're saying, but how far down does the space go? Like I say, in Boston, they have the sign ending where the last spot is, and we don't—so people may not know. They could just keep my pocket saying they put my money in. So if that—when we're looking at the signage, that might be the signage you want. You know, and this is where it ends, so this way people know. Take a look at the Boston signage and see if that's something we need. Like I said, I'm in Boston all the time and I see how the kiosks, but they have this, the kiosks are in the middle of the signs. So they have to find, they have a defined range of where they go. All right.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Thank you. Chief. I'll be brief.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Three quick questions. Thank you, President Dello Russo. Chief, traffic commission meeting you had today, it seems like you're getting a lot of things in the agenda and getting some things resolved. But you do meet once a month, so there are going to be additional meetings. How often?
[Leo Sacco]: If there may be, depending on how many new items come up, we may wait. Our next scheduled meeting is February 10th. We may have another one prior to that, depending on the number of requests, so that we don't have something that's going too lengthy on a Tuesday afternoon. And we may even have some nighttime meetings as well.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, I would just recommend that. I mean, I know you've addressed a number of issues, but we're getting emails and phone calls. And I'm forwarding them to you, and I thank you for replying, replying promptly. But there's just so many issues out there and things that are able to be resolved. So I would hope that you can meet before your regularly scheduled meeting one more time.
[Leo Sacco]: No, we plan, if need be, we'll meet as often as we have to between meetings to get it done.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Now, was anything brought up at the Traffic Commission meeting regarding, we spoke about it I believe last week, if not two weeks ago, with regards to business permits? seasonal employees or people that may work one day a week.
[Leo Sacco]: There was one business being from West Medford Square was at our meeting today and asked about that, but we're just not ready to go down that road just yet. I mean, the a hundred dollar permit, I think was the middle ground. We went from the 400 for the year to the 100 and keeping it as it is. That's something that we will have to study, but we do have some, some, you know, some information that we've received from Councilors and from business people, and we're just going to sort through it and see what we can come up with. But we weren't ready to take a vote on that today.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah. I just asked that it be round tabled and discussed. I think there's many different options that can be thrown out there, whether.
[Leo Sacco]: But I still go back to the fact, if you're a business person, you want customers to park near your business. You don't want to have all your employees on top of that business. That's, that's, That's critical. We saw that already. And that's part of the reason why we had the parking problem to start with. We had too many merchants parking in the various squares. And one merchant's parking in front of another merchant's shop. And they're all day and wouldn't move. And it's one thing if they're coming and going, if they're leaving during the course of their work day. But if they're going to be parked there all day and they don't need their vehicle, they're asking to find spots on the outskirt.
[Robert Penta]: Point of clarification. Point of clarification, counsel. on that exact question. So if I'm a business merchant, take West Method, for example, and I have three employees, and I won't park in front because I want to turn it over, but I'm going to go park on the parking lot behind, and it's only a three-hour window. But if they have a business permit. So each one of them has to pay $100 for a business permit?
[Leo Sacco]: Right now. And that's what it's been. Councilor, it just hasn't been enforced. But that fee is the same fee that has been in place probably for at least five years, if not longer. It just wasn't enforced, so maybe many people didn't bother getting a permit.
[Robert Penta]: Excuse me.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Is that a point?
[Robert Penta]: So you're going to tell me that they're going to have to pay $100 there because they work at a particular store. Okay. Is that what you're saying? Everyone's treated the same because you haven't addressed that yet. And I can park down the end of governor's, I mean, playstate road on the Winchester line there by the for $5 a day, take a bus and go to Boston. What makes them any different than an employee working in a store? $5 a day would be $100 in a month. $5 a day is, you're telling that person they can stay there for $5 a day, but you're telling another person if they're going to pay $100, and if they don't pay the $100, they're going to have to pay, they're going to have to move it after three hours.
[Leo Sacco]: It's $100 for the year, as opposed to $100 for the month. And we're giving them opportunities. We're giving them other spots. And as I said, There are other alternatives. They may have to walk a bit, but there are other alternatives that are non-restricted parking on High Street. There's no time limit.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I think that should be looked into a little bit more, maybe roundtable, whether that's at your February meeting or sometime soon. And then my last question, with regards to the loading zones, the free spots that were put out in each district and the metered spots, how is all that being picked?
[Leo Sacco]: A lot of them, there really haven't been any new loading zones created except for what was already in place. Some of them just weren't clearly identified.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: You mentioned one right on Governor's Ave.
[Leo Sacco]: That was passed today because that's a spot that's not used at all. So to accommodate, it's not a loading zone that's going to have a tractor trailer in it. It's not going to be able to accommodate that. But a small van or delivery, medical delivery to 0 Governor's Ave. They're in and out. It'll be a legal space for them to utilize. But that's probably really the only new one. And we do anticipate a meeting with some merchants on Thursday that have requests for other, you know, for loading zone needs. And we're going to discuss them and take a look at it. You have to go on site to see the situation and kind of look at what would work and what won't work and make a recommendation from there.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: But can you give your word or guarantee that if a business, we're not picking and choosing certain businesses to have certain loading zones. If a business has an issue, you'll hear each business out accordingly and go to the location and hear their concerns and somehow come up with a way, whether it's.
[Leo Sacco]: have 15, you know, two hours on a Monday to load in your deliveries or, you know, vice, you know, I mean, that would be ideal, but I know most of the merchants can't give you a date and time that the delivery is going to come. It's when the truck is loaded and wherever you are on that truck is when they make it to your shop. So, you know, we're definitely working. We want to work with them to, to make it work for them.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: My work for all of us, the other loading zone areas. I know there was the daycare, the daycares, and then, near Tanosh and Mr. Coffee Roasters. I'm meeting with them on Thursday. Okay. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Councilor Knight. Thank you, Mr. President. And I will be very brief.
[Adam Knight]: I just have a couple of questions and one request. And the request chief would be that during the early phases of the rollout of this parking management plan, that we move the traffic commission meetings to off hours so that people can come. Members of the general public who have issue or concern can come. Um, the, the second request chief that I have of you was, um, I believe it was last like last week or maybe the meeting before. Um, I asked that you just describe to us what the process is to petition the traffic commission. If in fact there is an issue or request for action or some sort of grievance that somebody has relative to the placement of a kiosk, the placement of the placement of a spot, a sign, so on and so forth. I think it's very important for the people to understand that. Um, if in fact there is an issue or grievance or a problem, that there is a place to go and, um, you know, that this body deliberates and does have that control and that power.
[Leo Sacco]: So, um, if you'd be willing to just explain the process, it would be very simple, either a letter mailed to my attention at the police station or an email to me, L Sacco at met the police.com. Um, and Alvaro Erickson will, we'll process it and make it an agenda item. Some of these items, some of these issues can be addressed over the telephone. Uh, we may be able to make modifications that, that, or give advice over the phone and may not even require being added to a traffic commission agenda. But that's the easiest way to do it. And if it's something that may affect other businesses around them or other neighbors around them on a residential street, look to get some sort of a petition. signed by the others so that everybody's on the same page. So we're not doing something for one person and then next month having the opposite side coming in and saying, well, you did it for them, but it's hurting me. So we want to have consensus, but it's just a simple either letter, sometimes only a phone call. That's all it's all it's needed.
[Adam Knight]: I think it's also important to point out chief that if there's a loading zone in one of our business districts that that loading zone is in for that particular business, but rather it's a loading zone for, vehicles that are making deliveries to park and service all the businesses. Right.
[Leo Sacco]: Correct. Going forward. That's, that's what we want to make sure if we do any new loading zones that it's, it's not specific to just one. So we're hoping to pick out the best location, uh, that would work for, for all involved. Like I said, the 30 minute spots on governor's Avenue that we added today, was not just for one business. There are three or four in that block that would be impacted. They could run across the street to the bank. They could go to one of the other businesses, whether it be the flower shop, Roland's Jewelers, any number of them for the 30 minutes in and out.
[Adam Knight]: And the last question that I have, Chief, is that I believe that you represented that the residential transaction fee for convenience when making this transaction online has been waived. And Mr. Nash has worked hard with the administrative authorities.
[Leo Sacco]: Mr. Nash can address that issue. But yes, as a result of the discussion last week, he worked pretty hard on Friday to get that thing removed. So it won't be there.
[Adam Knight]: I guess my question is this. When can people expect to see a refund?
[Leo Sacco]: That's a good question. But before we go there, so I can let him come up. You mentioned having traffic commission meetings at night. Just so you know, that I plan on having, like we have community meetings one Wednesday night a month, the first Wednesday of the month. Probably the next Wednesday night and the Wednesday night after that, I'll probably be holding hours for people to come who have concerns. So that it's not an official traffic commission meeting, but if people have concerns, rather than waiting for scheduling a meeting and having all the members present, I can at least hear them out. you know, and some, like I said, sometimes it doesn't require a vote of the, of the traffic commission. Great. But I plan on next Wednesday, the next, at least the next two Wednesday nights. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you.
[Fcwn-qU-L9c_SPEAKER_13]: Uh, there were approximately 300 people that paid the convenience fee and they should get the refund by the end of the week.
[Adam Knight]: End of the week. Beautiful. Awesome. Mr. Nash, thank you very much. I appreciate it.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information. Counsel Kamosa. Um, is it actually waived or was there an arrangement made with the city that the city would pick up that portion or was it just, In good faith, wave it. It's gone. No one's picking it up. No one's paying it. All right. So it wasn't in lieu of the fee now that the citizens don't see the city's paying it on some other end.
[Fcwn-qU-L9c_SPEAKER_13]: It's for any credit card payment in the office, online, for business, commuter or residential permit. There's no fee and no one's paying that. The city's not paying that.
[Paul Camuso]: Okay. But to be very clear, people that are using Park Mobile still will pay the fee. Yeah, that's, that's a third party. You just have to spell that out because people will be coming back here saying I got a fee and this and that.
[Adam Knight]: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your patience.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I appreciate it.
[Paul Camuso]: Mr. President. Thank you. Councilor Knight. You're all set.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Camuso and then the citizens. Real quick to the chief of police chief. Um, just two, two things on within the squares, uh, West side preschool in West Medford. Can you put that on the traffic commission to get drop off slash pickup for the business please at the next meeting? They're dealing with the same situation. High street people getting dropped off, picked up.
[Leo Sacco]: Hopefully, either Thursday or Friday, I'll be able to speak with them, and I'm sure we can make accommodations. Excellent. I know we're going to make accommodations.
[Paul Camuso]: And then, last but not least, the T bus stops throughout the squares. I think this would be the appropriate time to look at moving some of them outside of the squares, maybe, just a little bit, to free up additional spaces. Can you, rather than making it The City Council bringing recommendations forward. I know that in the past, there's a restaurant establishment in the square. This may be the time where you look at things like that so that it frees up additional parking, like the liquor store in West Medford. There's a bus stop there now. Would it make more sense? I'm not familiar with that gentleman over there. He's acting strange, Chief. I don't. Oh, all right. We'll observe proper decorum in the chamber. Thank you. It's kind of just a little odd when I was looking at the Chief. So anyway, Chief, as I was saying, the bus stops though, to free up additional spaces for the businesses slash consumers, I think maybe just look at it as we're doing this program to see if it makes sense to move any of them to give additional spots in certain areas.
[Leo Sacco]: I know just in some of the discussion with some of the merchants, they like having the bus stop because some people utilize their services. But I know there's at least two bus stops that it would only matter just moving one sign to the other end. and you'd be freeing up a bunch of spaces. So two that I know of that I'll probably be putting a recommendation forward, but we'll look at all the others. So it's more or less just a sign change, not moving the stop. It's not moving the stop. Well, it's moving it to a degree, but not much. You're moving one of the signs to the back.
[Paul Camuso]: And then that's another thing. There are businesses throughout the community that are within the districts that have bus stops. And that's the reason why they don't have a kiosk because of the bus stops. And I think people have to be cognizant of that, because people have been saying, well, why isn't this business? That's why you can't get into that game. But it is, particularly in South Medford, some of the bus stops, the reason the kiosk didn't go in certain areas is because of bus stops and limited parking as it is. Yes. And Westside Preschool, if you can put that on there.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. OK, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Camuso. Thank you, Chief Sacco. And just please state your name and address for the record, and thank you for your patience.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, thank you. It's a little late, so hopefully I can be articulate. My name is Karen B. Tenz. I'm the director of Riverway Counseling Associates in Medford at 10 High Street. We are a psychotherapy practice that's been in existence for over 20 years. So I've been in the square a long time and have never come to you guys before. So this is important to me. Many of our clients come. They're only there for an hour. They're gone. Many of our clients do have mass health and other financial burdens that make it difficult for them. This is an added burden to them. So I feel like instead of Medford being sort of a pay-to-park community, I would recommend and suggest that you guys do an hour grace period. That would help alleviate I know maybe this has been talked about before, so if this isn't, you know, not new, please excuse me. But if you did an hour free and then parking after that period, that would help a lot of us in the community. You would eliminate this fairness of, okay, this sub shop gets 30 minutes in front and this one doesn't and such and such. So if you did the first hour free, come to Medford. You can park for an hour free. And then from there, I think that would help us and our clients a lot. So that's one issue I wanted to bring up I think would be helpful. And the second one is, what if we have a client? They're in crisis. They're going to stay there for longer than we imagined. I don't want them thinking about, oh my god, I'm going to get a parking ticket. So what are we going to do about that? Who do we call? What's the procedure? What's the plan? And then the third piece is, I forgot what it is. So I'm tired. So I'm going to go home now, but I, I will hope you'll consider. I don't know if that's already been discussed and if that our free idea has been discussed before.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information about council along go current through the cherry.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I believe we discussed the hour grace period. We made the recommendation to the mayor. I specifically specifically remember doing even asking for a 15 minute grace period that was asked approved by the council asked of the mayor. Um, and then with regards to yours, so I don't know where he is on that issue, And with regards to adding money to your meter, you can do it through your phone, but it's going to be a maintenance fee. Yeah, 35 cents.
