[Fred Dello Russo]: A regular meeting of the Medford City Council will please come to order.
[Clerk]: Mr. Clerk, if you would, call the roll.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Present with the six present, one absent, please rise to salute the flag. Chair recognizes Vice President Arnold Kern for suspension of the rules to take petition of citizen Castagnetti. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. The chair invites forward Mr. Andrew Castagnetti to make his petition. 15-794 petition by Andrew P. Castagnetti, 23 Cushing Street, Medford, Massachusetts. asking the Council to adopt Mass General Law, Chapter 59, Section 58, for Owner-Occupied Real Estate Exemption. Citizen Castagnetti.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you, Councilor De La Ruza. Andrew Castagnetti, 23 Cushion Street, Method Mass. My phone number is 396-TIPS. Thank you. and allow me to express myself under our first amendment rights. Um, first of all, it's not apathy when there's only a few people here at the council meetings. It's more like people have given up fighting the city hall, figuring they're probably going to do what they want anyways. Um, my petition actually read Andrew P Castagnetti petitioning the city council and the mayor to adopt mass general laws, chapter 59, Chapter 59. Is it okay? Test, test, test, test. Thank you anyway, just look for it. My petition actually read the following. It's the Andrew P Castagnetti petition, not just the city council, but in the mayor to adopt mass general laws, chapter 59, section five C. for the maximum 20% owner-occupied real estate tax exemption to lower the real estate tax for the middle-class homeowner. Please allow me to quote my open-ended letter in the method transcript published on October 15th. I sent this to Nell Escobar Coakley, the editor. Please publish my great question before this Thursday's great debate on October 15th of this year. The letter stated, question for all of city of Medford political candidates. Are you for or against the home owner occupied real estate tax exemption? Go to the Commonwealth Massachusetts website and refer to a mass general laws chapter 59 section five C one. Massachusetts cities are already presenting this real estate tax savings to its owner-occupied homeowners. This includes three bordering cities, such as Malden, Everett, and Somerville. My question is, why not here in Medford? For the past 40 or more years, our real estate tax bill in Medford has increased over 2.5 percent per annum. However, if this automatic 20% exemption outlining mass general laws, 59 section five C is adopted. The average owner occupied homeowner would receive a $200 savings per year instead of the usual $200 increase. That's a large swing of a difference. Again, I'm asking why not here in Medford? I'm asking all city council and mayor candidates. to respond to this question before the upcoming election so that the voters have ample time to read your responses and cast their ballots for candidates who support tax relief for the citizens of our city. Please send your written response to the method transcript, letters to the editor, and so we the people. Thank you for your attention and response. APC. My question was not asked at the great debate. And as of tonight, December 8th, 2015, I have not seen any replies of communication in the method transcript as requested. Maybe you are not aware of this, come with the Massachusetts law or whatever. I took some time today and I prepared a sampling of all the city appraised valuations. some of them, most of the city Councilors, homes in the mirrors, and all of these city appraised valuations are below 539,000. Even if all of these home values increase 10% next year, they will still see their real estate tax bill go down up to $600 a year. instead of the usual $130 to $390 increase every year, after year, after year, and so on. The one exception is one of the Councilors, and it may go up a whopping $7. Bottom line, nine of 10 owner-occupied average homeowners will save about $200 a year instead of the usual $200 increase. That's a big swing. Again, why not here? And I'm under the weather. I'm not feeling so good, so I never finished the rest of my spiel. But basically, I hope when you do the allocation that you will give the average owner, occupied homeowner who lives in their one house only the full 20 percent. That's all I have to say. I request for the sixth consecutive year. Thank you for listening.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Good evening.
[jCO6jvvXtn0_SPEAKER_03]: Please state your name and address for the record. 29 Garfield Avenue in Medford. We'll talk about taxes. I don't know whether people realize it or not, but 22% of the American workforce works for either city, state, or federal government. And it seems like somebody's not doing their job. We have a lot of illegal apartments in the city. We have hundreds of cars that are registered out of state. We're losing the excise tax. and all the rest of the taxes that go along with owning an automobile. Somebody's sitting on their hands and not doing their job. It's easy to tax the person that pays their taxes. But we need the government to start doing their jobs and get after these people. You get a car registered out of state, you get caught, that car should be confiscated and auctioned off. not sit on our hands. I brought this up to a police officer, and he told me, well, the car's parked in the driveway. The guy lives in Massachusetts, and the car's registered in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, it's not required to have insurance. That's why most of them register their cars in New Hampshire. We have to start getting after these people that are doing illegal stuff. Never mind hitting the homeowner that pays his taxes faithfully every year. We have to get these agents, there are agencies out there that are supposed to be doing their job. With 22% of the American workforce, there has to be an agency for everything. They can come cockroaches, they can get after these illegal cars and apartments and everything else. We have to lay off the homeowners that pay their taxes and get after these illegal people. that are breaking the law and getting away with it on our backs. On our backs. My pension doesn't go up as fast as the taxes are going up. So that means I have to cut something in order to pay my taxes. And these other people are getting away with murder and laughing at you. And they know it. We have to get after these people that are doing illegal stuff. I mean, there are agencies. Let's push them. Thank you. That's all I have to say.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much. Chair awaits a motion.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Can we incorporate the comments of the prior two speakers? and have on the suspension, bring in the paper for the purposes of tonight of making the request for sending the tax rate.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Well, we can motion that these two, um, uh, comments on this paper be, uh, attached to the, uh, uh, public hearing and return to the regular order of business. Is that your motion?
[Robert Penta]: Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. So on the motion of Councilor Penta, all those in favor, all those opposed, the motion carries. back in the regular order of business, a public hearing, 15-757. A public hearing will be held of the Medford City Council and the Howard F. Alden Memorial Chamber's City Hall Medford Mass on Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 7 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to hear the Board of Assessors on the following items for the purpose of allocation of the fiscal year 2016 property tax. One, to determine the residential factor to be used for fiscal year 2016. Two, select an open space discount. Three, select a residential exemption. Four, select a small commercial exemption. Call 781-393-2425 for any aids, accommodations, et cetera, by order of the Medford City Council, Medford, Edward P. Finn, City Clerk. The chair declares the public hearing opened and invites the assessor to address the council. Please state your name and address for the record.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Ed O'Neill. I'm the chief assessor appraiser and also the chairman of the board of assessors for the city of Medford. And I am here respectfully appearing before your honorable body tonight for the purpose of holding a public hearing to discuss the following items concerning the allocation of the fiscal year 2016 property tax. Number one, to determine the residential factor to be used for fiscal year 2016 by selecting the minimum residential factor, a percentage of the total tax levy, will be shifted from the residential taxpayer to the commercial, industrial, and personal property taxpayers. This results in a lower tax rate for residential properties and a higher tax rate for commercial, industrial, and personal property taxpayers. Historically, the council has chosen the minimum residential factor. If this is once again the council choice, the minimum residential factor is 0.897446. Number two, to adopt an open space discount. This does not apply in the city of Medford, but a no vote is required. Number three, to adopt a residential exemption. If adopted, owner-occupied residential properties may receive an exemption of up to 20% of the average residential value. This is accomplished by shifting a portion of the tax levy from the owner-occupied residential properties to non-owner-occupied properties. Since this shift causes a higher residential tax rate, a number of owner-occupied properties would also see an increase in their tax bills. Number four, to adopt a small commercial exemption. If adopted, commercial properties housing a business employing 10 or less people and valued at less than a million dollars may receive an exemption of up to 10% of the recessed value. This is accomplished by shifting a portion of the commercial industrial tax levy from these eligible properties to other commercial and or industrial properties. Since this shift causes a higher commercial industrial tax rate, all commercial industrial not receiving the exemption would see an increase in their tax bills. As part of this hearing tonight, it is the duty of the board of assessors to notify the council of any excess levy capacity. Fiscal year 2016, excess levy capacity is $25,391.53. Please refer to the handout from last week at the committee of the whole meeting. And Mr. President, Councilor Lengelkorn asked for the abbreviated version of the presentation.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President? Chair recognizes Vice President Lengelkorn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Are we under public hearing or can I? I just want to bring in 15795.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'm sorry, we're still in the public hearing, I apologize. So all those in favor of this matter, please present yourselves and speak. All those in favor? Hearing and seeing none, I declare that portion of the meeting closed. All those in opposition, and we noted that two were earlier, as was moved by Councilor Penta, but anybody else in opposition, please present yourself to the podium. and state your opposition to this, and then we'll have time for discussion to follow. So, Doctor, as you know, under the rules of the public hearing, you just state your opposition if you are opposed, and then you'll have time to present once we enter into the discussion phase.