[Fred Dello Russo]: That's hard for them.
[SPEAKER_00]: I tried to get the app myself today just to sort of see what it was. And if you're in a crisis, you're not going to be able to figure that out if you don't already have it on your phone.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Maybe if you reached out to the traffic commission from your practice that they'll steer you in the right direction and give you the proper advice.
[SPEAKER_00]: And then the other, you reminded me, what is it in terms of violation? I know the violations don't come out till later, you know, 20 days after the violation happened. Does someone, if their meter is up for an hour, do they get that, is it confirmed that they get an extra 15 minutes? I don't know what the story is, or if it's really in an hour, they're done, and then they're getting a $25 fine, even if they're gone for five minutes? That just doesn't seem really fair. I mean, circumstances are what they are. So you might have an extra five minutes and expect it to be an hour, and something happens. So I just think there needs to be some wiggle room and some ways in which people can advocate for themselves. OK. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Meryl Perlson]: I'm Meryl Carlson. I live at 97B Boston Avenue. First, I brought a picture. It's worth a thousand words. There's some signage in Hillside. If somebody can explain to me what we're supposed to do. Super. So I'm just asking for some logic to be in injected into this process. I understand it's been a very busy time. But my concern as a resident of Boston Avenue between High Street and Arlington Street is that we seem to be the only unrestricted parking near the West Medford train station. As far as I can tell, Boston Avenue is not on the residential parking list, even though we are almost exclusively, if not exclusively, residential between High Street and Arlington Street. So if you look at a geographic circle around the train station, there are streets that are further from the train station. that are residential. And I don't understand why Boston Ave has been left unrestricted. We already have issues there with people like in your neighborhood, Councilor Marks, not just parking and trotting off with their briefcases, but parking and trotting off with their suitcases. I've had cars with out-of-state plates in front of my house for a week at a time. Also not able to even get out of my driveway trying to get Park, there's at least two people on my block that get picked up through the special needs van service from the school, and the vans have to stop in the middle of the street because they can't pull over to the side because people are parking on those streets. So I just want to understand the logic at the start of this if one of the concerns that we were trying to address was a commuter rail station parking usage by people out of the town. Why Boston Avenue is excluded from residential parking?
[Leo Sacco]: I think the chief will be able to address some of those issues with you. There's a short answer, believe it or not. I won't have to go on long. If the residents of the street care to petition the traffic commission to make it permit parking, it's not something we impose on them. It's up to the residents of the street to generate a petition signed by other residents. And then we schedule a hearing for the traffic commission to actually implement permit parking. As far as the sign, that is confusing. That's the loading zone at Boston Avenue in front of the hardware store. which we just eliminated, it was six car lengths, we went to four car lengths, and there were two spaces. The two spaces we eliminated are supposed to be 30 minutes, and then that other signage. So tomorrow will be corrected, I was just told by Mr. Nash. But we, for Boston Avenue, if the residents of the street want to generate a petition requesting permit parking, and it doesn't have to be all day, it could be seven to noon, like some of the other streets in the area, we'd be glad to entertain it.
[Meryl Perlson]: So my response to that as a taxpayer in the city is I don't feel like I need to do other people's job. It seems very logical that that should have been included in the residential parking based on the geographic distance to the train station. And I don't feel like the burden should be on me to have to go around to my neighborhood. If you draw a line around the commuter rail, it's obvious that if you can't park on Playstead and you can't park on High Street and you can't park on Prescott or Cottage or Canal or Circuit or Bower or Halton or any of those other streets, then it's clear people are just going to come over and more people are going to park on Boston. So why should that be the citizen's burden? Make that logical conclusion and enforce it.
[Leo Sacco]: Okay. All the streets that were named, every one of those streets got permit packing through citizen generated petitions. As the police department and the police chief, I'm in my 25th year. I've made a number of mistakes. And one thing I'm not going to do is turn around and say, you must be permit parking. If the residents want it, they have to request it. It's a very simple process. And then we schedule a hearing. Everyone from that street will be notified to attend and voice their concerns. And then it gets voted up or gets voted down. But I'm not going to turn around and impose my will on any of the neighborhoods.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: With that situation, Boston Ave is so long. Can you do it by section where, I forget your name, I'm sorry, where Meryl will only have to do it in her section of the neighborhood?
[Leo Sacco]: It doesn't have to be 100%. In a neighborhood like that, if you have 15, 20 names on a petition requesting it, that would be all that would be needed to get us onto the agenda. We're not going to do it in a neighborhood that doesn't want it. And that's, that's the problem. We've, we've done things before and had to take it back because the majority were not in favor. One person wanted it. Everyone else didn't. That's why we have the hearing and it has to be citizen driven. It's not going to be the police department saying you must be permanent parking. And unless we go to the program and we say citywide, and have a comprehensive city-wide program, then that's a whole different story. But street by street, unfortunately, that's the way the permit parking rules have been written since the 70s. It's street by street, and it's by petition from the residents. Thank you, Chief. Ma'am?
[Meryl Perlson]: And just in closing, while I appreciate that that's how permit parking has been done, I find it ironic. And I'm actually quite neutral on the metered parking at this point. But the idea that the citizens have to want it, and yet we're here for two nights now, I guess, talking about this parking system that it seems like a lot of citizens didn't want and didn't ask for, and yet it's here. And if you're going to make changes to other parts of the sort of parking ecosystem, one would think that the city would be able to look at the whole ecosystem of a particular neighborhood without relying on individual citizens to have to point out obvious issues that are going to come up. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, ma'am. Good evening. My name is Joe Villione, 59 Garfield Ave. I want to thank Councilor Penta for bringing this up again. This is an opportunity denied us by the Mayor.
[Joe Viglione]: And the citizens have a right to be outraged because we had no pushback. I'll do respect Chief Sacco. We have no access TV. We couldn't talk about this. No one knew about this. Few people knew I knew, but we see 12 people at the council every week. The citizens did not know this was coming. And we have 293 days before the election. I think the citizens have to seriously consider if they like being handed something along with the water and sewer. and along with the access TV rates. So I did a little studying today on the Internet. I looked into search engines, and I put parking meters, and it's astounding. I made it very simple for the people here in Medford. Very, very simple. You can look up South Chicago. Whether it's downtown or other parts of the city, seems Chicagoans' distaste for parking meters is growing. The issue has found its way to far southeast side communities. It's pitting residents and some businesses against each other. So I made tinyurl, so you can find them, anyone in the listening audience on TV, tinyurl.com, Chicago meters. Then we go to San Francisco. The overall message seems clear. Parking tickets are bad for business, deterring shoppers, diners alike from visiting the city. tinyurl.com, San Francisco meters. Oakland, California. And I will keep it brief. There's only a few here. But it was drowned out by businesses declaring that having to pay for parking scared off customers, attributing a decline in sales to the increased parking cost. Now, today in Haines Square, I went to get my coffee, and I said to the fellow behind the counter, it's a ghost town, the parking. He goes, why do you think? So the businesses are aware of this. People are aware of this. You keep looking, New Zealand, in New Zealand. So is the new technology scaring people away? There's a huge article, tinyurl.com, New Zealand parking. New Bedford, Mass. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. So around the country, this is being forced on citizens. We in Medford, are not given the opportunity to debate anything. There should have been meetings here in Alden Chambers. That's where the public should have had an opportunity to say to the mayor, hey, we don't like this. Oh, hey, we love it. Because parking enforcement by having Medford people going around and enforcing parking that way and not these crazy meters, which I had a walk to Haines Square. I would not take my car. I know it's a grace period. I would not do it. In the freezing cold, I walked today. But Medford is the loser here. This is not a good program. The people have to come out and speak. And I thank you, Councilor Penta, for having us here two nights, two weeks now. We've been able to speak. I'm going to stop because there's a lot of people that need to speak. And I'm glad that no one said point of information, point of information like last week. when people were lined up and waiting to speak and the council did not respect, some councillors, some did, some did not respect the audience. Thank you very much.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_27]: Anthony LaRoche, 422 High Street. I wanted to address something that the chief had mentioned, saying that residents in that building have off-street parking, and that's only true to some extent. Any of the apartments there only have one designated spot, so any household in there that has a two-vehicle household, we now have no place to put our vehicle. Um, this whole parking situation all became an issue back when street sweeping was implemented because they do the street sweeping on high street on both sides of the street, the same night, leaving us no place to put our vehicle for street sweeping. So I've had to impose on my neighbors and ask them if I can leave my vehicle on their property during this time frame and now The chief mentioned that the residents of those buildings won't be affected because we're at work all day every day So it's only going to it's only going to affect the people coming in to visit the city if I'm sick My daughter's sick, my wife's sick, and I have to stay home and take care of a family member. I have no place to put my vehicle now while I'm tending to family. The issue at hand, I think, could easily be resolved if the people of the building were allowed either a pass to park there. Our registration was put into a system where we wouldn't be ticketed if we were parked in front of the place that we reside. because as the chief mentioned earlier, we're at work all day. So if I need a day to stay home, I should be able to do so without the fear of being tagged in front of my own home. And I just, I thank the council for hearing me. I hope that the chief and the parking department can come up with a resolution for this because this has totally impeded us as residents in the building. And now we're stuck between a rock and a hard place with no option about. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Councilor Penter.
[Robert Penta]: You know, the gentleman brings up a valid point, because whether it's your building or other parts of the city where the same thing might be happening, there's going to be a real major concern as it relates to that. So, Chief, could you answer that?
[SPEAKER_27]: I think he brings up a real valid point. I do have one other thing I wanted to mention, too. Excuse me. The Chief mentioned that that was instilled so that the bank would have parking available for their business establishment, and they, too, have parking available behind their building for customers. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
[Leo Sacco]: I'm not sure. I should know the answer, but I don't have the answer right now, but I believe that there was time limit parking in front of that building already. I might be wrong. Uh, before the meters went in, I think there might've been because it was right there beside the bank, which is the business district. So yeah, my assumption was that they had off street parking. It's pretty good size lot. You know, I don't know what to advise at this point. I'd have to take a look at it now based on what I'm hearing. It certainly changes the dynamics.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. You indicated that you would be listening to what the people are saying. I am.
[Leo Sacco]: I wrote it down.
[Robert Penta]: Okay. Under advisement, because I think he makes a valid point. I mean, unfortunately, you know, what if somebody is sick in the family? What are they going to do? Park? They can't park in front? And if there's no spots in the back, what's he going to have to do? Run out every two hours and move his car?
[Leo Sacco]: Well, I would say that.
[Robert Penta]: On Saturdays, too? Saturdays?
[Leo Sacco]: Well, Saturday might be a different problem.
[Robert Penta]: This is crazy.
[Leo Sacco]: Saturdays. But during the week, if he has to stay home during the week, I'm sure there's other spots in the lot that he could be in during the day. But I'm, well, that's something to work out with the landlord and other tenants, maybe neighbors, to see if you can use their spot. But I'm looking at it. I don't want to be negative about this. I'm going to have to look at it. I can't make the decision on this this evening. Thank you, Chief.
[SPEAKER_27]: Again, I'm being asked to impose on my neighbors a simple solution. Allow the people that live in that building to park in front of that house without repercussion and there wouldn't be an issue. As far as you mentioned that timed parking has been implemented there. I've lived in that building for 15 years. I've never had an issue parking in front of that building. Never been tagged for it unless I left my vehicle there for street sweeping. And I've lived there 15 years.
[Leo Sacco]: Well, that's part of the problem because there's been so little enforcement. So that's why we're going down the road we're on right now. No, it's not. It's, you know, it's something that happened and that's the way it is today. It's, it's changing, but I have the name, I have the address. I'll look into it and see what modifications we can make. Thank you, chief.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record.
[mex41hYCPiQ_SPEAKER_17]: Good evening. My name is D.J. Davenango, owner of Dabbs Lock 470 High Street in West Medford. I again would like to thank the council for giving me the opportunity to address you this evening for the third council meeting in a row on a major issue taking part in the city of Medford. Some of the issues I'm going to talk about have already been briefly covered, but I'm going to hit them home again tonight. The issue is the Revenue Enhancement Program, sorry, I meant to say the Parking Enforcement Program. I am here again 21 days after my initial addressing to the Council as because many of the reasonable questions I have asked have fallen on deaf ears and gone unanswered. This program was based on a study conducted in 2009 and doesn't solve any problems but create new ones by driving our customers away. Since the installation of kiosks in West Medford, Both area businesses and I have noticed a slight drop off in walk-in traffic. Once the enforcement is in full swing and tickets are being issued, that will drive the remaining customers away to where they can park for free. The first time I spoke, I inquired as to what would happen for businesses that have multiple individuals working for them. Would there be some relief, or would they be forced to purchase multiple business permits? Many of those businesses, like mine, have multiple employees working on a part-time, seasonal basis. How can a city that has a surplus of over $15 million ask a business to keep paying more and more than they already do? When I went into the Republic office last Monday the 5th to purchase my business permit, I became very upset at what I had learned. There were area residents already in line waiting to purchase their residential parking permits so they can park in front of their own houses. For a minimal $10 fee, they received their permit and were told two visitor permits would be sent to them via mail. So essentially, that breaks down to three permits for $10 a year, just above $0.27 a month per permit. Now my turn. I gave the Republic employee my check for $100 so I can park in a lot behind my business, and then I went to inquire when I would be receiving my visitor permits. I was informed, well, it doesn't work that way. Why not? I'm paying 10 times as much for my permit, which does not even guarantee me a spot behind my business, and I get nothing in return. Why couldn't the business permit be in the form of a movable placard that could change vehicles as needed for employees to share? Nobody at the Republic office could answer that question. or what I should do if I need to have a temporary vehicle for myself due to my service vehicle being at the mechanic for maintenance, and questions about my four-hour-a-week worker and my worker who comes in now two days a week and then three months over the summer, what I should do for them. Even if I have to pay the normal rate for a permit, why can't it be a movable placard or allow me to add multiple plates to my existing permit? The rollout of this program, as I can see, was done with the cookie-cutter approach. The same exact plan was done for each of the business districts. There is no justifiable way you can compare any of the two business districts alike. Medford Square has law offices, dentists, and many other businesses in which parking spot turnover is needed. In West Medford, the Hillside, Haines Square, and South Medford, there are a multitude of in-and-out businesses, businesses that customers may not spend more than two to five minutes in them. Where I'm in West Medford, there's a dog groomer, dry cleaner, and many places to get takeout food. Most of the times, the customers don't even shut off their cars for that quick in and out it takes to conduct their business. I have been told not to worry. Customers are loyal, and they'll adapt to change. Let me speak briefly about customer loyalty and retention. About two years ago, I raised my service call rate $2.50 to help cover the rising costs of my business. That year, I had two landlords and a property management company decide they could no longer do business with my company because of the outrageous price increase, a rate which I had not raised in five years. Up until April of last year, I had been a frequent patron of the 99 in Somerville, going down there two to four times a week. They repeatedly made changes to their menu and how they operated, which I didn't agree with. The final straw was their remodeling of the family-style restaurant and turning it into a sports bar. tearing down walls, making an open concept restaurant. Since the remodel, I have yet to return. In my 10 years of being self-employed, in my four years of retail prior, all have taught me one central thing. Customers are funny and never take their loyalty for granted. I have heard on multiple occasions that this program will come under review in 60 days from its start. 60 days from the start puts us at St. Patrick's Day in March. I am highly concerned that in those 60 days, irreversible damage will be done to the small businesses in our community, and more will simply have to close their doors for good, like wards and bestsellers in the square. These small mom-and-pop shops build their businesses over many years, and decades even, and now, in the blink of an eye, the city could be left with more empty storefronts. If a customer feels inconvenienced by having to interact with these kiosks or worse, gets a violation for being a minute or two over their limit, The city will simply push them away, away to Assembly Row, Arlington, Winchester, Stoneham, and many more free parking business districts. In West Medford, where I am, you have a lock shop, a hair salon, a dog groomer, places to eat, a nail salon, and a convenience store. Just two miles down the road on Salem Street, between Paris and Park, You have a lock shop, a hair salon, a dog groomer, places to eat, a nail salon, and a convenience store. Why do their customers, employees, and business owners get to park all day for free while West Medford will have aggressive enforcement? If that does not define discrimination, I don't know what does. And at that rate, how about the 30-plus stores on Salem Street between Grand Ave and the Rotary who have free parking? or the strip of stores on Middlesex Ave., who also have free parking. I recently spoke to a business owner who had his business in the 300 block of Salem Street. He told me about the parking issue he had over there, with people parking there all day and jumping on the buses to work. And if you talk to the Chamber of Commerce, that is what they will tell you is the main concern in all the business districts. In West Medford, that couldn't be further from the truth. The cars that park in West Medford, either on High Street or the municipal lot, are those of our customers, business owners, and employees, not the commuters. People who take the train and bus from West Medford live in the immediate area and walk to the stops. I know that for a fact, and I encourage anyone to prove me wrong. The chamber goes on to say that this is the best solution for businesses in Medford. Please come down to West Medford and ask, how many businesses want this? I quote a business owner in saying, we had no choice and we had no voice when it came to park enforcement. The chamber should have done more to work with the individual business districts to see what would have been feasible to reach a favorable outcome for those involved, not just push this program down our throats. Of course, $18 million over a 10-year span sounds like a phenomenal thing. But think about it. Where exactly is that money coming from? It's coming from the pockets of our customers. Our customers who, when they woke up, had a choice to support the Medford business community that day. Now they will just go elsewhere. Because of the Chamber's apparent inability to work with small businesses in our community, I am rescinding my membership tonight until I feel the Chamber can fight for small businesses. The backbone of this city's economy, according to a statement the mayor made in January of 2012. I should not have to be here for three consecutive meetings fighting a fight the Chamber of Commerce should be fighting for all small businesses. I have better things to do than speak here at this podium on Tuesday nights. I have heard talks about the validation program to help with the issue of needing additional time. As it appears to me, What this is going to do now is pit businesses against each other, whether it's this validation program or allowing free time at some businesses while requiring the pay to park at others. Additionally, there has been no solution as to the multitude of delivery vehicles that keep the businesses open and operating. I've heard everything from they will be left alone as long as they park safely, they will be ticketed unless they pay like everyone else, or the best response I keep hearing, we're not sure. There are a lot of answers that are still needed and deserved. It astonishes me that back on December 22nd, conversations took place within the city and in just 24 hours later, the on street parking was increased by an hour. and the business permit fee was lowered back to $100. What this shows me is things are still not set in stone and can be worked out. The enforcement contract may be signed, but the city can still make changes. Why can't Medford continue to work with small businesses and hash out the details of what will work best in the individual business districts? Saying they are all the same is like saying the different Boston communities are all the same. Enough is enough, Medford. Work with the small businesses or you will force us into communities that will. I am in a very different situation from my neighbors in West Medford. Only around 10% of my weekly sales comes from my walk-in traffic. The rest comes from the service work I perform at homes and businesses during the week. If I did not have that service business that I do, there'd be no possible way for me to survive on walk-in traffic alone. Every other business in West Medford and the rest of the city relies solely on people coming through their front door. Please think of that when you consider playing chance with customer loyalty. In closing, There's still more work to be done, work that should have been done with more than just hours until enforcement starts. Medford needs to continue to work with the needs of small businesses, or Medford will become a city of Dunkin' Donuts, car dealerships, banks, and empty storefronts. Thank you for your time.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Hi, please step forward if you'd like and state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_24]: My name is Micah Goolsby. I live at 465 High Street. I am here because I live at 465 High Street. And my fiance and I both work from home. And so I'm wondering, because right now we park on the side street during the day. And sometimes we park in front, but it's only when we know we're going to leave. But what happens if you end up? instituting only residential parking and for the streets that we live on, because we live on High Street. So what is the plan as far as that goes?
[Fred Dello Russo]: If maybe the chief will address that.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information, Councilor Camuso. And I'm very glad you brought this up. A few minutes ago, we had a young lady at the podium and discussing making her street, just the city with the wave of a lawn, make her street resident parking. This is exactly the reason why the city doesn't want to do it without community input. This is a perfect example and I feel, excuse me, I definitely understand your concerns and this is why if a certain neighbourhood wants to institute resident parking, the whole neighbourhood's notified Thank you very much. And the chief will address your concerns.
[Leo Sacco]: Okay. Uh, what we've had is a number of residents from four 65 high, uh, faced with the same problem right above the stores. Uh, there's the road is open on Warren street between high street and, and Irving street. But in many days that is already jam packed with vehicles just from Warren street alone. So we know that that's not an option. but today at the traffic commission, we did have a petition from a resident of four 65 high for a variance to park on a nearby street and it was granted because of the hardship. So I would just ask that you submit a request for a variance for a nearby street for your vehicle. And that would in all likelihood be approved because we realized you can't park all day on high street. So you do need some help. And Warren Street does get jammed up. And I wouldn't be surprised if, in the not too distant future, they'll be in looking for parking as well. You're welcome. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_24]: And for the record, I agree with all of the comments that were made tonight. I think that paid parking is really, really bad for the businesses. There's a restaurant called Paul Revere. And a lot of people go in there. And yeah, some people stay, or some people go in for just a few minutes, but other people go in and they stay, and it's like a community there. The thing about West Medford, the thing that's so magical about it, is that it's really a very, very strong community with very strong bonds. And the thing that I hear from all of the business owners is that paid parking starts to undermine that community. by forcing people to be hurried. West Medford is one of the few places where things aren't hurried. And so, yeah, just I'm asking that the council please keep that in mind as well. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Hi. Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Q7cD9OP2TNA_SPEAKER_04]: I'm Jimmy Spirakis, and I own Jimmy's Pizza also. I'm the landlord of a series in Bank 501 to 509A High Street. And I talk about the mirror in front of my building. And like I say last week, I disagree with the mirror at all. I don't talk in two hours or three hours, whatever I hear. I think it's very bad for the small businesses. very bad. Already, I say last week, we're about 12, 14% of business, small businesses around the West.
[Q7cD9OP2TNA_SPEAKER_21]: Can I speak for one moment?
[Q7cD9OP2TNA_SPEAKER_04]: Sure.
[Q7cD9OP2TNA_SPEAKER_21]: I'm Victoria and I work right next to Jimmy's and this is what he wants to say. There's a bank, there's a tailor, there's a pastry shop, and there's a sub shop. People run in and they run out and they're not going to come and they're not going to put a quarter in the meter to buy the sub or to buy the $1.50 pastry. to go into the tailors. And customers have said that they'll go elsewhere. So it could be 15-minute parking or 30-minute parking enforced, but to have the meter there, it's going to kill the businesses on the block.
[Q7cD9OP2TNA_SPEAKER_04]: I have another three and a half pages this week. People call me and they come over and say, Jimmy, we tried to support your business. You're nice. Yes, I don't think it's a good idea. And people, the last 10 days since the mirror started, everybody thinks the mirror is not activated. I don't know. I'm not sure. It's in the front of the tailor shop. And today they call me over. I said, Jimmy, as soon as my list is up, I don't think I got to stay. So I see them every day since people stop, they go to the machine there, they try, they spend three, four minutes, and then they take the car, put the wallet in, and leave, because they don't know how to operate. They stay there. It's just about 40, 50 people today, it counts. I told them to come with me, but it was something else to do. So, I don't think it's going to work for us. Plus, down the street, for me, we said again last week, it's no mirror. My wife, they see more, about 25 cars this week. They stop and go. The lunch was nothing, Saturday, Monday, and today. Please welcome.
[Q7cD9OP2TNA_SPEAKER_21]: You can stay in my place.
[Q7cD9OP2TNA_SPEAKER_04]: I have a lunch with me, and you see, not even 15 customers today for lunch. I can come, I get a computer, I can print a slip to give it to you, Mr. President, and you see the lunch we do today. We can be able to pay, never mind the gas. The gas is $900 a month, another $750 electricity. Plus, everything goes up. We get the license for the city. It's $175. We pay for dumpster. All we use, we have a free dumpster. It's my property. It's $100 dumpster permit. The last three years, I think we've been doing pay this. I mean, nobody help us small businesses. Yes, I do. I work very hard with my wife. I appreciate the city. They give me opportunity. And I think a lot of people, they call me as soon as they see me. He says, we saw you in division. And he says, we never put you down because we love you. You do good business in Medford. I renovate twice my place. I spent about $140,000, renovate twice. Very clean place. I try the best I can. Price is reasonable. I got a $7.99 pizza. I try to people come in Monday, Tuesday. What else I can do? The cheese, we buy it 15, 20 years ago. Today, it's over $3. We try to survive. I'm 64 years old. And I come to Medford 38, 38 and a half. And I make it all the way to 64 and I, I respect, I appreciate the city. Give me opportunity and I do the best I can because I come from small villains from Greece and I know what's the dollar worth. I was walking without the shoes till six years old. So I'm afraid I don't sleep well the last couple of weeks. since I see this machine in front of my place. I understand the city, everything expands, they need the revenue, but something else you can be work out to bring the money, like I do the same. My son says, I need this kind of money. I says, cut something, we can get this paycheck, because business, it's a bad day is coming. Every day, we see, we order food, Chicken wings are going up $5. The cheese is going up. The steak is going up. Everything goes up. But we stayed two years. I have the same prices. That's all I want to say. And we can do something about it.