[Sorrell]: Thank you, Mr. President. This is in opposition to what? Would you state that specifically?
[Fred Dello Russo]: In opposition to the matter as presented in the public hearing as outlined by the assessor, Mr. O'Neill, the four-point plan to, one, determine the residential factor to be used, two, adopt an open space discount, three, adopt a residential exemption, four, adopt a small commercial exemption.
[Sorrell]: No, I'm not in opposition to that. I do want that discussed thoroughly.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Anybody else in opposition? Hearing and seeing none. Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Michael Ruggiero]: My name is Michael Leggero. I wish to speak in opposition of this plan.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. And we'll have time for discussion as the public hearing portion closes. Hearing and seeing none other in opposition, we declare that portion of the meeting closed and now enter the discussion phase. And I invite the vice president to speak.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. I'd just like to bring in paper 15795 in coordination with the public hearing so that we can
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion to merge 15-795 into this discussion, it reads, offered by Vice President Lungo-Koehn, be it resolved that the proposed tax levy be reduced by $1 million, which is less than half of the amount we put into free cash from last year's budget. All those in favor?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: To merge it?
[Fred Dello Russo]: To merge it in.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: to merge this discussion into the discussion phase of the tax discussion. All those in favor to merge this matter in with it. All those in favor. All those opposed. So the papers are merged.
[Unidentified]: Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: It will have to be voted on separately. Right.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah. Move it as an amendment. Um, once we discuss, you know, obviously we're going to all discuss that.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So very good. So the chair recognizes, uh, Councilor lungo current for discussion.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'll yield to the, um, thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Point before we get into that, uh, Mr. O'Neill point of information for the assessor before you start suddenly. You were asked last week to forward us information. You indicated there was 1,569 parcels of land that are over the $580,000 assessed value. And we asked for a breakdown of that 580 going up in increments of $50,000 per piece. We never got that.
[Fred Dello Russo]: It was distributed according to the clerk and the packages we received over the weekend on Friday afternoon.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: That's not— For you, Mr. President, I gave that to the clerk Thursday late afternoon. I may have some additional copies.
[Fred Dello Russo]: In my package, it was paper clipped. paper-clipped to the piece that began with the long-awaited explanation of the parking revenue. Through the chair, yeah, it was actually paper-clipped to something irrelevant to the tax hearing, so it was a little... The clerk has pointed out that it was part of the committee report that we had requested, therefore it was connected all as one.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: then through the chair, if I may, President Dello Russo, Mr. O'Neill, if we can, while the other Councilors are viewing that, I did take a look at it myself. If you could just explain how it's broken down as a, it is hard to grasp all the numbers, but what we were looking for, and I think it must be in here, is the increase to, yeah, the dollar amount increase. I don't, I don't really see that. And if I could, just for the viewing public, I know Mr. O'Neill or myself or one councillor every year kind of explains the problem we have with the shift. I don't know, you always seem, probably will say it better than I do, but the issue I have as a councillor to shift to non-occupied is that this year there'll be over 16,000, 16. 1569, 1,569 homes that are valued at 580 or above that will also see the shift. They will also get increases in taxes that other homes will not get. So that's where the problem is always lied. That's the reason the way it's worded and the way the legislature worded it becomes an issue for, you know, how can we create a shift for 15 to 16 homes when we're not creating it for everybody? So that's where always I've had a problem. So at our last meeting, we did discuss it. We discussed it in the committee of the whole. Mr. O'Neill to break it down. The average home of 580,000 or more, what type of shift would that create for these homes, which is, you know, that's a good amount of homes. I think it was out of 12,000, there was almost 1,600 homes that are going to be affected if we ever approve the shift. So this breakdown, if you could just kind of clarify which each category, each column represents and the actual dollar figure for the increase, depending on the value of the 580 or above. That would be helpful for me.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: After the committee, the committee of the whole meeting on Tuesday, uh, the council had requested, uh, more detailed analysis, uh, and increments of 25,000 or so in value, uh, you know, above the break even point of five 80, 100. So I did a couple before that for started at 400,000 to 500 to five 25, five 50, five 80, um, all the way up to a million point two. I did the analysis on adopting a 10% exemption, a 15%, and a 20%, which is currently allowed by law. We'll start with the 10%, and that's in the original packet, plus the handout that was given to the council on Thursday afternoon. So basically, if you look at, and I believe everybody has that now?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: Yep.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Folks in the audience as well, okay. So there's small increases after 580 to 600. So at a 10% adoption of the exemption, it'd be a $20 increase. Now this is on top of the regular increase of 125, 130, 140. That's an additional. So you go up to 625, it's about 42 more dollars. 675, it's about $88. Say 750 is 156. then it starts to increase. You get $800,000, there'll be an additional $202 plus the regular $150. So it's a significant impact as you go up the line in the value.
[Robert Penta]: So... Just a point of clarification. Sure. As you're making this assumption that the values, as they go up significantly, even if you took a house that's valued at $800,000, they're going to get an increase of $202. Correct. over and beyond whatever the tax rate's gonna be. But if you go to a house that's only valued at $400,000, they're gonna get a decrease of 161.91.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Correct, that's why I put that in there. The council only asked for anything above 580, but just for illustration purposes.
[Robert Penta]: I wouldn't want anyone to think that the same type of value going up doesn't correspond to the devaluation going down, because there is merit that goes both ways. It's quite obvious that under the 580, going backwards, and lower amount, the rate is even higher giving back than going forward. And if you're only talking about 1,569 votes, you know, to me, I think this is an important time to really take into consideration. Maybe it's about time we start looking at this and giving rate payers in this community a break because, you know, they're just going to get saddled now with the CPA tax. You know, whether you voted for it or not, every house is going to get stuck with it. So. Fiscal 17 for that. Pardon me? Fiscal 17. But they're still going to get stuck with it for five years. And for the next five years, they're going to be stuck with a tax that, whether you voted for it or against it, you're going to be stuck with it. So I think if there's a way to look at a break here for the homeowners, it's giving that exemption, whether it's 10, 15, or 20%. And I'm leaning toward that, because I think if you can afford a house that's $800,000, You can afford to pay maybe another couple hundred dollars more a year. I don't know how many houses in the city are worth $800,000. So you've got 1,569 houses broken down from 580 going forward. You've got 9,000 and something from 580 going backwards. And it sort of tells me that the majority should rule in something like this.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: That's why I put that in the illustration. Again, it's in the packet every year. The majority would get a reduction at the expense of the non-owner occupied apartment buildings and owner occupied above the 580. That's why I did the illustration so you can actually see that. So there's 1,569 properties that would still pay more. It would be incremental depending upon their assessment, correct?