[Q7cD9OP2TNA_SPEAKER_21]: I think it should be enforced parking, 15 minutes. No one really abuses it. They run in and they run out. But ever since the meter's been there, there's nobody coming.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The chief has been taking notes, is aware of the situation, and I know that, as he said, as the program progresses, that whatever adjustments need to be made will be. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilor.
[Q7cD9OP2TNA_SPEAKER_04]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Just if we could get maybe an update from the mayor's office as well. I mean, this council did vote to, I believe it went to vote to allow for 15 minute free parking. I mean, if they've evaluated the contract versus how much the city's making versus what the 15 minutes would cost, I mean, I don't know if we'd break it down into districts, but I think it's worth pursuing. And I think it's obviously what some businesses need, free 15 minute parking. to allow their businesses to strive and survive. We did vote for that, and I think it's something that's worth the city taking a hit on our portion of the contract just to help our small businesses. So if we could get an update from the mayor's office, if they've looked into a free 15-minute parking, how much that would cost the city, how much that would cost Republic, and whether or not, you know, the administration's willing to take that hit and allow free 15-minute parking. I think it's something that's going to come down the line and it needs to come sooner than later before, you know, we have hundreds of businesses here in trouble.
[Fred Dello Russo]: It does. And so on the, on a item number 15-zero zero nine, uh, moved by a council, a longer current, the clerk has all that. So on that motion, uh, and, uh, before the next citizen speaks, if I could just briefly say from the chair that, uh, Well, no, I'll reserve that because I ought not to speak from the chair. Sir, your name and address for the record.
[Q7cD9OP2TNA_SPEAKER_22]: Excuse me. I'm Jim Bilodeau of Gill Street, Medford. I'm just a typical customer of all the stores and all the squares. Stephens Square, I shop South Medford, West Medford, and of course, Medford Square. Now what the city is asking us customers to do is to park and pay while we go in and, you know, spend our money. So I'm going to have to inconvenience myself and walk to one of these machines in the opposite direction, most likely, from where I want to shop. I have to come back, go in the store, and if I did pay, which I have a security issue with, if I pay with a credit card or a debit card, and I put all my information in there with my plate number, how secure is that? I'm not gonna do that. And then I go in, I buy my stuff, and if I did do that, put my credit card and all my information into these machines, and I come out and I have a $25 ticket, if I don't come out in time, say I go in a restaurant. If I go in there and I have a cup of coffee and a donut, and I spend more than 15 to 20 minutes, and I come out and I have a $25 ticket, I'll guarantee you one thing, anybody who gets this $25 ticket the first time, they'll never shop in this square again, any of those squares. And also, if you put these machines in the Meadow Grand Mall, what do you think would happen to the Meadow Grand Mall? So I think it's a bad, bad program. And just ask, if you want to, ask Brookline. And Medford's not Brookline. And it failed in Brookline, everybody, you know that. Brookline, why did it fail in Brookline? Nobody wanted to pay, and all those reasons. And also, the stores all suffered, and a lot of them went out of business. And so they took it out. They had to buy their way out. You can buy your way out of Medford, just get Republic $800,000, and they'll take them right out for you. That's all I have to say, and thank you very much for hearing me.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you.
[Robert Cappucci]: Sir, thank you. Please state your name and address for the record. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm Robert Cappucci of 71 Evans Street. I'll try to be very, very brief. Unfortunately, I mean, my heart's torn out listening to all these folks come up here. My heart is shattered. But it's not about critical emotion. It's about critical thinking. And unfortunately, this program is going to get worse before it gets better. The representatives of the mayor that come before us and say they can write down information and implement this, that, or the other thing, when I went to the town community meeting at the police station the other night, with all due respect to the chief, he said right out, that these interim prices are interim, and they're most likely going to go up. It's going to get worse before it gets better. And unfortunately, I hate to say this, but the fact is the contract has been signed. This city is under a plan A strong mayor charter. That's why he can stay at home and send his representatives down here when he should be here. My suggestion, with all due respect to this city council, would be to pass a resolution to have the mayor come down and sit here and field questions on this matter. He signed this contract. It's up to him to come out from behind the shadows and stop sending folks down here to take the hits for him. My heart goes out to the chief having to take all these questions, too. It's unfortunate, and I'll just close with this. Through the chair to three city councilors up here, Councilors Marks, Penta, and Lungo-Koehn, This is the issue where this city is ready to give you the broom, and we can call you either her or his honor, the mayor. Take up action, please. Thank you.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record. My name is Anthony D'Antonio of Yale Street, number 12 Yale Street. And I'm just another one of those irate citizens right about now, because I can't believe that this city has gone forward with this program. It's astounding. I mean, this is wrong. I said it last week, it's wrong. And I have to come up here, and if I have to come up every week on a different issue with this parking program, which is actually a revenue enforcement program, I will do it under a different subject, because something's got to be done.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Penta referred to it as a revenue enforcement program. Can you just explain that one of years? You said revenue. He just called it a revenue enforcement program.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: What is that? We're made to believe that all these years that we were able to park in the streets, that we were supposed to bow down and say, well, thank you for letting us park in your streets. Now, if you have to go with these kiosks, and I see dozens of people, elderly people, young people, still having difficulty with the kiosks. I don't know. You said you saw people in Boston. I mean, that's fine. But I see people having great difficulty here. So the thing is you don't put the money in there. You get a ticket, you're forced to pay. Okay. It comes into the city. This is, this is not the right way to do it. I mean, citizens will put up with it for a period of time, but it's, I had a business. I had two businesses. The Councilors have businesses. You, if you don't know how to run a business, what it takes to run a business, There's no compassion for the people out there. I mean, the Chamber of Commerce, you know, for this particular program should be called the Chamber of Horrors. I mean, what have they done to this city? I mean, really. And I feel bad that Chief Sacco has to come up here also. The mayor should be sitting right here and taking the heat for this program. And I want the citizens of Medford to know whose fathers, or who's with the mayor, and who's with the program, and what are you going to do for the citizens? Because it's wrong. I mean, Harvard Street and Main Street, it was crowded all the time. There was nobody up there today. They're gone. People are complaining about businesses, even the Oasis Restaurant, one of the busiest places around there. He's already dipped because they don't—these guys, they work hard. They don't want a $25 ticket. I mean, that's a lot of money. It's coming out of their pockets. It's coming out of the table, food, clothing for their children and their families. So it's got to be reviewed. It's got to be every week until something happens. I would think that I would like to see a hold put on to the start of this program because We're not ready for it, the citizens are not ready for it, and the businesses are already starting to pay the price. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Hi. Come on up and please state your name and address for the record.
[F9Dj7AZRD7I_SPEAKER_34]: Mary Ann Ashcraft, 77 Fountain Street. And I hate speaking in public. Yeah. A very, very dear friend is sitting here who is a dentist. Sometimes you have three, four hour appointments. There's nowhere to park. And there's certainly you're not going to get out of your chair, out of the dental chair, and go pump a meter. I've lived in Medford my whole life. I was born here. You know what? I'm ready to exit Medford. I never thought those words would come out of my mouth. When I was born here, I left here for six months, many years ago, and I was right back. We had a parking lot. We had meters. Millions of dollars were spent on a ring road. We have less parking. This poor woman now is looking at maybe having an overpass over her parking lot with the new construction and the Craddock Bridge repairs. I'm in the square all the time. Probably after Thursday, I won't be in the square at all. This is my personal feeling. I see Rick in the bookstore. The Dillmans are going out of business. They can't stay there. The rent is being doubled. Bog knows them. Now the mayor comes to talk to the owner. The realtor comes to talk to the owner. Where were they when he was out of business for five years? because Casoli was renovating the building. Wards is going out of business. Methods changing, and not for the better, and making people pay to park, to see doctors, to sit and have a cup of coffee for an hour or two with friends, go to the diner. Bob, we see you there. This isn't going to happen anymore, and I feel like everybody else here. It's a travesty, and I'm brokenhearted. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is from Council Vice President Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Move approval. All those in favour? The clerk is going to read the motion.
[Clerk]: Mr. Clerk, please. 15 minute, uh, free parking proposal that we submitted. And, uh, what would it cost? Uh, and with the city entertained, uh, uh, this program. Yeah.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Penta motion.
[Robert Penta]: You know, tonight we've seen, uh, we started this meeting. The time is now it's approximately, uh, it's about 12 minutes to 10. We started at seven, probably around seven 30. This went on. We've seen a varied amount of people come before us of all ages and expressing what their concerns might be. Jimmy's Pizza, let's go with you. Let's start off with you, okay? You've been there a long period of time. You've worked yourself, however you worked yourself up to be a successful businessman, own the property, maintaining it. Now you're in a position that a stupid little meter, and I'll call it that, a stupid little kiosk in front of your store is going to stop people from coming in, going into your store, on all the other places that you have. And the reason why it's stupid because whoever thought by putting that kiosk there as a revenue enhancement for the city didn't realize it was going to be a business loss to the city because you and all your tenants are going to wind up losing customers and you're going to wind up going maybe in a bankruptcy and the city's going to wind up having another block that might become blighted because people are fickle. And when they're fickle over something like this, it isn't the quarter, it's the whole idea of I'm now having to pay for something that I never had to pay for before. When all this was supposed to be was revenue enforcement. Councilor Marks was on the committee, as so was the chief of police. It was submitted on September of 2009. They worked on it from 2008 to 2009. And if you read what the mayor said publicly, what did he turn around? We've been working on this for five years. If this is what he's been working on for five years, and this is the best he could come up with, with no ribbon-cutting ceremony because it's a quiet program, well, then shame on him. That corner office definitely needs to be replaced. It needs new leadership. It needs a new vision. It needs to have an idea to understand. that if I'm a businessman and I have to go to work in the morning, I have to know what it means to open the door, turn that key, and when I put that light on, I'm paying for electric, gas, workman's comp, workman's unemployment, sick, vacation, okay, and everything else that it takes to run a business. That guy in the corner office doesn't know what it means. He makes $142,000 off the taxpayers of this community. He has absolutely no idea what it means to make a business work and survive. And that is the problem. And the problem further is that he took five department heads, not one citizen, he took five department heads and came up with this program. And now it's being changed and being changed and being changed. And while it's being changed and changed, you know why it's being changed? Because the people are responding. And if they had an opportunity to have this introduced to themselves well in advance, well in advance, and each little square was addressed independently of each other, because each square is different from each other, then you'd be able to understand what the problems, what the concerns might be. And you, Mr. Chief, you probably wouldn't have to be here three weeks in a row, strike that two weeks in a row, to know they're going to make these changes because had the mayor done his dutiful duty, this would have all been addressed ahead of time. Maybe just a few little nuances at the end. And maybe, as Councilor Camuso alluded to, if you really wanted to get into this program and make it fair and equitable for everyone. You should have put a parking meter in front of every single spot that people can understand what a parking meter looks like, not a kiosk, and then everybody will be treated the same. But the reason why they took them out over 50 years ago, because it was hurting business and they weren't being enforced. Do you realize how great this city would be? It's the only city. You go to Winchester, who now is putting these crazy things in, you go to Somerville, you go to Malden, you go to Everett. If we were the only city come to Medford for free parking, do you know what that would do to the business community? All the chief would have to do with his police officers, and I say that with all due respect, because there's money in the budget that the mayor won't give them. This council has been supportive of this police department each and every budget and each and every year that I've been here. But if you had that, all you'd have to turn around, you would have time constraints in each one of the sections of the city, and you'd see the turnover take place. And you know something? And the people would appreciate it. Why all of a sudden we changing from two hours to three hours? Because the people complain. The young lady that just came up here who said she doesn't come on, she's not going to come on Thursdays anymore. She might be in a dentist's office. Quite true. She could be in a dentist's office, could be in a doctor's office. You don't know what's going to happen. It took a hairdresser, because of her relationship to the city hall here, to scream loud enough, because she didn't want her business hurt, that it introduced itself to all the other type of hairdressers and businesses in the community. One of the reasons why it's bumped up to three hours. You go up Governor's Avenue, biggest abuse in the city, go up Governor's Avenue, on the right-hand side it's two hours, on the left-hand side coming down it's one hour. Where the logic to that came from, I have absolutely no idea. But I really think we can have resolution after resolution after resolution. The only way this thing is going to be resolved is that guy in the corner office is going to have to come here. and squash it. I think it's Mr... You live on Gill Street? Is that what you said you do? Yeah, the gentleman from Gill Street. I believe it's $900,000. You can buy yourself out of the contract. I believe your boss was here two weeks ago. He came before the podium. Within the first year, if it doesn't work out, there's an opt-out provision. I'd rather spend a million dollars now to get rid of them because the damage that this is going to do in the long run will be worse than anything that's ever happened. I'm supporting, I'll support anything this council has to do with making this thing be better. But all we're doing is talking. It's the guy in the corner office. You've got to inundate that office. You've got to tell him we don't want it. Get it out of here. You know, it's kind of like interesting. Whether they read a report, the Walker report, is that what you call it? The Walker report? The Walker report that this company, Republic from Tennessee, went by, I think it's 900 or 890 spots. But you had three months to locate the spots and to see if these spots were going to make any sense. Why are we talking about this after the fact? This is symptomatic of leadership that doesn't work. There is no leadership in the city right now. It's reactionary. You know, three hours in the parking lot, if you go outside here, that side over there on the name of the street, I don't know, there's one little kiosk in between the city's building and the parking lot over here for which half of the parking lot is private. So who's going to make that determination when they pull in there? And I think it was you, Councilman Oxford, you said it originally in the beginning. Nobody knows where the beginning and the end of it ends when you see a kiosk. A lady called me up this afternoon and she indicated, I have no idea where I'm supposed to go. I mean, am I going five spots, four spots? And if it's a big, long stretch, what are you supposed to do? Who's supposed to know that? I don't know that. None of us know that. And to get the ticket, and there's the other lady, I don't know if she's still here or if she's gone, that talked about if she's five, maybe the first hour should be free. And what I don't understand, and I know you're here, Mr. Nash, and you're a good guy because you're from Republican. We've had our conversations, but you're here to make money, and I understand that. But we were told it was going to start off with two cars that are going to monitor the city. So the question is this. Can you come up here, please? Is it still going to be two cars that are going to monitor this whole city with all these issues? Yes. So you're telling me in the course of a two-hour span, All these concerns and all these little exceptions to the rule, you'll be able to go from A to B, you're both cars, and address every single one of the locations in this city. Is that what we're saying? No. Oh.
[Paul Camuso]: We can't monitor the entire city every two hours. Point of information, Councilor Camuso. Contractual question for you, following up on Councilor Penta. Limited to two in the contract? No.
[Fcwn-qU-L9c_SPEAKER_13]: What's the contract state in that particular motion? Well, the contract states a certain number of hours that we should do to provide enforcement.
[Paul Camuso]: But who makes the determination whether it's two hours a week? No, no. How many hours? 92 hours a week. Right. But there's the ability to expand that if the needs be.
[Fcwn-qU-L9c_SPEAKER_13]: You are at mutual. We're discussing with the city and say, you know, present time.
[Paul Camuso]: The reason I, the reason I asked that if your revenues aren't what you like, now you put out 25 people doing tickets. No, we don't have the ability. I want to make sure you don't have the authority to, uh, you can't say, uh, you know what is hopefully people just play by the rules and you guys go bankrupt. That's what I'm hoping. But, Uh, yeah, no, I just want to make sure that, uh, and, and that would be our lawyer. I'd like to ask the question, what the max is to our legal department, because I don't want to see next week. Okay. We're now buying an extra seven vehicles and there's going to be nine cars out there now, ticket and everything. At least right now with two cars, it's a gamble. No, no, no. Right now it's a gamble. If the car's in Haines square, you might get away with it 20 times in West Medford, but that one time that the car's down in West Medford, you're getting a ticket. So it's not a guarantee. Every time you're taking a gamble, just like when you go to Winchester center, it's a gamble right now. You go to Davis Square, it's a gamble. But with that being said, the more people you put on the road, your odds are getting better that you're going to get a ticket. And I want to make sure that this isn't revenue-driven, the decision to put more cars on the road to ticket more people. So I'd like to ask that through our legal department. I think that's very important.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So amended by Councilor Camuso on item number 15-009, that the city clerk, the city solicitor report back to the council regarding the limitation or the expense of the number of enforcement officers. No, cars. Or cars.
[Paul Camuso]: No, officers, because listen, if they want to make revenue, they may just take a 15-passenger van and start dropping these ambassadors in all the squares.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Cars and officers within the contract to exact the- Like Boston.
[Paul Camuso]: You ever see the Boston Transportation Department? They show up with a little orange light on the roof. Next thing you know, there's 15 people jumping out with their little handheld things. And that's not what this is about. I'm concerned. Let me ask you a question.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Camuso. Thank you. Councilor Penta. I just, you just said something. Is it possible that you guys could get a van and put five or 10 people in it and just drop them all around neighborhoods?
[Fcwn-qU-L9c_SPEAKER_13]: Could we do enforcement on foot?
[Robert Penta]: Well, more than two people.
[Fcwn-qU-L9c_SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, we could. I mean, we'd have to get approval from You have to get approval. I couldn't make that decision on my own.
[Robert Penta]: Who makes that decision?
[Fcwn-qU-L9c_SPEAKER_13]: We consult with the administration and say this is what we're seeing and we think there needs to be more enforcement in the residential area and then they would.
[Robert Penta]: So the only reason that you'd be doing that for a follow-up and what Councilor Camuso was saying is if your revenue is off and the revenue is going to be off because you don't have enough people on the street, you'd be going to the mayor and asking him for that permission and the mayor would be agreeing with you to meet your goal to get to that revenue number that you need to make.
[Fcwn-qU-L9c_SPEAKER_13]: No, that wouldn't be the only reason.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information, Councilor Camuso. If, if indeed the mayor, and I have to say up to this point, we have no reason to believe that this is a revenue enhancement. We haven't seen it yet, but listen, the mayor is hearing this loud and clear as much as we do. I'm sure he doesn't want, he'd rather not have any revenue and have no one getting tickets in his phone, not ringing. So as far as that said, I'd like to make a motion. that the mayor limits this to two, at least for the first year. They don't even negotiate to put more people on the road until an amendment to the contract or whatever it is until at least a year.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So is that an additional amendment, Councilor Camuso? Yes. That the mayor set a, that on the same A motion offered by Councilor Penta, amended by Councilor Camuso, that the mayor establish a limit of two enforcement modalities during the given shift.
[Paul Camuso]: And here's the other one other thing to follow up on that. The chief of police still has the authority. The chief of police still has the authority to give out tickets, as we all know. In the off hours, I would rather see police officers given the opportunity to come in on overtime if they decide that they're going to whatever, because it's going to pay for itself. And my rationale with that is it puts an additional police officer on the road that can respond to a baby choking, can respond to a bank robbery, can respond to things. A meter ambassador isn't going to be able to respond to 911 calls and things of that nature if there's a serious emergency in the city. And it's going to pay for itself. So I think that that's important too, that the city looks at its own police force to do this on an overtime basis in regards to additional enforcement. Because I'm a firm believer, and I think all this council is, I can't speak for all the council, but I'm a firm believer, the more police officers we have on the street, whether it's a detail, whether it's overtime, whether it's parking enforcement, the city's in better hands because they got their radio on and they can respond to emergency needs as see fit. So I'd like to make that amendment too.
[Robert Penta]: And one other thing, legally. You made a comment, and I don't know if you meant to say it or not, but when the question was asked about the appeal process, and I don't know what councilor asked the question, you know, if there got to be too many, you indicated, used the term, well, at that point in time, we'd probably jump in to help out. I don't think you can, because there is a legal contract here that's going on, and I think that's another thing. And when we get to these things that are being negotiated after the fact, and the council's not being apprised of it, I think we've got some serious problems here. Because the fact of the matter is, we've got two contracts, one month apart from each other, 9, 10, 14, 10, 10, 14. Only one word, two words would change in the whole contract. And it's very explicit as to what you guys can and cannot do. And for them to come out with a post-press release and turn around and saying that the first year of the $300,000 we're going to get, you're going to give $250,000. It's going to go back to the business districts. That was never negotiated. That's not part of the contract. That's after the fact. So you've got a whole host of issues here that are just running amok because it just wasn't — this was not vetted out properly, as far as I'm concerned. I know you're here. You got to do a job because this is what your job is. But I've got a job, too. And I've got to make sure I'm listening to the people. And I haven't found — there's only one person. I'm up to — I got to apologize. I'm off by a few. I gave a different number on Sunday. It's 376. As of tonight, 376 emails. Only one person in the email said, I can't tell you whether it's bad or good. Maybe we should give it a chance. But probably, if you give it a chance, and the way the temperament is running, it probably won't work anyway. But what the hell? That's the only one. Everyone else has been against it. And you know what the major reason is? A, they weren't advised. B, business districts did not meet between and amongst themselves to discuss it. And C, it seems kind of odd. that the city council is discussing this after the fact, not before the fact.
[Leo Sacco]: Just one, one issue with the staffing. There's already been discussion with the permit parking, residential permit parking, that Republic may stagger some of their shifts to cover it, to help us on the evenings and the early part of the overnights if need be. because one thing we don't want to have happen is have permit parking in place and go back to the old days that maybe it's only done during the daytime. So I'd be, you just caution that as far as you know, how many people, I don't think you'll ever see them throw 25 people into the city to do something, but we do need some assistance at night information, information, constant point of clarification, chief.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of clarification, Councilor Camuso. Is this staggering? You used the word staggering. So does that mean the person that will be out there driving around in this vehicle, one of them will come in, say, four in the afternoon, so in the morning will be down to one vehicle, or will it be two and then an additional person at night? The word staggering to me is...
[Leo Sacco]: The way I understood it was that maybe some hours would be changed around so that they could have some coverage in those other hours. I mean, we get a lot of phone calls in the early evening up to 10 o'clock at night about permit packing violations. Until the police department has the same technology which we're about to receive as far as being able to read the license plates that are actually registered for the permit packing program. we're going to have to rely on public to assist us with that.
[Paul Camuso]: Should we, um, would it be in the best interest of the city to outfit one of our police cruises or maybe small smart car or something, something environmentally friendly that has the same thing, but it's actually a patrol vehicle police.
[Leo Sacco]: We're looking to obtain maybe two units so that we can have a east and west coverage.
[Paul Camuso]: I think then, and like I said, even if it's on an overtime basis, it's going to pay for itself. And, The police officers, I would rather see, because they're going to use their discretion a lot more than a private company, with all due respect. Private company, there's a violation.
[Leo Sacco]: You're getting a ticket.
[Paul Camuso]: The police officer. Well, the permit packing is what I'm looking at. Oh, the permit packing. So the permit packing, either you're registered or you're not. The police officer running out of Sunnyhurst in Haines Square or the convenience store may give you a break. With all due respect.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. Chief, there's a revenue sharing agreement on all tickets that are issued by the enforcement ambassadors? Enforcement ambassadors, and there's a revenue sharing component to that, correct? Where- There is, but I'm not totally familiar with the dollar amounts and any of that. Adversely, the Manfred Police Department still does maintain the right to enforce parking restrictions in place. Is there a reciprocal revenue share?
[Leo Sacco]: It all goes to the general amount. So it will all be processed. We'll write the handwritten tickets. It'll be turned over to Republic. They're going to take the data from that, put it into their system. So it all goes to the same place.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Thank you, uh, Councilor Knight. It's good citizen has been waiting to speak.
[Robert Penta]: Do you don't want the citizen to speak? What incentive is there for a Metric police officer to write a ticket knowing that the money isn't even going to come back to the city? Because it has to go to Republic first. They've got to get to a certain dollar amount before the city even gets any money.
[Leo Sacco]: We never look at that part. I mean, it's about the violation. It's writing the violation. Wherever it goes, it goes. I mean, it's like anything that we've done in the police department. Whatever fees we generate goes into the general fund. And at budget time, we hope to get our piece of the pie.
[Robert Penta]: So if Republic only is going to have two cars on the road during the course of a day, correct? You're only going to have these two. I'm quite sure they have to take coffee breaks. They're going to have to take their lunch break. So at some point in time, there may be only one car on the road.
[Leo Sacco]: I guess the message that's being sent is that this is not going to be summable. They're not going to be jumping out of trees and things like that. Yes. Well, if they only have two on the road, you can only cover so much ground. Are you going to be able to run in and grab a paper or grab a coffee? There's a good chance. I mean, it's going to be a risk, but it's a good chance. Thank you, chief. And thank you.
[SPEAKER_12]: Councilor Penta, sir. Hi, my name is James Bruno. I'm the owner of Medford auto school in Medford square. Uh, just to let you know, just two points of observation. You could take it for good or bad. Uh, I drive around all day, obviously with students and I go through all these major squares. And ever since this started, I noticed a lot of empty spots in front of these businesses on Boston Ave and High Street. They're all open. So, I mean, apparently the people ain't going into the business. The other point of interest is that sometimes I use Dunkin' Donuts or whatever to use the restroom. All right, I'm on the road all day, so I have to stop someplace. I gotta be honest with you, I'm afraid to pull over in front of Dunkin' Donuts. I mean, Councilor Marks knows I use, excuse me, Dunkin' Donuts. I'm afraid to pull over sometimes just to run in to use the bathroom. You know, I had to find a Dunkin' Donuts that has a back parking lot or something. So, just two points of interest. Like I said, I've just been seeing a lot of empty spots in front of these businesses. Well, nobody's parking there anymore. Certainly not the customers, that's for sure. They're not pulling over there. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: There's a motion for approval on the floor. On the motion by Councilor Penta for this discussion, amended by Councilor Brianna Lungel-Kern and amended by Councilor Camuso twice.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. Chief. Chief, if I can bother you one more time. Chief, In the springtime, Chief, in the springtime, there's going to be construction starting in the square, the bridge. What are we going to be doing when the construction starts?