[Michael Marks]: So based on the information, Mr. Assessor, that you provided to us, I know the city of Somerville, the city of Malden has implemented residential exemptions. I assume that their non-owner occupied class is much higher than ours, is that correct? In the housing population? They have a higher Cambridge, Somerville, Malden.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, I've done a little more research on that. Somerville and Malden, I believe we have more single family housing stock is comprised of, I think it's 7,800 single family homes. In Somerville, I believe their primary housing stock is a two family or a condominium. And their condominium, their conversions are back They're greater than ours. Malden, to a lesser degree. The history on Malden, they implemented the trash fee one year, maybe four years ago. Then they went to a 5% residential exemption because of the, I guess, the resistance to the trash fee. So they threw a 5% residential exemption out. So they still had some properties that did go up. I don't know the numbers on them. The second year, they went up to 10%. Next year, they went up to 20%. So, they've done it gradually.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So, my opinion on this, and it's been this way for the last several years, is I have no problem shifting it from owner-occupied to non-owner-occupied. I think that's a great idea, and I think it's something that we should move towards. The issue that I have, and I agree with some of my colleagues, is the fact that because we don't have a large percentage of non-owner-occupied in the community, that we have to shift some of the burden also to assess values at over $580,000. And I take a little bit different approach than my council colleague that you could have a widow living in a property assessed at, a house assessed at 800,000 and on a fixed income, just because you're in a house that's assessed at 800,000 doesn't necessarily mean you're rolling in money. And so I have a little difference of opinion that These are the people that we should go after. Now, if it was a straight split between owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied, I have no problem. At what point or what will it take for us to see a shift from this 1,569 owner-occupied properties that would currently get taxed at a higher tax rate based on the residential exemption? What do we need to do? What? We need to add more condos to the housing stock, more apartments. What needs to take place so we can see that shift move away from going after people that are owner-occupied? Mr. Sperling.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Through you, Mr. President. Please. I think most folks know that the apartment sector is booming. Not just condo conversions are It's large apartment buildings. They found their way into Medford. It's a great location for it. The costs are, interest rates are good. There's a demand for it with the younger generation. I mean, I don't necessarily think that would be the answer, have less or more. What's happened in the past, last year the cutoff was 543 and it was 1319. The year before it was 501, now we're 1063. So it's driven by the value part of it. Now what we do on a proactive basis in our database, we daily make changes and research and validate property ownership. We do it a number of different ways. We have databases that we can look at. So we're updating that continuously. I think we've increased it 200 and some odd from last year. So we're looking to try to increase that uh, accuracy, if you will. So currently it is qualified about 12,264 out of a total of 16,367 residential parcels. And that also includes land. So you have to take all the residential, all the properties, all of them. So we do, we do the analysis every year. We do, we do update the database. Um, you know, honestly, it's probably just a matter of taking the boat and just, and, between 10%, 15%, 20%. Keep in mind, in the residential tax levy itself, it's a pool of money. If you give somebody a break, someone else covers that, pays for that. So you might, as we've discussed in prior years, the apartment owners may start to increase rents on people that have been there, you know, years, the smaller, older housing stock apartment buildings. We do hear a lot, people that are property rich, They live up in the higher value properties. We hear from them on the exemptions. We try to help them with that. We try to help them with the circuit breaker. And then they get to a point where we just had a lady a couple weeks ago, she says, well, I just have to sell it. I just can't. My husband died, and I just can't afford it anymore. And to make that vote and put that burden on that person, that's another. So the residential tax levy gets pushed on someone. a matter of tax policy for the city to say, look, this is best for everybody, one rate, or do we want to start picking and choosing constituencies or people that, well, they can afford more, they have a larger property value. It's up to the body to make that decision.
[Michael Marks]: So if someone has a two-family home and they live in one side and they rent out the other, is that house classified as non-owner occupied?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: No, the owner lives there, they would get that, yes. So that would be considered? It would go with all the property. Owner-occupied. So it would be two units or one unit? It would be one unit. They would get one exemption.
[Michael Marks]: And then the other unit would be considered non-owner-occupied?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: No, unless it was a condo. Condominiums would. It's one ownership for two families, so the two-family would get the residential exemption. All you have to do is live there to get it.
[Michael Marks]: So if I had a three-family, the same would apply? Sure.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. If you live in it, Absolutely. If you live in it. So yeah, but now another thing we, uh, two years ago we discussed this, I think through council Penter, we compiled the apartment list and the majority of the folks who own the apartments do not live in Medford. So that we looked at that too. The owner occupied some live in them. Majority of them don't four units and up, obviously not the big, you know, the big units, the big, large complexes, but the smaller four to eight units. Most don't live in Medford, so they wouldn't enjoy that. They would still get an additional increase, which may be passed on to the tenants. I just want to make sure everybody understands the impact before the vote, if that's the way that the council's gonna go with this.
[Michael Marks]: So if we were to implement this, it will take effect?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: January's bill.
[Michael Marks]: Correct. In January's bill. Right. And how soon will we be able to see what the shift is what the impact is. Are we going to take six months? Is it going to take a year?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Well, the people that are above the breaking will see their taxes increased greater.
[Michael Marks]: Right. But based on some of these numbers and based on how we send out the tax bill, if the rate is only increased or the dollar amount $20 for the year, you may not even you may not even see that really.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Well, 20 plus the original plus plus whatever the original 175 shift. And if you could refer it to the handout, page nine, the average single family would be $130,000 on average. So it would be $130,000 plus the $20,000. But that's for the $424,000, the average value. And if you're talking $600,000 to $700,000 value, that would even be more than that. So it might be $250,000, $300,000 total increase. So we would hear about that. Bless you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. Just with regards to my motion that I have on the agenda, I think that the exemption is one way you can help reduce the levy, help reduce the tax rate for, you know, a certain portion of people in the city. But I think another way we can reduce the tax burden is through decreasing the levy. Now, the tax levy is going to go up, as proposed, $4.5 million from last year. But last year, we put $2.1 million from our budget into free cash. Do I have those numbers correct? Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I have those.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: From the documents I have, I believe I have those correct. So $2.1 million was put into free cash from our last year's budget. The way I see it is that the people were overtaxed $2.1 million. This has happened repeatedly year after year. 2014, almost $1 million was put into free cash. 2013, $1.88 million. 2012, almost $2.5 million. June of 2011, 1.735 million. So we are each and every year overtaxing and taxing to the max. I bring it up every year. You can tax the 2.5 percent, which are allowed by law, or you can — I've asked the mayor's office and the administration to not tax to the max, especially where we're putting so much into free cash. I do understand we need reserves, but to the point where you're putting over $2 million in free cash, I feel like it's stealing. So that's why I have the proposal on to reduce, just like I did last year, I think it was $900,000, because that was half of what we put in the year before. But I believe that we should, one of two things, either reduce the tax levy to reduce the burden on each and every taxpayer, each and every homeowner, not just 75% of them or 90% of them, although I understand that argument, I think we have to do something as a council. We only had three votes last year. We failed by one vote to reduce the tax levy. And I'm asking that we reduce the tax levy again this year. It only makes sense. And the two ways you can go with it, and the way I see it, is you reduce the tax levy because you're not using the $2.1 million you're putting into free cash, or you start using it effectively. Complaint after complaint, we don't staff our departments, any, almost any of our departments appropriately. Our DPW department, our police department. I was at the traffic commission meeting today and I complained, you know, head on that there is no, you know, enforcement is lacking. And I was told that they're understaffed. Well, we need to be able to say we're using our funds appropriately. Complaints after complaints come in, our roads are broken, our streets need repaving, our sidewalks are a mess, our teachers barely get a stipend to buy supplies for the students. There's definitely money out there because last night I understand that the school committee and I think Mr. Wilson and the mayor proposed a new position for 85,000 in the school for PR, I believe. I'm not quite sure, but there's money out there and we're obviously not spending it wisely. I think it's something that needs to be discussed, and I think, you know, city services need to be improved upon. We get street sweeping once a year, twice a year. We asked as a council for a leaf pickup, maybe an extra time. No, we don't have the money for it. Of course we do. The residents want another leaf pickup. We picked up leaves before the leaves even fell. You know, we need to get it together, and I hope in January we really do get it together. Enforcement is a whole other ballgame. because we lack enforcement in every area in this city. Accountability needs to be discussed. I really hope for some positive changes come January, and I think this is one thing the council can do to alleviate the tax burden. We have almost $10 million in free cash to date. We added over $2 million this past year to free cash overtaxing our residents. I think we need to alleviate that burden. Times are tough for a lot of people. The economy is better, but times are still tough. And this city is just getting richer on the backs of the people that are paying the property taxes. So that's my proposal to the council. I hope you really think about it, whether that number can be discussed or negotiated. But we do need to do something. I agree with Mr. Castagnetti. I agree with the residents who email me on a yearly, if not You know, I get weekly e-mails about people not being able, especially come January, about once the tax increase hits, we all get the e-mails. We all hear the sad stories about people having to move or senior citizens being forced out of their homes. We just heard one from the assessor tonight. It happens. I get the e-mails and they almost break your heart, but it's the truth. People are having a tough time. Not everybody is getting raises. Not everybody can keep up with the tax rate and the increase. Let's do something. to help alleviate that problem.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Madam Vice President. The chair recognizes Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, Mr. O'Neill, on this handout that you gave us, you used a tax rate of $11.19, but then you went over to, with the residential exemption, you increased the tax rate to $12.10. Now, why'd you do that?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Through you, Mr. President, because that's what happens in the page before that. So in the packet from last Tuesday, it should be, it's page 12, the residential exemption package, which is about page four, page five of that. So that would be like 12E. When you do that shift, it increases the tax rate. So that's how we come up with the break even point. So even though one property would get the exemption over 580, with the higher tax rate, the likelihood that they would be paying more. So it's just part of the analysis that we provide annually. It's, it's in the formula to arrive at, um, the, the dollar amount for the residential exemption and the actual new tax rate.