[Leo Sacco]: When they brief me on what the construction period looks like, it keeps getting pushed out.
[Richard Caraviello]: I mean, if it starts in the spring— Eventually, it's going to— Yeah, eventually— Well, from what I understand, it's supposed to be starting in the spring because they're putting the bridge in.
[Leo Sacco]: It's supposed to. I haven't seen the latest plans. I'm sure it will be included.
[Richard Caraviello]: Is there going to be some easing of some things once the construction starts?
[Leo Sacco]: Almost by necessity. Actually, there will probably be some packing that will be eliminated temporarily so that this project can be accommodated.
[Richard Caraviello]: That's a two-year project, if I'm not mistaken.
[Leo Sacco]: The last I heard, it was closer to three. But I haven't seen the latest plans, and I know every time they say they're going to start, it seems to get pushed out another six months. So I can't answer it until I hear more. Mr. President? Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. And I heard Councilor Prentis saying continue this next week for further discussion. But let's not discuss the same thing week after week after week. This is, I think, I'm just making my point known. There are legitimate concerns out there. We want to hear legitimate concerns. But for people to think that we can just make this program go away, now the mayor signed a contract. Call the mayor's office, voice your concerns with him if you have an issue. But the fact of the matter is, this council always is here to hear the citizens of this community. But week after week after week after week after week, bring the legitimate concerns to the members of the Medford City Council. We'll be here to meet your needs, hopefully. We'll put you in the right direction. Call us any day. You don't have to wait for Tuesday night to come down here because I can speak for all the members of my council, colleagues that sit around here. We respond to people and we try to get them the solutions that they may not like the solution, but it will at least put them in the right direction. So, but I just think at some point we have to stop crying that the program's here. We have to look to make the program better. and less.
[Fred Dello Russo]: It was offered by councillor Caraviello some, uh, time ago that we, uh, revisit this after a period of, I think 60 days. So perhaps with the, uh, being of the gavel on these motions, uh, tonight that 60 days is the appropriate, uh, period of time for us to revisit this, having given it a chance to work its way out during one of the most, uh, uh, councillor Mox.
[Michael Marks]: I disagree. I think we need to discuss this every week. And point of fact is that — Mr. President, a week ago, there was a surcharge of $3 for resident permit parking. The gentleman went back to his higher-ups. He met with the administration, and now there's no $3 surcharge. That was a week ago. We had residents that came up here that had concerns about parking in front of their building and so forth, and the chief has been addressing them one at a time. We've had concerns about kiosks in front of residential homes. Those have been addressed one at a time. So, you know, in my opinion, you can send the mayor an email, good luck getting a response. You can call his office three dozen times like residents have told me with no response. I would prefer, this is the only open public forum in this city, and this is where we're currently getting action. We're seeing results. Why should we say let's meet in two months from now? We're seeing results, and this is such a fluid process that we've all spoke about. Why should we wait? Week after week, if no one comes out next week, then we don't discuss it. But it should be an option where residents can come up every week. It's the only forum to allow them to speak, Mr. President. So I wholeheartedly support having this here in a weekly fashion. If it's three weeks, four weeks, five months, five years, as long as we keep this forum open for the people, we're doing our job, Mr. President. And I'm going to stick by that. So I would say that I would like to see a continuation of this next week, Mr. President, and have it on the agenda as an open item. when people can come up and discuss this at any time, Mr. President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: The Press Thank you, President de la Ruzo. I concur with Councilor Marks. I think this is a play. Not only have we answered concerns in the last two weeks, we've given our concerns to the Chief. The Chief's been here. We've brought awareness to the program. We've helped through the Chief. answer questions, we're making the administration aware of concerns, and it's just a place that people can come. I agree with the same concerns over and over again. Obviously, we need to maybe do something with those concerns, whether it's a committee of the whole meeting, but if a resident, a business owner, anybody in this community has a new concern or a concern that they need to bring to the council, even if it is repeatedly, then so be it. We are the only public forum These meetings and open public forum type meetings about the parking program should have been had by the mayor's office far before tonight and last week. And we as a council asked the mayor to have public meetings before this was installed. We made recommendations, we asked questions, but it was done how it was done, and this is the place. So if we have to be here till the late hours of the Tuesday nights, then so be it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Council. Vice President Lagocurin. Councilor Camuso, did you have something?
[Joe Viglione]: No. Sir, your name and address for the record, please. Joe Viglione, 59 Garfield Ave. This is one of the most expensive city councils in the Commonwealth. The taxpayers just had to pay for a new raise for the city council. I thank the three councilors that didn't vote for this. It's interesting that the councilors that did vote, please stop interrupting.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information, Councilor Camuso. First of all, I'll call a point of information any time I want. You have no status in this community, a fine American once said. A fine American once said that. Mr. President. Your point of information, Councilor. The votes were unanimous on the parking program. So the gentleman makes up fiction. The facts of the record don't lie.
[Joe Viglione]: Thank you, Councilor. Sir, if you could continue, please. Thank you very much. This is one of the most expensive city councils in the Commonwealth. We have no public access TV that we pay for. The councillors that carry the mayor's water, they might want to silence us. This is the people's forum. The same councillors that say it's the people's forum are the ones that want to shut down the conversation. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Thank you, Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Thank you, Councilor Penta. This has to be talked about because we weren't even aware of this and there's no public access TV. So until there is public access TV, there's no rule, what is it, 17? vote. 90 days? Forget it. Suspension of the rules every week until we get this issue front and center.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Knight. Councilor Knight has the floor. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. I certainly don't have a problem having dialogue and hearing from individuals that have concern over the parking management program, the parking enhancement program, the revenue enhancement program or whatever it is that we're all calling it. Um, I just think it's very important that if in fact we're going to have people come up here to speak to this council, we give them the opportunity to do so because they have to wake up tomorrow morning and go to work and keeping them here from seven o'clock until 10 30 or 11 o'clock at night. for them to have the opportunity to come up to this podium and speak, I think is a little bit much to ask. So in the future, I think, Mr. President, it might make sense when we have people from the general public that are here that want to raise questions and want to have answers about this parking program, that they're allowed to speak first, Mr. President, so that we can let them get their questions out. we can let them get their questions answered. That's going to raise questions that we have, obviously, and absolutely. There's no question about that. But I think we are in a unique position when we have access to the people from Republic, to the Traffic Commission, to the Chief. I mean, Chief Sacco is probably tired of hearing from me at this point in time. I call him so much. But at the end of the day, we have access, and the individuals in the community don't have that same access that we have, Mr. President. I have no problem continuing this conversation. I have no problem staying here until tomorrow morning if we have to, to listen to the concerns of the residents. To listen to those concerns, I have no problem whatsoever, Mr. President. When it turns into political theater and a little bit less more about action and results is when I get concerned, Mr. President. And I'm not saying that that's happening, but I'm saying it has the potential to happen. And I think right now we're in a spot where we've had three or four meetings on the same topic, and they've gone late into the night. They've gone late into the night, but most of the people from the general public haven't even had an opportunity to express their concerns until 9 or 10 o'clock in the evening. And I think it would make more sense moving forward and be more encouraging for people to come out if in fact they could come here and take the floor immediately. Or they could come here and they could be heard first without interruption and then we can move forward. And I'm guilty of it just as much as anybody else behind here with my points of information and with my questions and my concerns in between speakers lining up. But I think if we're going to move forward and we're going to be serious about speaking about this issue, and speaking about it every week because we want results for the concerns that are being raised, then we need to let those concerns reach the floor. We need to let those concerns resonate and saturate, and we need to give the chief an opportunity to address them before we start chiming in with our two cents. It's a process. The process is in place. We know what the process is if we have problems, questions, concerns, and grievances. I think that at the end of the day, they're not falling on deaf ears. We're seeing a lot of success. Councilor Marks is absolutely right. Why would we close this down right now when we're seeing results? We're seeing results left and right. I don't have a problem keeping it open, Mr. President, but I would like to see maybe more of a commitment to allowing the residents really express themselves and a little bit less of us interrupting them. And like I said, I'm guilty of it just as much as anybody else, Mr. President. So I have no problem keeping the matter open weekly, monthly. you know, in subcommittee, um, if we want to maybe all convene, um, on the Wednesday night, we can meet down there when the chief is having his presentation with the people of Republic, um, Wednesday night at his public safety meeting. Something like that. I'm open to all suggestions, Mr. President. I just want to be sure that the people coming up here feel as though they're going to be heard, because I've seen a number of people that were here in the audience walking around and get up and leave. Like Mr. Tomazak was here last week, and he ended up leaving. I saw a couple of other residents in the audience that were here as long as they could be here, and they left. So I just think that it's important they get their chance to speak. We have this forum every week.
[Fred Dello Russo]: And we tried to do that, as you know, and I just tried to facilitate an avenue for that to happen last week, and by moving it, to expedite some other small businesses, pieces of business early to give a solid block of time to the citizens. But Councilor Lungo-Koehn has called to move the question. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: To that end that Councilor Mike was just talking about, I agree that residents should speak first, but I would also say that when residents are at the podium, members of the council should pay attention They shouldn't be working the audience, walking around glad handing, which happens a lot. I'm not going to point at anyone in particular, but some members sit behind here and we listen diligently and other members are working the crowd trying to get votes. So in one aspect we're saying we want to be kind to the residents and listen to what they have to say, but when they get up to the podium, some members of this council could give a damn what the residents have to say. And I think that's wrong. And I've noticed that more and more now and I take exception to it. And I would hope there's a change by this council that when people are at the podium, we give them the respect they deserve and we sit and listen and not traverse the whole building. Because to me, that's unacceptable. Thank you, Mr. Parker.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Carfiello. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, why can't we do a council of the whole meeting with the mayor next week, before our meeting at five o'clock? and express our concerns directly to the mayor.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'll call for the meeting first thing tomorrow, five o'clock next Tuesday, committee of the whole vacation.
[Robert Penta]: There you are, you're taking it away from the public. Have the mayor come to a council meeting where he belongs. Not in a committee of the whole meeting. Councilor Penta, if I can.
[Fred Dello Russo]: What? As you know, for 30 years, you've asked him to come.
[Robert Penta]: Well, if he's not going to come, he's telling the people, he's slapping them. He doesn't care. He doesn't care. And they'll do what they have to do in November. They'll either vote him out or vote him in. One or the other.
[Richard Caraviello]: So what makes them think he's going to come next week?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Well, what do you want to go play the whole tool, uh, to do what, to discuss this and bring further input from citizens and we'll meet with the chief and a representative from Republican parkings.
[Robert Penta]: And then, and then we will discuss it again at seven o'clock and then we'll discuss it again at seven o'clock at the council meeting. We'll discuss whatever took place. And the poor people that have to come down here are going to want to know why.
[Richard Caraviello]: The residents are open to come.
[Robert Penta]: But everybody has to work. People have to work. They have families they have to deal with. They know 7 o'clock Tuesday night is a council meeting. It's an open public forum. Anybody can come here, including the mayor.
[Richard Caraviello]: And he chooses not to. You're correct. The mayor chooses not to come here.
[Robert Penta]: That's not our fault that the mayor chooses not to come here, councillor. I don't know what he's afraid of. Well, then let's move the question here. Move it that he appear before the Medford City Council, not the Committee of the Whole. Invite him to the Medford City Council next Tuesday. Do we not want a Committee of the Whole meeting?
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'd like to continue that. Yes. You'd like to have a Committee of the Whole meeting? I'd like to have a Committee of the Whole. Do any of the other councillors wish to have one?
[Robert Penta]: Roll call vote.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Well, the chair calls the Committee of the Whole meetings.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I'd like to have them appear before the council. What are we going to do over here? Be third party to repeat back?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: I would absolutely love to have him here. The fact of the matter is if we want to actually get answers and not yell and scream to get him here when we know he's not coming, Listen, the best predictor of the future is the past. And for the past 30 years, whether I believe it's right, wrong, or indifferent, the next mayor of this community, I'm sure, will be at this podium. But for the last 30 years, he has not been. With that being said, if we really want answers, if we really want to give the citizens an opportunity to ask him questions, Let's do it where the past the past is the best predictor of the future Those things have been answered and that was in the committee of the whole Now we can come out from that committee of the whole and discuss it here on the floor But if it's anything more than theatrics calling for him to come here He's been here once and it was the methadone clinic once you've been here in the city of Medford as a council longer than him as the mayor and he's been here once Once and why was he here? Tell us why because the methadone clinic And why? There was 300 people here. That's right. There was 300 people here. And he outspotted all of you. So on the way in, they're throwing rocks at him. They were carrying him out on their shoulders. What? So learn something from the guy. What are you talking about? There's 20 years ahead of you. Let's have him at the Committee of the Whole and get the answers that are important.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So we'll have a Committee of the Whole at 530 next week. We'll also, on the motion of Councilor Penta, that the citizens have the opportunity to redress this issue. uh... in next week uh... at the seven o'clock meeting that will be uh... part of this uh... resolution that is before us so that councilor camuso you call it for the committee of the whole you're gonna call for it we're taking a vote on it? I'm gonna call for a committee of the whole for five thirty next tuesday night in addition on the motion of Councilor Penta, uh, that this discussion be continued in next week so that the citizens might have the opportunity to address further issues that that will be part of this resolution that we're disposing of.