[Robert Penta]: Why can't the council do, let's just say we talked for hypothetical. We take the 10% exemption and at the, at the same time, can we go after non owner occupied residences and charge them at a higher rate?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Well, they would pay the same rate. So 10%, would change the tax rate from a proposed $1,119 to $1,210. So everybody in residential class would pay $1,210. If you adopted the 15%, the rate would jump to $1,261. If you adopted 20%, it goes up. So that would be $1,316. So they would pay more.
[Robert Penta]: But I'm talking about an out-of-towner that owns multiple pieces of property. So where do they fit into this? You can't call them.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Sure. They would pay the same rate.
[Robert Penta]: If you adopt hypothetically, how come other cities and towns can charge a higher rate?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Everybody pays the same rate. There's 13 communities that have adopted the residential exemption. You know, if it works for every community, there'd be more than 13 out of 351. So that's the way the formula works. And that's what some have referred to it as a flaw. I believe in, 1998, then Councilor Burke proposed to have the average, some language inserted, and it was, went to committee and it was not voted on favorably item in 1998, which would have made it across the board for owner occupied to get a different rate. So again, if there were more, if it was that easy, more communities would adopt it. It's a complicated formula. that we do.
[Robert Penta]: Okay. So for example, the, the average right now, if we tack the 1119, the average house is going to go up approximately $130. Is that what you're saying?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Single family paid page nine in the handout. That's what that, that would be if the council adopted the historic residential factor, shifting it to one 75%, that would be the, That's the scenario on page 9, correct, from the average value last year to the average values this year by class.
[Robert Penta]: And how much would it be if it was the $12.10? It wouldn't be $130. How much would it be?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, well, see, you can't analyze it because not everybody would get the same. Some would get it with the residential exemption. Some wouldn't. They'd be paying the same rate.
[Robert Penta]: No, no, no. The average house you said is 340.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: The average single family is 424.
[Robert Penta]: So what's 424 at 1119 and 424 at 1210?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: But you're not taking out, refer to the spreadsheet that Larry gave you tonight, which I gave to the clerk on Thursday for the handout, and your various percentages, 10, 15, and 20%, you'll see it going across on the matrix.
[Robert Penta]: Do the 10%.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: If you're not taking the residential valuation decrease down with it, you're just talking straight tax rate will be higher.
[Robert Penta]: So then these numbers are incorrect.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: They are correct. That's page nine is as historic residential factor shifting the 175%. That's the sheet we get every year that we look at. If you could refer to page 12, the residential exemption packet, probably five pages in, you'll start to see the analysis and the different rates at 10%, at 15%, at 20%. You have to take off the residential value reduction. So at 10%, the residential valuation reduction would be $43,464. You have to take that off your value, then multiply it by the new tax rate. If you follow it across from left to right in the matrix at each percentage, you'll see that.
[Robert Penta]: Do we have anything on the books right now that designates a condominium in the city of Medford from a two family house being converted over?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Um, we get master deeds and unit deeds from the registry, but we have no law on the books.
[Robert Penta]: It talks about a two or three family house into a condominium. Uh, like a moratorium to, no, we have any kind of law that addresses this in the city.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Well, I think that would be just no state law.
[Robert Penta]: So you would know nothing unless you get something from the registry of deeds?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Chapter 183, I believe, is the condominium law.
[Robert Penta]: So you would get nothing from the registry? Unless you got it from the registry of deeds, people could be living in two houses, condo in and out, and the city would not know.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Well, they can't record them at the registry. They can't create the legal entity unless it's recorded.
[Robert Penta]: So where are they going to record it?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: At the registry. You can't sell it unless you have a unit deed. You can't sell it.
[Paul Camuso]: They also have to be subdivided within a condo association which has to be recorded prior to doing anything in the building department because there's so many standards as far as water meters and everything else, common areas.
[Robert Penta]: But the city has nothing on the books right now that addresses legally.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Knight had a paper around a month ago to address this.
[Robert Penta]: We're going back for years. This has been going on. We still have nothing officially on the books that talks about two, three and four family houses being converted to condominiums, other than if they're bought and sold and you get the information from the register.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: I think by right, the property owner, once they purchase a two-family, can convert to condos. Or the current owner could do it as well. But we're governed by state law, condominium law, I think chapter 183, I believe.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. Sessor, if you could just speak into the microphone.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: Ian Baker, the finance director. I think what you're trying to say is, I hope, maybe I'm trying to help. If they convert something to condos, They cannot sell it as condos unless they record the master deed at the registry of deeds. So it does no good to record it as two separated as condos if you can't sell it as a condo.
[Robert Penta]: So for example, if I owned a house, two family house, and I wanted to sell the second floor, first time selling. But I work out a deal with the tenant, I mean the person upstairs, so it won't be recorded as a condo and be assessed at a higher rate than if it was a regular two family house.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: then you're still renting. Whatever your side deal is, you're still renting.
[Robert Penta]: So the city's only assessing that piece of property as a rental piece of property.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: Because it still is a rental property. Unless it's recorded at the registry of deeds, it still is a rental property. I mean, you may make a deal with a guy, but you're still paying rent. He gets no benefits of the tax write-off for paying taxes or anything, because he's still only paying rent.
[Paul Camuso]: Right. Mortgage companies are not going to give you a mortgage either, unless it's a deeded property.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Are you all satisfied, Councilor Penter, at this point? Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. The chair recognizes the speaker at the podium. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Sorrell]: Thank you, Mr. President. My name is John Sterrella. I reside at 20 Medcoff Street. I want to bring up the proposal recently presented by the vice president, and her proposal is that a million dollars be cut from the tax levy. That has no legal standing. The time to do that was during the budget. discussions in June. At that time, she could have reduced the budget by a million dollars. It would have been effective. Cannot do it now. You need the mayor's approval. It's too late.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Through the chair, Madam Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: The chair recognizes the vice president.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The chair recognizes the vice president.
[Sorrell]: Go right ahead.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: We can vote to request the mayor reduce the tax levy by a million dollars. We can send that message. Absolutely. We, we tried to do it last year and I, as one Councilor didn't vote for the budget this past June, so I would never have had the votes to decrease the budget by a million dollars at that point.
[Sorrell]: You will get an opportunity to do that from now to as far as the, I can see in the future when we discuss, uh, the, uh, the rate. When we discuss the rate, you can bring that up, and we can talk about a single rate versus a dual rate.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: That's another discussion for another day. In the last 10 years, every time I bring up this type of matter during budget deliberations, they tell me to do it in December, and then when you bring it up in December, they tell you to do it in June. So this is finally, as of last year, the best way I could figure out to relieve the burden for the taxpayer. We almost had the votes last year. So I'd like to try to move that again.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair recognizes Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Move the question and the floor passes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the motion, move the question. Mr. Citizen, please state your name and address for the record.
[Michael Ruggiero]: Hello, my name is Michael Ruggiero. I live on 18 Pembroke Street. I want to address a couple of concerns I have really quick. While I appreciate that the rate has decreased, this is still ending up, because property values have increased, this is ending up as a net increase in taxes for the average citizen in Medford. I think we all agree there. I just want to make that point perfectly clear. So here's my concern. We're not talking about income here. It's not like the average house owner or widow, as we mentioned before, just now made, oh, Now they have $30,000, $40,000 extra in their pocket that they get to spend. This is not income. This is property. So I would suggest strongly that we do not increase actual tax level on the citizens of Medford. Just because the property value goes up and the rate goes down, it's one of those six dozen of one, half of the other. This is still a tax increase on a number of people in Medford that are struggling. So let's consider this vote very carefully as you make it tonight. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Sir.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you, Councilor Dello Russo. I'm not sure which question you're moving, so I had a few notations and I didn't want to interrupt prior, so I'd like to just blurt them out if I may. Yeah. The Mass General Law 56-5C is flawed on a Massachusetts state level. But don't forget, at least the state did something right to try to help the middle class. Let's not lose that perspective. So why are we not adopting it? Boston's at 37.5%. My information here is inaccurate at 30%. Some of those inaccurate in my packet. It's not 30, it's 35%. I'm just shooting for the 20 maximum by law. Not only does this city, this body, city council have to approve it by a majority vote, also the mayor, whatever mayor has to also approve it or else the state won't automatically give it to you. So that's why my amendment, or my whatever you want to call it, petition, never petitioned in my life, asked for both to adopt it, or else it just gets filed in the basket. Meanwhile, I would like to fix the state law, however, That will be my final mission as far as city hall business. After the second mission, which I'm not divulging right now. And the first mission, this is at hand right now. Let's get this one done today for the middle class while they still exist. By the way, the law is flawed. And I believe somebody applied for a home rule petitioner from what I understand. I never saw the document. I asked for it. I don't know. And there should be a flat, I believe, if you can make the mathematics work, according to the formulas. Maybe a flat, whatever it is, 10% off your real tax dollars, period, for every single owner occupied, if you live in one house. And to clarify something from Mr. Marks, if you live in one family, two, three, four, condo, or a hundred unit building, you will get under this master law, blah, blah, blah, blah. The owner occupied exclusion providing the city council majority at the opposite and the mirror or mirrors at least one at the right time. So having said all that, the more the law is flawed, but as we speak, like 12,000, The number is staggering. Who gets this? Let's not lose fact of that. 12,000 is it? Let's see. 16,000 plus owner occupied. That includes real estate, land also. So let's deal with the projected Ed O'Neill number that he believes estimate of 12,000 and change are owner occupied. Yeah, 1,569 will go up because the law is flawed, granted. But don't forget, you're talking about 10,695 that will see a decrease versus the usual 100-year standard increases per annum. It's huge. So back to Councilor Marks. So you get the way the formula works, the way I understand high school education, 68, 11 went to forestry. The thing is, it's 20% of a shift, I believe Ed told me, and what I read in the law. So the shift of, let's say, about $96 million it was last year, went up like 3.5%, so much for Prop 2.5, that's a fallacy. And this year it's going over $100 million, that's over 4.5% increase right now that they're talking, mind you. But the point is, it's a shift. And they're divided into, I guess, the 12,000 possible owner-occupieds. And that comes out to a grand total, at the full 20% I'm asking for, of about $87,000. Is that correct, Mr. Ed? It is. Thank you. Thanks, John. $87,000 value reduction from your appraised value. So therefore, if you have a Marauder 100-unit building and you do live there, you can only deduct the 87,000 Councilor Marks, not the 99 units that you don't live in. It's only pertaining to your unit, I believe. Furthermore, so therefore eight out of nine, or maybe 11 out of 12, the numbers are kind of blurred. But it's like 90% of owner-occupies are going to save versus the usual increase. Last year, I think I put a dollar coin here, and I put nine coins here. After five, I get tired of counting. I just drop the whole package. 10 to 1 save. I don't know how to say it diplomatically. Clarify to Mr. Marks, $87,000. And by the way, new growth, what is this? What's the word, panacea, panacea? The new growth, or is it a fallacy? It's supposed to help our parents pay their real estate taxes. Now the parents are gone. We become the elders, as they say. So what happened to all this new growth that's supposed to help? Station Lenin, for one example, Lemire and Nishmir, and then you have to River Edge or something to that effect. We destroyed a bunch of buildings, lost a lot of commercial tax revenue when that was done. And then we had an economic crash, no fault of my own or your own probably. And we didn't recoup at all. Now, I hope we have. But the new growth is not helping the average taxpayer for real estate. I don't see it. Maybe I should have went to college more than high school. I don't see it. And then I'm told, well, that has to get done. in June, July, whenever the budget is presented. Well, then what came first? I don't mind the chicken and egg, the cat or the horse. Isn't that the time to have this new growth, take some of the edge off the middle class so they can still exist, maybe. So therefore, I keep on ranting about requesting my full 20%. Because also, according to Ed O'Neill in his documents, I should say, the cutoff, I call it the push, is $580,000 at 10%, 15%, or 20%. So it's not going to go any higher that you pay more, so why not go for the full 20? I won't even get into going for special legislation or exemption to go for the Somerville telephone numbers in Boston even higher. If you can't do the 20, meet me halfway and give us the 10 cents on the total. By the way, the circuit breaker he mentioned, Mr. O'Neill, that's on a state level, real estate income tax, I should say. I think the formula, what they used to do for my mom when she was alive, I believe it's like you take 10% of your adjusted gross income and you take half your water bill, I believe, and your real estate, total it up, And every dollar above whatever the formula is, you get back dollar for dollar, up to a max at that time was $900, and today it's over $1,000 easily. And you don't have to pay any Massachusetts income tax to get it. A lot of accountants I speak to, even CPAs, don't know what I'm talking about. But it's a fact that it exists, and a lot of people might get it. Thank you. Good night.
[Paul Camuso]: Thanks, Ian.
[Fred Dello Russo]: And Mr. Cappucci, before you speak, I just want to clean up two matters of procedure. The petition that Mr. Castagnetti presented this evening by a motion of Council Penta was received and placed into the opposition portion of the public hearing. And so that matter is disposed of and Mr. Castagnetti had ample opportunity to present his views in addition to that. We also took, for the purpose of discussion, the resolve of Vice President Lungo-Koehn, 15795, regarding reduction of $1 million. So before we hear from the citizen and then proceed to vote, if that's what we're going to do, I think we'll take the Vice President's paper as the separate motion that it actually is. even though that it was discussed previously, and then we'll bring it under suspension and subsequently take it up to vote in that process. Does that bring clarity to this, Madam Vice President, or am I speaking in riddles? Ms.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: DeParley. If you let me digest that and let the citizen speak. Mr. Kessler.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. Mr. Citizen, you're welcome to speak. Please state your name and address for the record. Mr. Capucci.
[Robert Cappucci]: Thank you, President de la Ruzo. I'm Robert Capucci. 71 Evans Street. Another matter in this property tax that hasn't been discussed, coming up in July, the property owners in this city are going to have to start paying the surcharge on the property tax through the voter approved, even though 2,453 blank ballots were cast on the Community Preservation Act. That's number one. We've seen a property tax increase, and what was discussed earlier was the impact on rents, such as myself. I'm a renter. I've probably seen my rent rates go up. But there are other impacts on this. Any time the city or the state or the government taxes people, that's money actually being taken out of the economy. And as Councilor, through the Chair, as Councilor Breanna Lungo-Koehn specified through the emails that she and you all are receiving, we're not getting the services for the tax dollars that we're paying. An understaffed police force, I mean streets and roads that are going neglected. The park, I live near Morrison Park, hasn't had any work done on it in three, four, maybe five years now. There hasn't even been an American flag waving in Morrison Park for at least four years now. These impacts on the city are more than just the rents. It's people leaving these small businesses that are going to see property tax increases as well. This is money taken out of their pockets. This is a young child's dance lessons that they might not get, a young child's baseball team that he might not get to play on, a family, two or three, that might have been planning on going to Disney World that they won't be going to now. I rise in strong favour of Councilor Wong-Tam's resolution to do any tax reduction that you can because when you do that, you're actually putting money back into the economy. You're helping these small businesses that are disappearing by the score from the corner of Salem Street and the Fellsway beyond West Medford Square and all points beyond in all five of our business districts. It's a shame to see this property tax go up again for the 29th consecutive year, is it? And now the added CPA surcharge that's coming, barreling down, added to the water tax that I believe is going up by another 7 to 10% from the last committee of the whole meeting last week or the week before, plus the excise taxes, sales taxes, all these other taxes. And this is why Massachusetts is known throughout the nation as tax-a-chooses. It's literally outrageous. It really is. And I'm trying to articulate the rage that people that are watching that are feeling. And I hope they know that there are people that understand. Maybe it will take a state rep or a state senator candidate or the next one. to start proposing legislation at the state level to reduce surcharges on property taxes, which are in the end run around Prop 2.5. You know, the Moody's report that was just discussed in the committee of the whole meeting prior to this meeting, stated that, you know, they look at the surpluses here in Medford as great city management. Did Moody's ever walk through this building and look at that? I mean, seriously, if all they're going to do is look at the money, well then, yeah, the taxes keep going up every year in Medford. We have almost $20 million in surplus. If that's all they're going to look at, yeah, then that's great city management. But if they actually physically walk through this town, the city of Oz that I grew up in now for 45 years and saw the condition of the police station, the understaffed, the fire departments, the stations that can't even email each other. Seriously, do whatever you can to reduce at least one tax in this city. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record, sir.