[Paul Camuso]: And furthermore, as I stated, people that are out there that have concerns like the mom and pop businesses, loading zones, things of that nature, call any member of this council. There's certain members on this council that called for these kiosks in 09. We want to get you the answers that are important to you. Believe me. So if we can just have the open dialogue and people don't have to wait till Tuesday if they don't want to, because as councilor Caraviello stated the last few weeks, there's ongoing dialogue every single day. The chief 90% of your day I'm sure is this now, right? So thank you. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Who's going to place on the agenda for next week that this discussion continue?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Well, we have three pieces for resolution and then so we'll move the three questions. Roll call.
[Clerk]: So we're doing the amendments in the main resolution, right? Right, the three amendments. Okay, Councilor Camuso. Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Vice President Lionel Kern? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Penta? Yes. President Dello Russo? Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Seven in the affirmative, none negative. Motion passes. Councilor Penta?
[Robert Penta]: Yes. Move the question.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Move the question to continue this discussion. We're going to table that?
[Clerk]: No, we're going to continue it to the next page. You're going to put it on the agenda as a resolution.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. 15-013 offered by Councilor Knight. Be it resolved that the city clerk provide the city council with a listing of appointments under council purview for the purpose of establishing a performance evaluation criteria. Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much.
[Adam Knight]: This resolution is no more than an attempt to institute best practices of human resource management here within the council. There are several positions that are under council purview relative to appointment. I'd like to see if we can maybe establish job descriptions for those positions as well as a performance evaluation tool to determine that the people that we do appoint to these roles are actually meeting the obligations that we feel as though are necessary. Very good. Thank you, Councilor Light.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, I'm really, I'm confused with this resolution here now because as Councilor Light alluded to last year, he said in December, he was working with the city clerk going back to last June, going over some of these positions and then, The biggest position that we have on the council agenda on our council forum is president and vice president, because they're the ones that have to set the tempo for who gets these positions and how we're going to get to there. And neither one of those were vetted out. But now, all of a sudden, we're going to vet out other positions. And I just don't understand that. I'm not going to support this, because there's absolutely no — there's no rhyme or reason to this. Because if that be the case, Mr. President, you've got no authority to make any appointments right now to any committees, because every one of those positions need to be vetted out. And every other position that comes under the state statute for which a council member is eligible for, it doesn't seem to work. There's something behind this, and I don't know what it is. I just think it's unfair to the entire council that we would be talking about something like this now. Point of information, Mr. President.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. As I said, when we had this discussion previously, and the clerk can attest to the fact that I've sent this resolution to him a number of times, and he's been working on going through the statute to determine what positions are statutorily or by statute under council purview. Quiet in the chamber. Yeah, there are a number of positions by statute that are under council purview. Embelt, Hornell, the city clerk, the city messenger, the videographers, I believe are other ones. I just want to institute human resources, best practices, Mr. President. I don't think it's unreasonable to have people vetted. I don't think it's unreasonable to have a performance evaluation criteria to be sure that people are meeting the requirements of the position. And I don't think that it's, a bad idea to have a job description for a job that people are performing, so that we're all on the same page. That's all I'm trying to do. There's no ulterior motive.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The point of fact, this body moved that all of the mayor's appointments present resumes to us that we had to approve.
[Robert Penta]: The difference, Mr. President, between the mayor presenting them to us is because the council requested it. You know, we're a small group of people here. And if you've been working on this since June of last year, And this is all that you can come up with, and so be it. The other part of the thing is, then maybe we should have vetted out your opposition. You were only here three weeks, and you voted yourself a pay raise. And you voted for it, too. I did not vote for the pay raise. You voted for it. Check the record. No, you voted for it. I don't care what the record says. I know what I voted for and what I didn't vote for. You voted for it. But that's not it. And that's the whole thing with the problem here. Mr. President, whoever serves up there as the president of the council has the right to make the introductions. to whatever the positions might be. Just as Councilor Caraviello, he made a request of the mayor to be on a particular board. He went there, and he did what he had to do. These are all political positions. When, all of a sudden, now we have to put a resume in to become a chairman of a committee or something, or what we've done, or what we haven't done, I thought the answer to that was the people. The people would vote us out.
[Adam Knight]: Again, again.
[Robert Penta]: The people would vote us in or vote us out for what we do. Point of information, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: The gentleman's taking the ship that's going down a straight road, and he's turning left. All right. This is for appointments that are statutory. All I wanted to do is say we have the M-Belt, we have Hormel, we have the city clerk, we have the city messenger. We have two videographers in here. I don't know if the videographers know what their job requirements are, their job descriptions are, if there's a base of knowledge that they need in order to have these appointments. That's what I'm looking for, Mr. President. Best practices. Best practices in vetting appointments. That's it.
[Michael Marks]: So noted. Councilor Mark's point of information. So why do we need this in the form of a resolution? The city clerk couldn't get you that information from June of last year?
[Adam Knight]: because I can't operate in a vacuum and create these performance evaluations and job descriptions myself.
[Michael Marks]: I mean, you could have reached out and found out cause you're asking and hit the city clerk provide the consulate a listing of appointments on the council purview. I mean, he could probably provide that in 10 minutes.
[Adam Knight]: Well, he didn't. You've been working on it for seven months. And Eddie, when did I ask you to make the initial request?
[Clerk]: We've worked on it several times, but you have to remember that a few of the times that constantly had withdrew the motion, to go forward.
[Adam Knight]: Right, because you said you were working on finding out if there were any other statutory positions that were out there. So I said, I'll give you the opportunity to continue to research these statutory positions. And it came to a point now. It's been seven months. Enough's enough. Let's put the resolution on it to get the teeth in it. The only reason I brought this resolution forward was to ensure that we're practicing under the best practices out there that's in every single human resource organization across the country. Thank you, Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, and I certainly do support this wholeheartedly. The evening, I think this came up in discussion recently when I put the name of Robert M. Penta forward for the reappointment to the Brooks Estates. It was actually discussed that evening, and Councilor Knight at the time said that a resolution would be forthcoming after the first of the year, and here it is. And certainly, I do support this. We want the best possible people in all these positions. I support it and I think it's being very proactive and thank you for bringing it forward. Thank you, Councilor Camuso.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Pantano. The best possible people to serve in these positions should be vetted out starting with the president and the vice president and we should just go through that and that's probably what the council should have done this past year to find out who the best person, not the number one vote getter, not the one who's been here the longest or the shortest, who's accomplished and done the most on the city council, who would make a good representative. Not because of the political path.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Everyone was vetted and the majority of the council did put the person or people in the leadership positions. And same as it's been done always. And just because you may not have the votes, Cry over sour grapes. And I appreciate the unanimity of the voting.
[Robert Penta]: What are you talking about? What votes? Votes to get the votes.
[Paul Camuso]: For what? The votes to become the president and the vice president.
[Robert Penta]: Oh, I didn't ask to become president or vice president.
[Paul Camuso]: So don't tell me I didn't have the votes.
[Robert Penta]: I didn't ask for it. Well, no, no, you didn't. You didn't have the votes.
[Paul Camuso]: I didn't ask for it. Well, it doesn't matter.
[Fred Dello Russo]: You didn't have them. How do you know I didn't have them? We're estranged from our topic.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I'd like to amend the resolution. I'd like to strike out the words for the purpose of establishing a performance evaluation criteria. When the clerk gets the information to me, then I can make a subsequent resolution.
[Fred Dello Russo]: But at this point in time, I'd like to know what... On the amended resolution of Councilor Knight, on the motion for approval by Councilor Knight...
[Adam Knight]: Just striking out the words for the purpose of establishing performance evaluation criteria. It seems that was a sticking point. We can have the clerk give us a listing of the positions, and then if I feel as though it's appropriate to move forward with the resolution at a later date, I will.
[Fred Dello Russo]: It's already been done. It's already been done. Thank you. Seconded by Councilor Camuso. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. 15-015 offered by Councilor Knight under suspension. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate Aggie Tudin, City of Medford's Tree Warden, on her receipt of the Seth H. Swift Tree Warden of the Year Award, presented by the Massachusetts Tree Wardens and Forestry Association. Be it further resolved that the City Council invite Ms. Tudin to appear before the Council to accept a commendation in recognition of this great achievement. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Aggie Tootin, our tree warden, was awarded the Seth H. Swift Tree Warden of the Year Award. And this is the Tree Warden of the Year for 2015, reflective of the work that she did in 2014. It's been brought forward by the Massachusetts Tree Wardens and Forestry Association, which is a statewide professional organization. And I'd like to congratulate Aggie on being recognized by her peers as a leader in the industry. I'd like to thank her for her hard work here in the city of Medford and invite her down for a city council citation, provided that my colleagues so support the idea.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. On the motion approved by Councilor Knight, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. Item 15-014 offered under suspension by Councilor Knight. Be it resolved that an audit be performed on all taxicab companies licensed to operate in the City of Medford to verify and ensure compliance with the ordinances of the City of Medford that govern such operation. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I had previously brought this resolution forward the night of torrential rains when Councilor Marks was unfortunately taken away from us due to a flooding issue at his home. And I brought the resolution forward because we had recently had a licensing committee meeting to discuss the fees for taxicab companies. A lot of other issues had come up in that meeting. We see a number of individuals petition this council for taxicab licenses and license to operate taxis. And there's a lot of concern about that. There are several councilors that refrain from voting in certain instances until there's a new ordinance in place. The city clerk has worked very hard on putting together a new ordinance. I think it's time that maybe we take a look at what areas of noncompliance are in place right now. So if in fact we are serious about moving forward and creating a new ordinance, we know where to start. We know where the number one offenders are, we know where the number one problems lay, and we know what we can do to fix it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Knight, on the motion of approval by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion passes. Papers in the hand of the clerk. Motion to go on to suspension by Councilor Penta. I got it right here. All those in favor? All those opposed? On to suspension to take papers from the clerk offered by Councilor Caraviello. please offer condolences to the family of former Medford school teacher and coach, Jack Downs.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Downs passed away this weekend. He was a golf coach at the school. He's a teacher. He's since moved out of Medford and moved into Estonia. But I'll say he was a good member of this community for many years, and there's one I wish his family condolences.
[Fred Dello Russo]: May he rest in peace. Please rise for a moment of silence. Offered by Councilor Marks, be it resolved that the Staffenshaw parking lot located on Salem Street be discussed. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I had a call from a resident of the Salem Street area. And she wrote a letter to the owners of that particular business area where the stop and shop is on Salem Street and was told, her concern was regarding the condition of the lot out there. It's in deplorable condition. It's a blighted area, that particular lot. And she was told by the business owner that they are going to be repaving that whole particular lot. And she mentioned to the owner, is it possible to plant some shrubs and bushes and something to spruce up the area? And at that point, they said they had no plans to do so. So at this point, Mr. President, I would ask that this council send a letter to the property owner of the stop and shop and that parcel of stores there. asking that when the lot get repaved, that pavers go around the perimeter of the lot, that shrubs be planted, some small fruit trees, anything to spruce up that particular area. There's an 18-wheeler that parks in there. There's a giant tow truck that parks at the corner over there. And it's the gateway from Malden and that area to come into Method, and it's really an eyesore. Across the street, you have a Chinese food restaurant that had a fire, I think it was about a year ago, and it's still boarded up with big action signs all over it. It really looks like an area that's downtrodden and hasn't had any attention in a long time, Mr. President. And residents of that particular area are very upset with the lack of attention. And I'm hoping that a letter from this council will at least help spruce up the stop and shopping area. And maybe we can get the office of community development rather than build a peace garden. That's unnecessary. In my opinion, at a million three to go into our neighborhoods. and look at the awnings, and look at the businesses that have been out of business for a year because of a fire, and see what's going on. See what's happening on Forest Street, the business on Forest Street that's been vacant for years, Mr. President. The Office of Community Development should be providing incentives for businesses to come into this community. The ones that are already here should be providing incentives to stay here and do business, Mr. President. And in my opinion, an office that's manned with one and a half persons It's inadequate in a city this size, and it's evident in every business district in this community with the lack of attention and the lack of development in this community, Mr. President. And it comes from the corner office on down to the department head, Mr. President. And it's a shame when you have a department that does absolutely nothing, Mr. President. And I'll say it when Lauren DiLorenzo pop is up here too, Mr. President. That office does absolutely nothing to move this community forward. They've been working on the revitalization of Medford Square three master plans later, 25 years later, and this administration is still talking about the master plan in Medford Square, the pearl necklace around the river. He's still talking about a water taxi. That makes no sense, Mr. President. But when he goes into the business districts, he doesn't see the vacant storefronts. He doesn't see the trash strewn throughout the squares. He doesn't see any of that, Mr. President. It's amazing the blinders that this administration has on. And it's time for a change.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President. I agree with Councilor Marks 100 percent. If I can recall, I think we made a motion a year ago about the tow truck that's been there as long as I can remember. But he's right, the parking lot, it's always been in deplorable shape. They never, who actually owns that property? If we could find out who actually owns that property, I mean. We're stopping shoppers and sales. Mike's Jim.