[Joe Viglione]: Joe Villalon, 59 Garfield Ave, Medford, Mass. Thank you, Mr. Cappucci. You read my mind. I was thinking the very same thing about the ceiling. I have it written right here, and you stated it. Just went over to the men's room. It is in deplorable condition to have, what, $10 million in free cash? And how can you have the mayor's final speech pack this auditorium and have people walk into that men's room to see caution tape and see this big black rubber thing in a toilet And then a caution tape across the hall. How do we, as citizens of Medford, feel good about this administration when hundreds of people come in here and see that? Now, there are 11 citizens here that I counted tonight, outside of the newspaperman and the government officials here. 11 people. We get reverse 911 calls on festivities. Was there a reverse 911 call on this very important topic and this vote? There are citizens out there that don't understand the process, a majority of the citizens. Thus, the 11 people you see here, they're the faces that you've seen here month after month after month. There's no discussion of this important topic on AXS TV because we pay for AXS TV that we don't get. Well, that is a reflection of these taxes going up and city services, broken roads, reflecting that the city services are absent. This council better vote its conscience, and not the way a certain person in the Conner office wants it to vote. This city council better vote its conscience.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion to sever the four questions, Chair awaits an interpretation from the Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I would request that my motion be voted on first. So if I have to table the public hearing, then so. could be taken as an amendment to the public hearing so that it could be voted on first?
[Fred Dello Russo]: We can do it as an amendment.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Either way. OK. Chair, we have a couple of people in queue. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. O'Neill, question? With the change in the tax rate to $11.19 from last year to this year, What's the net dollar amount increase that the city will be gaining with this new tax rate?
[Jeanne Martin]: Councilor?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Redd.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, Councilor Penta referred to page two of the handout on the levy limit. So, uh, yes, uh, as, to the 2.5% is $2,412,608 added to last year's levy limit. The new growth is $1,937,392, so it's just a $4.3 million increase from last year. The levy itself. You said page 2. I don't have that on page 2. Of the handout from the committee of the whole meeting. I didn't say that.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Do you have that?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: It's this handout here from last Tuesday.
[Robert Penta]: You just said you can read the whole thing. All right. I am on page 2.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The Medford Mustangs handout.
[Robert Penta]: And on page 2, I don't have what you have.
[Unidentified]: That's page 3.
[Robert Penta]: Is this 2? Ed. What does it look like? Are you sure it's 2?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. It's a circle too, yeah. So let me limit calculation.
[Robert Penta]: What was he talking about?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Brianna, do you have it? Where's the 4 million?
[Robert Penta]: Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Are you missing 4 million?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, he doesn't. No.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Hi, you can't come in behind the, sir. Where's the number? $4 million.
[Robert Penta]: You can barely see him.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: That's why. You can't really see him on his sheet. 96,504 to increase to $100,018,000. $100,854,000 would be the new levy limit.
[Robert Penta]: But what's the actual difference in from last year? Are we raising $2 million, $3 million, $4 million? $4,350,000 in the levy.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: It's in the middle of the page on the levy limit calculation page two with a circle on it. There's no $4,350,000 on this page two. It's $2.4 million for the 2.5%, and then the new growth is $1.9 million, equals $4.3 million. That's the allowable increase every year based on the levy limit.
[Robert Penta]: So you're saying from last year to this year, with the tax rate that you have set, it's going to be $4,350,000? Correct. Correct. And will Councilor Lungo-Koehn has alluding to that if we knock off a million dollars of that, that brings it down to $3,350,000, correct? Yes. And on an annual basis, it's historical for the last 6.7 years that we've had nothing less than a million dollars left over in free cash each and every year. We're close to $7 million in free cash, Ann? How much do we have in free cash right now? Oh 9.6 9.6 million in free cash, mr. Councilor so Why should we want to keep? Beating up the method taxpayer if they knew that they have such large reason we're making the city rich Without doing anything about it and the taxpayers are paying for it Now when we talk about having a 10% exemption to get whatever the exemption might be 10 15 or 20 percent the fact of the matter is If you're saying that $580,100 is the cutoff point and bringing it forward up to $1.2 million, it's an increase of $566.09. I don't know how many people in this city own a house for $1.2 million. That's number one. I know a lot of people own maybe between $580,000 to $700,000, and that may be nothing more from $1.98 to $111 more per year. But if we follow the mindset that why do we keep If we can reduce that limit by even another million dollars and knowing you're going to be getting the million dollars in in June, as we have historically for the last seven years, it makes sense at least to give the taxpayers some kind of a break, even if you were to try this thing out for a year to see where we're going. It makes no, you've had 29 years in a row of tax rate increases here in the city and you have the same problems now, if not larger now than you've had before. You have a police department that's understaffed by 10 people. You have an office of community development that's one and a half people. You have a city hall building that's in deplorable, disgusting shape when you walk out into the corridors and you go into the men's room and the ladies' room. You have a ceiling ready to come down on top of you that's running almost three years growing. And we talk about the wonderful financial thing that Moody says we have a great bond rating. And to paraphrase Mr. Capucci and Mr. Viglione, the fact of the matter is, what are we having all this money for if we're not spending the taxpayers' money? just so the city can look good, and a Moody's bond rating. I'd rather spend the money and have the city look better, knowing that the taxpayers' money is being used. And if we can work out, if we can start to figure out now, whether it's this year or next year, that you develop a tax exemption, a residential exemption, that can work, then we should be doing this. We shouldn't be just saying, well, we're going to take what we've done in the past, go to 1.175%, and give it the lowest residential factor. If we were going to give it the lowest residential factor possible, then there should be no tax rate increase at all. We've got all this money sitting in the bank. Why would you want to go out there and bang the taxpayer anywhere from $135 up for whatever? The problem, as I see it, Mr. O'Neill and Ms. Baker and Ms. Miller, is there's been absolutely no discussion with this council This legislative body, as it relates to prior to you folks setting a tax, having any discussion on how to change some of these things, having any discussion on when I'm going to Beacon Hill, bringing our state reps and senators in to say, what can we do to play with this thing? We haven't had at least strike. I'll speak for myself. I have never been asked once. I have called, but I have never been asked once to be part of a circle of discussion on any of these tax rate increases or proposals or whatever they might be. even to get into the merit of tax rate exemptions, even to get into the non-owner-occupier who comes into this community, and we have to give them the service of fire, police, public works, and sometimes even schooling. For what? So the Medford taxpayer winds up paying for it. The guy who legitimately pays his taxes each and every year winds up paying for all of this. And for 29 years in a row, the tax rate in this community has increased under the President's administration. And what do we still have? We still have a deplorable infrastructure. We have water and sewer concerns. We have a public building here that needs, that's historically, you know, it needs a lot of help. You have a police department and a fire department that needs all kinds of work. And then what do we have, as Councilor Longo just alluded to, you have a school department still creating more jobs as they did last night, $85,000 for a brand new position to have a public relations person. That's what the superintendent gets $160,000 for, to do the public relations. And then you can't find enough teachers to teach a class because we don't have enough money in the budget. And then we're starting to think about maybe security in the buildings because it's now becoming an ongoing problem. But when teachers don't have enough pencils, and teachers don't have enough books, and they don't have enough classroom help, and PTOs are always asking for support from the administration, and this is the fifth, sixth job that they've created in the last year that's in excess of $85,000 to $90,000 a year, and we still cannot have that resolved to the point that it's political patronage. That's all that it is. It's not educational patronage. It's political patronage, and it's wrong. And hopefully this new administration comes in and recognizes this, because it's wrong. It serves no purpose for the value and the quality of this community. Those jobs don't add anything to Moody's bond rating. You know what they add to? They add to people saying you can't beat City Hall. They're all in bed with each other, and every politician is crooked. That's what they say, because you can't beat City Hall with nothing. We're trying to, slowly but surely. I thought it was going to take place, but it didn't. But when we have a tax rate that's ready to go and set to go, and we know we're sitting on almost $9 million in free cash, $7.5 million in your water and sewer account, and there's still no plan in front of you, and you're still not part of the program, then there's something wrong around here. Something's terribly wrong. And I hope the taxpayers wake up and finally realize that they've got to come to this real, and they have to talk about it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The chair recognizes Councilor Carrofiello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. O'Neill, could you explain the ramifications of Councilor Longo's motion of putting the million dollars away, what that does?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: I defer to Ian Baker and Louise Miller on this budgetary.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: I don't know exactly what, if the million dollars is taken off the tax, if the million dollars is taken off, obviously the tax rate would go down, and I believe you have those numbers.
[Richard Caraviello]: At what percentage would it go down? So if you took the medium, if you go by the average prices here, so on the average single family of $394, how much would the tax rate go down with the million dollars put in there?
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: Those numbers weren't prepared as far as what the effect of the $1 million would be.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: But the tax rate is set to cover the operating budget, which is a little over $150 million. So the reduction of $1 million is a very small percentage of the total budget. The other thing is I did discuss today with the mayor the councilor's proposal, and he is not proposing coming back to the council with a request to use free cash to supplement the budget.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Madam Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. If you look at page nine, I mean, you're talking about a $2.4 million increase on property taxes. So I'm proposing almost half, not quite. And if you look at the figures and a single family average value at 424, is proposed to go up $130, increased from last year, a two-family, $329, three-family, $310, and each commercial industrial property, $312. So with regards to the single-family condos, two-families and three-families especially, you're going to see almost a 50% decrease with that $1 million. Oh, commercial went down. Sorry, down $312. Yes, because the burden on the property owners is only going up 2.4, because you have 1.9 in new growth. Almost 50%. They wouldn't go down. The increase would be reduced from what is being proposed. Our taxes are not going down with a million dollar decrease to the levy. That can be verified. Those are the numbers.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Well, this vote will have no bind.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: I hear what you said. What did you say?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Almost 50%. Did you say 50? No, I'm saying if the $1 million is taken out of the tax levy based on property value portion, then the proposed increase would go down by almost 50%. There's no reduction in taxes. The only way we can reduce taxes is if we take $4 million out of the budget. Yeah, this is still going to be an increase. We're increasing taxes, but the administration is proposing that we increase taxes by $2.4 million in total over what was proposed, what the tax levy was last year. moving to reduce that by a million, you'd almost reduce by 50, almost by 50%, probably by 40, I would say more like 40%. I mean, you're giving the taxpayer a break.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: If I may speak, this, this million dollar motion that you're making is separate and apart from what we're trying to, what the, what were the reason we're here for is to set the minimum residential factor. So the minimum residential factor can be set apart from this motion. if they wanted to do that.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor, you're all set?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Madam Vice President, you're all set? Thank you. Then the question has been moved by Councilor Camuso. So what do you want to do with your paper, Madam Vice President?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I have one more question for the assessor, if you don't mind. Mr. Assessor, if we wanted to vote to not increase the levy to not increase property taxes for our residents, period, how would we take that vote tonight? On the minimum residential factor? Right, I mean, we'd have to.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: She wants to reduce the levy.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: My motion is to reduce the levy. If I didn't want to increase, but whether or not that passes, if I didn't want to increase the levy, period, how do I vote?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: So you can still vote the minimum residential factor the same way you voted it in the past several years. You voted to shift it 175%.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: And that would be what you're here to do tonight. Then the $1 million recommendation to the mayor would stand by itself. And then the mayor would act on it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: How do you want to vote on that? Do you want to vote that on a separate paper?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Please, if we can move my motion first.
[Fred Dello Russo]: All right. So on the motion of Vice President Luggo-Kern as a B paper.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: Mr. President, if I may.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: I just, I do want to say I did discuss this with... Order. I did discuss this with the mayor today and he is not planning on bringing a paper before council to request that free cash... Point of information, Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: That certainly is the will of the mayor if he has the opportunity. I think Councilor Lungo-Koehn is asking for a vote to ask him to bring the million dollars according to municipal finance. That's the only way that a money paper can be initiated. It's with the official mayor bringing it forward to the legislative body. So let's just take the vote on hers. Whatever, if it fails, if it passes, and we move forward on the rest of the questions. Okay.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The question has been called.
[Paul Camuso]: Roll call vote.
[Fred Dello Russo]: A roll call vote has been requested on the B paper by Vice President Longo-Curran that a resolution that the proposed tax levy be reduced by $1 million, which is less than half of the amount we put into free cash from last year's budget. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Please call the roll, Mr. Chief.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso. No. Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Knight, Vice President Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Penta. Yes. President Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: No. With the vote of three in the affirmative, three in the negative, the paper fails.
[Paul Camuso]: Move to four questions.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Camuso to move the four questions. Number one, to determine the residential factor to be used for the fiscal year 2016 by selecting the minimum residential factor, a percentage of the total tax levy will be shifted from the residential taxpayer to the commercial, industrial, and personal property taxpayers. This results in a lower tax rate for residential properties and a higher tax rate for commercial, industrial and personal property taxpayers. Historically, the Council has chosen the minimum residential factor If this is once again, the council choice, the minimum residential factor is 0.897446. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll on the motion for approval by councilor Camuso on that question. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Um, Ed, I don't think he answered the question. The question is simply this. If we would have just leave the rate the same as it was last year with no increase, what would it be?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Through you, Mr. President, the levy limit calculation has already been approved by DOR. So it's an automatic two and a half percent, which correlated to the budget presentation in May and June. The new growth was a moving estimate from early spring to summer to the fall, and that number increased. And with that additional growth, we were able to take care of that snow and ice deficit, which I believe Ann will speak on.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: Well, you can't leave the rate the same because everything is driven by the budget. So we can't meet the budget with the rate being the same as it was. All the calculations start with the budget.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: To you, Mr. President,
[Fred Dello Russo]: Well, the paper is before us, as it is.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: It is. But during the budget season, I was not asked to do any analysis on keeping the rate the same, increasing it 2.5%, adding the new growth. We used that in the budget process, which was distributed to the council for revenue projections. But I was not asked by the council to do any impact at that point.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. On the motion.
[Robert Penta]: But the question could be answered, that if you were going to, since the assessed values have gone up from last year to this year, and to keep everything to be the, I mean.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: It can't stay the same. It doesn't.
[Robert Penta]: It can't stay the same, the values have gone up. So if the values have gone up and you kept it at last year's rate, wouldn't that still cover you for the budget?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: No, because we routed 4.2 million.
[Robert Penta]: There's nothing in the law that says you have to go to the max. That's correct.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: But you don't address it tonight. You've addressed it at the budget session.
[Robert Penta]: So all the council Longo was trying to propose was if you took, if you knocked off a million dollars, which is a million off of the $4 million and you're going to be getting that money back in June anyway, when free cash is certified, you'd have a better understanding of how this budget, you know, works better for the taxpayer. I'll defer it to Louise Miller.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: We actually don't know what the free cash that is certified will be until the end of the fiscal year. So, um, the fact that there were some good years of free cash in the past few years is great for the city, but there also were years when free cash was not so good. And in this instance, um, when we set the budget, we assume that 2.5% increase in a certain new growth. And then last week when we met in the council of the whole, We also address the snow and ice deficit, which we are now able to move forward without a deficit in the city.
[Robert Penta]: But the council, I think we agree with that.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: OK.
[Robert Penta]: We have $9.6 million in free cash, correct? That is correct. We have $9.6 million in free cash. And if you folks were, if the council were agreeable to knock the million dollars off, if in fact the worst thing that could happen, if you couldn't meet your debt obligation, when June, the end of May, June comes, you still have free cash. to balance out whatever needs to be done. So all Councilor Lungo-Koehn was trying to do, if I understand it correctly, was to knock off a million dollars right now. And if it works, all things being equal, there would be the tax rate increase, would be by 40% less, instead of 130 on the house for 424, it would be $70 or $60. It isn't like you're wiping it out. You're just keeping all things being equal. You know, a few years back, it was Councilor Marks to his credit. The only one that didn't vote to take the money out of the Water and Sewer account because the mayor underfunded the budget by a million one. And they took the money out of the Water and Sewer account and you had to go to the legislature for a special act of the legislature. And no one else ever did it. No other city in town in there would ever do it again, because that was the wrong thing to do. But we're sitting on nine and a half million dollars. Why is the city so reluctant to try out something and see where it takes us? No, no, no, we're talking about I know you're talking about it, but at the same time, I think it needs to be explained better to the point that, you know, we're not cash-strapped poor. We're sitting on $9.5 million, and even if we get another six or seven or rate of $900,000 this year, that will offset whatever the million dollars you're taking off the increase in the override by a million dollars. I mean, what is so hard to understand this for? I don't understand.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: No, no, I certainly understand what you're saying, that it is— It really is the same thing as what occurred a few years ago with the water and sewer, where in order to meet the budget, money was taken out of reserves. And that's essentially what we would be doing here if we were to take money out of free cash.
[Robert Penta]: You'd be taking out of free cash, though, Louise, not the reserves of the water and sewer account.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: No, no, no. But free cash is the general fund reserve.
[Robert Penta]: Right. That's what that is. So if you have $9.5 million and it keeps increasing each and every year. Point of information, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: We're still talking about that million dollars that the council took a vote.