[Fred Dello Russo]: That was Johnny's food master and turned stopper years ago.
[Richard Caraviello]: Let's see, but he's right, the parking lot has been in deplorable shape for many years, and there's no reason why that tow truck should be there every single day and night of the week. And it's like, that's right, you're right, there is no commercial parking every night, but again, they're parking on private property and no one says anything. But, and also, those stores have been burnt out for, I think it's going on two years now. It's a tremendous eyesore on the community. Let's see, it's been close to two years and nothing's happened there. I don't know why nothing's happened, but why isn't the landlord of that building at least either tear the building down and put up a new one or open something up there?
[Michael Marks]: The city's doing nothing. I'm sure we're not.
[Richard Caraviello]: We have no enforcement officer to enforce all these ordinances that we have. Point of information, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Good point. What about the clean it or lean it ordinance that was enacted some years ago by then representative Paul Donato? How can you have an establishment there two years with action signs? What does that do for the surrounding businesses? Would you like to own a restaurant, like the Italian restaurant that's a few doors down next to this particular place? God knows what's inside that place after two years of being vacant.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Could we perhaps amend your motion to include a notification to the code enforcement officer?
[Michael Marks]: Does the mayor ever drive by these areas? Really, does he ever drive by and see what's going on in this city? I don't understand, Mr. President. Residents have to make calls, personal calls and e-mails to business owners to ask them to do stuff. And the business owners say, you know what? The city has never reached out to us once since we've been here.
[Fred Dello Russo]: You've made your point. And, Councilor?
[Adam Knight]: Yeah, loud and clear. Thank you very much, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilor Marks, for bringing this resolution forward. I think if, in fact, we're going to send code enforcement down there, it may also make sense to send the Board of Health down there. We have a vacant building boarded up. Who knows what rodents are inside or what else for that matter, Mr. President. I'd ask that if in fact we are going to send somebody down there to take a look at the property that we also include the Board of Health.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of approval by Councilor Marks, amended by Councilors Marks and Knight. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion passes. Offered by Councilor Penta. Be it resolved that in light of the recently enacted NSTAR's 30% electric rate increase and now a 37% electric rate increase, And now with their NSTAR proposed gas rate increase of an average of $11.95 per month, we, the city council, vote to forward to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities our displeasure on behalf of our Medford citizens to such a proposed rate increase, knowing that NSTAR is the monopoly of both our gas and electric service. It is with disadvantage that we, as a city of customers are subject to these back-to-back rate increases. Be it further resolved that a copy of this vote be forwarded to Mark DiMarini, Secretary, State Department of Public Utilities, 1 South Station, 5th floor, Boston, Mass, 02110, Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: This was a notice sent out from the Department of Public Utilities for a hearing that's going to be forthcoming in January. And then there's a whole other bunch of locations. They're going to be in Worcester, and Dedham, and Keith Middle School, and New Bedford, Plymouth, and then one in Boston. The rate increase of 37% I think we've all felt it in our electric bills. And the gas company basically gets their money or their proposals that are associated with the sale of the company's appliance business and their operation of home heating protection plans. It goes like this. During the winter months, if you use 160 therms of gas per month, your bill will increase by $25.90, which will be a 13.1% increase. And then during the summer months, if you use more than 31 therms a month, your bill will increase by $8.38, which is a 19.6% increase. The 8% was wrong. It's wrong. It's more than that. So I guess between, unfortunately, I took the increase from the summer months rather than the winter, put it together. The fact of the matter is this. The rate increase is going to go up. In your winter bill, it's going to go up by a minimum of $25.90 a month. And in the summer, it's going to go up by a minimum of $8.38 a month. And on top of the 37% that you're being charged for the electric bill, it's just crazy. As I said before, when we were talking about these electric rates, the top administrators from the president town received in excess of $1 million bonuses while they were enacting these rate increases. We have no choice over this. It's a monopoly that NSTAR seems to have over our gas and electric bills. And the only one way to stop this is if cities and towns just respond back to Mr. Marini, the secretary, so he would have that in front of him before the State Department of Public Utilities makes their final decision. And I would hope that our state legislature would likewise be on board with this because, you know, people are just getting taxed and taxed and taxed and more taxed to death. And here's a situation where there are two companies, gas and electric, where the people who run it are just making hundreds of thousands of dollars in their salaries over and beyond that for which people are struggling just to stay alive.
[Fred Dello Russo]: It's kind of a shame, too, at the conclusion of a administration that this sort of rolled out as someone was walking down the statehouse stairs.
[Robert Penta]: Right. He rolled out. Right. I'll tell you one thing about this governor. The first day in office, what he did is he took $100 million that the then-governor, Patrick, wouldn't do, and he put it back into road and bridges in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And that's a big plus. And he's keeping his commitment to local aid, which is something that Patrick wouldn't do. So those are two big pluses right now. for cities and towns.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Hire and freeze and a performance evaluation for all the departments. Yep. Excellent. Mr. Citizen.
[Robert Cappucci]: Thank you, Mr. President. Bob Capucci, 71 Evans street. Uh, I don't know what good it would do, but just to expand a little bit on the excellent effort that council append is trying to make, and he brings a very good point. I mean, during the other discussion tonight, we've heard the one business owner talking about the rise of price and food and everything else. And this is a great initiative. Soon, our representatives up in Washington, D.C. are going to be voting on the Keystone Pipeline and other things. Now, our representation in Washington, probably across the borders, is going to vote against it, but this is a way to help alleviate costs right here in Medford. If we could maybe further the letter to our two state senators, our Congresswoman, was it Catherine Clark, to maybe support expansion of energy deciphering and drilling and pipelines that are gonna come so that these costs, I mean, that's where these increases are coming from, Councilor Pinter. It's the denial of pipelines. It's the denial of permits for oil drilling because it's killing jobs and everything else. We have been getting a break on our gas prices because of the oil war that's going on now between fracking states and the Middle East lowering their prices to try to hurt. And it is hurting jobs already in North Dakota. That's going to bottom out pretty soon. And Councilor Penta brings up an excellent point. I hope that we could maybe as a City Council send something to our Washington representatives and any citizens at home watching, maybe we can call some of our Washington representatives because these issues are going to be coming up in the new Congress. And I hope that the right decisions are made on behalf of the people that vote. you good folks in our state and our national representation into office. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Mr. Capucci on the motion of for approval by Councilor Knight, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Um, I was just wondering if the clerk or the president would be so kind as to read that back one more time. I'd be delighted.
[Fred Dello Russo]: It's amended by Councilor, not Councilor.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah. Yeah. Federal.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So if I could, um, may I be seated Councilor? I hope so.
[Robert Penta]: You tired. Go ahead.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Offered by Councilor Penta be resolved that in light of the recently enacted and start 30% electric rate increase. And now with their end stock proposed gas rate increase of an average of $11 and 95 cents per month, we, the Medford city council vote to forward to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, our displeasure on behalf of our Medford citizens to such a proposed rate increase. Knowing that NSTAR is the monopoly of both our gas and electric service, it is with disadvantage that we, as a city of customers, are subject to these back-to-back rate increases. Be it further resolved that a copy of this vote be forwarded to Mark DiMarini, Secretary, State, Department of Public Utilities, 1 South Station, 5th Floor, Boston Mass, 02110. It's amended to send this to our Washington delegation as well. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I certainly support the resolution in theory, in substance, pretty much except for I don't like the tone that it sets forth, saying, knowing that NSTAR is the monopoly. It just seems like it's very argumentative, though. And I think if we're going to be going to these people and asking them to work with us and to maybe provide us with a little bit more information, or to come into our community and repair our streets the way that they're supposed to be repaired, or coming before us and asking for permits, that we have a good, strong working relationship with them, Mr. President. Again, I don't disagree saying that NSTAR is the monopoly. I just think that the tone, if we're going to send this to our federal delegation, has to show a little bit more respect, Mr. President. I'd be willing to support the resolution provided that the knowing the N star is a monopoly language was stricken from the resolution. If not, I'd just like to be recorded in opposition as supporting the resolution in theory, but not based upon the language submitted. Councilor Knight.
[Richard Caraviello]: No.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval as amended, all those in favour?
[Robert Penta]: No, no, no, no. I want the original motion.
[Fred Dello Russo]: To send it to the federal government?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah.
[Adam Knight]: You don't want it to go there?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, I do want it to go there. That's the amendment.
[Adam Knight]: That's the amendment.
[Robert Penta]: Yes. That's the main motion.
[Adam Knight]: The motion is amended. You're not amending it, are you? He did not have to amend it. I said if you're willing to strike it, that's great. I'll vote for it. If you're not willing to strike it, then I'd just like to be recorded in the opposition. No, I'm not going to strike it. Supporting it in theory, however, I have a problem with the language.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So the motion as it stood. Yes. With the amendation that it be sent to the Washington delegation.
[Adam Knight]: Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes.
[Adam Knight]: Ask the clerk that it be recorded in the opposition.
[Fred Dello Russo]: We have that, Councilors Knight and Camuso, recorded in the opposition. I'm in favor, by the way. The tabled records of December 16, 2014, were passed to Councilor Knight. Councilor?
[Adam Knight]: I'm going to need one more shot at these, Mr. President. I see a couple of errors that I'm trying to work out based upon the tape that I have at my house, and I'm getting there, but it's going to take me one more week. So I'd ask that those records be tabled.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Motion to table those records. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motions records tabled. The tabled records of December 23, 2014, were passed to vice president on the motion of approval by council along the current. All those in favor, all those opposed. Motion passes and the records of January 6, 2015 were passed to Councilor Marks. Counsel marks. How did you find those records?
[Michael Marks]: I find another Mr. President, uh, paper 15-zero zero two. It is the nomination of the vice president. And midway through it says six in the affirmative for Frederick N. Dello Russo Jr., the president of 2015. On the vice president. So I'm both president and vice president. And vice, according to the minutes. Congratulations. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_24]: You deserve it.
[Unidentified]: You deserve it.
[Richard Caraviello]: $4,000 raise.
[Clerk]: Yeah.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Those are corrected, and so the corrected minutes are moved for approval, Mr. Councilor. Motion to approve? Motion to approve. The corrected records, all those in favour?
[Paul Camuso]: All those opposed?
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Camuso?
[Paul Camuso]: I'd like to make a motion to send a letter of congratulations to our Congresswoman, Catherine appointed an assistant minority whip, and she's moving up pretty quick, right away. And she did keep her office here in Medford Square, and she does a better job getting her trash out than the previous proprietor. A motion to Councilor Camuso.
[Fred Dello Russo]: All those in favour? All those opposed? Regarding the heat. Council Penter, if you have one more?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, we got a document here tonight from Mass Development as it relates to Tufts University making a request for $100 million in tax-exempt bonds to do a project. It says here that they financed Interior to Robinson Hall on the Medford-Sumnerville campus and the Biomedical Research and Public Health Building on the Boston campus, including relocation of the Information Technology Department and the Sterns Wing and the acquisition of an apartment building located at 119 College Avenue, Somerville, near the Somerville campus, as well as the other routine Capitol level. I think what's concerning to me is, if I remember correctly, they appeared before the council some time ago looking for, I believe, an easement to cross over a street down on the Somerville line. There was no mention at the time of their expansion to include buying an apartment building at 119 College Ave. So could we get an update on 119 from Tufts? What is 119 College Ave? How many students do they intend to put in there? 119 College Ave.
[Clerk]: What's presently there today? Well, I don't know what it says.
[Robert Penta]: It's a combination.
[Fred Dello Russo]: What's their intention for the property?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, it's on the Medford-Sumner line. So I just don't know. We could send that to Bob Arubel's office. Yeah.
[Clerk]: Does it tell you right there?
[Robert Penta]: No, all it says that the acquisition of an apartment building located at 119 in the Somerville-Metford slash Somerville-Metford-Boston and Grafton campuses, the bonds financing the property acquisition will be used on a taxable basis.
[Clerk]: I think that goes to the regional, which is OCD for us.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the motion of Councilor Penter, all those in favor, all those opposed, motion passes. Motion to adjourn from Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor, all those opposed.
|
total time: 24.93 minutes total words: 2513  |
total time: 19.95 minutes total words: 1569  |
total time: 41.39 minutes total words: 2715  |
total time: 15.18 minutes total words: 1500  |
|
total time: 7.65 minutes total words: 858  |
total time: 22.96 minutes total words: 1642  |
total time: 7.03 minutes total words: 395  |
total time: 5.48 minutes total words: 552  |