[Robert Penta]: No, we're talking about the question that he didn't answer. What would it be to keep the tax rate the same as it was last year? It'd be 2.4 million.
[Paul Camuso]: Half of what Councilor Lungo proposed. You double it. Well, a little bit more, 2.4. This is all semantics. We just took a vote on this.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. We need to resolve this. The motion has been called.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: Can we let her speak, please? I was just going to say that regardless of the question of free cash or no free cash, the residential rate is unaffected by it. The residential factor, I'm sorry, is unaffected by it. It is a separate vote.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Right. So on that motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Sorrell]: Mr. President, I have an answer for the council's question. Please, briefly, sir. Thank you. This is definitely the way to do it. When it comes time to vote for the shift, That's what I'm talking about. We talk about generally about a 75% shift. When we do that, what we're doing is charging the CIPs, the commercial people, the people who provide the jobs in this community, the people who invest their own money. We're asking them to pay 75% more than they would normally. Now, you have to keep your eye on the ball, and the ball is $101 million. Now, what is this figure, $101 million? This is actually the tax levy limit. In Medford, the tax levy limit is the tax levy. So now what Councilor Penta wants to do is keep the rate the same. You can do that by instead of shifting But 175 last year, the rate was, was, uh, what? Well, all you have to do is go over to this sheet here, go over and it tells you, then you have to just go to, and instead of a shift of 175, have a shift of 145. That's all you have to do. Councilor Penner and you can do what you want to do. Now I'm not in favor of that. I'm in favor of a, of the same tax for all people. That's what is really fair. Because what we're doing is we're charging our own people who come here, in fact some of them are residents, so we're charging them 75% more than they should pay. What they should pay is you take all of the money all the property in Medford, which is $8 billion worth. Okay. Now the commercials have only 1 billion of that. And the residents have 7 billion. You divide that 8 billion into the 101 and you get the standard rate. And the standard rate is, uh, $12.47. That's what everybody should be paying, $12.47. That's fair. Not only that, that will reduce the rate of increase in taxes all the way into the future. Every year, we will pay $250,000 less in taxes. For instance, a few years ago, our tax levy was was $90 million. Well, now, only three years later, it's $100 million. So, you can see, answering Councilor Pender's question, the tax levy increases by $3 to $4 million every year, like clockwork. And the only way to reduce that is to have one standard single rate, and that's the only fair thing to do. If we did to the residents of this city what we're doing to the merchants, it would be a pity. If you're paying, on an average, $5,000 in taxes, On your real estate, on the house that you own, you're a homeowner, right? Imagine increasing that by 75 percent. Now, instead of $5,000, you're asking a homeowner to pay $8,500. Is that conscionable? Would you do that? Would you do that to your — your — the people who support you? But you're doing that to the merchants. You love to do that to the merchants because you think it's coming from nowhere. Well, it isn't. That's why you see so many empty storefronts around here. The merchants are having trouble. That's why you see Arcadia being torn down over taxation. You can get away from all of that just by going to the single rate, and the single rate is $12.47. Yes, it'll be higher the first year, but every year thereafter, it'll be lower than it would have been. Taxes will go up. They will always go up, but they won't go up as much.
[Robert Cappucci]: Max?
[Michael Marks]: Yes. I appreciate Dr. Stirello's knowledge on this, but I believe it was Ed O'Neill back last year or the prior year that stated with the single tax rate, it would take roughly 25 to 30 years. No, it would not. You're saying the first year will go up, and the second year it'll start reducing. By $250,000 every year. Citywide. Citywide. So my taxes, if I, let's get this straight now. If we went to the single rate at 1267 that you're talking about, my taxes and every other single family home in this community and every other two-family home in this community is going to go up drastically over the next 20 years. And at some point, it will level off. But it's not what you're saying, Dr. Stroh. It's not what you're saying. And then it's year two, year three, year four. Now, you might get a small reduction year two, three, four, five, but it's still a dramatic increase. over what you would have paid with this shift. And I agree with you. At some point, we have to look at the commercial. But if someone's running a commercial business in this community, no one's going to tell me that a residential person should pay the same tax rate. That's your opinion. I don't share that opinion. If you're making money in this community, you should pay more. That's the way I feel.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you.
[Sorrell]: Pardon me for disagreeing, but what you don't realize is that every year we're adding on new growth. And the new growth of the commercials is much higher, sometimes two times higher, than the new growth of the residentials. Now you're adding that to the tax levy limit, and what you're asking is for the residents to pay that. twice as much rate. And that goes on there. And that's why taxes will keep going higher.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, doctor.
[Sorrell]: OK. You're welcome.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Camuso, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso. Yes. Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Knight. Vice President Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Penta. Yes. President Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes, with the vote of six in the affirmative and one absent. The motion carries. Number two.
[Paul Camuso]: Motion to vote no.
[Fred Dello Russo]: To adopt an open space discount. This does not apply to the city of Medford. We're not eligible for that, but a no vote is required. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso? No. Councilor Caraviello? No. Councilor Knight? No. Vice-President Leno-Kern? No. Councilor Marks? No. Councilor Penta? No. President Del Russo?
[Fred Dello Russo]: No. With the vote of six in the negative and one absent, the adoption fails. Number three, adopt a residential exemption. If adopted, owner-occupied residential properties may receive an exemption of up to 20% of the average residential value. This is accomplished by shifting a portion of the tax levy from the owner-occupied residential properties to non-owner-occupied properties. Since this shift causes a higher residential tax rate, the number of owner-occupied properties would also see an increase in their tax rate, tax bills.
[Robert Penta]: Question, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: On the line there where it says a substantial, who wrote this? Is this state wording? Mr. O'Neill, who wrote number three, adopt a residential exemption?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: On the letter to the council.
[Robert Penta]: And your letter to the council dated November 23rd, when you have the four things, it says adopt a residential exemption. Who wrote the wording for these four things?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Was that the original handout? for the committee as a whole.
[Robert Penta]: It's dated November 25th. Probably I did.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: I did. I did the one tonight. Yeah. It's a vote. Yeah. It's the same language every year. Just the numbers change. So it's a vote not to adopt.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I would make a suggestion that the word substantial is eliminated because it is not a substantial. The $1,569 doesn't compare anywhere to $9,000, close to $10,000. And it gives the impression that a substantial number of people are going to be paying higher, because... Duly noted, Councilor. Pardon me?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Duly noted.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah. Because according to what you gave us over this past weekend and tonight, you know, it's quite obvious that, you know, it's not substantial. It's a progression from 580 or whatever that number in the future is going to be. Okay. All right. Will do.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. On that motion... Excuse me. Sir, you've debated this. We're taking a vote.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Those two points brought up, and this is very important. Councilor Dello Russo, president. Proceed. Thank you. Name's not important. Thank you. Councilor Peta for bringing up who wrote up number three on the owner occupied selection. Um, through the chair, I'd like to ask Ed O'Neill, How many properties will have a savings versus the $1,569 of the owner-occupies? It would go up.
[Fred Dello Russo]: That was discussed earlier.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: I would like a straight answer.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. O'Neill, you're welcome to answer that if you'd like.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: I would like a straight answer. He never said it. He never told me how many properties are going to go down in value versus the $1,569 owner-occupies that would go up. Can I get a straight answer as a citizen? For Matt O'Neill, please, through the chair.
[Fred Dello Russo]: It was answered several times, but Mr. O'Neill, you're welcome to answer that. Mr. O'Neill, would you answer the question, please? Could you please vacate the podium so this gentleman can speak?
[Andrew Castagnetti]: I would be happy to. Thank you very much.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Through you, Mr. President, the total amount of qualified owner-occupiers would be $12,264. So we, we did address it, um, in a number of other ways. But so if you took the 1569, uh, I think a Councilor Penta may have said just over 10,000 that would, uh, experience a decrease in taxes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Again, lower than the five 80.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Plus the apartment buildings would go up as well.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the, please state your name and address for the record.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: I'm Cheryl Rodriguez. I live at 281 Park street. It's a single family home. I live in with my husband and my seven year old daughter, my older daughters in college. Um, I talked to the assessor and my home value is going to increase approximately 10% this year. My home is not worth $500,000 but if it was worth 500 it would be now worth $550,000, which means that even if you gave me an exemption, my property taxes will increase $500 a year, plus the wonderful CPA, which means that my home will now cost me a minimum of $50 extra per month, even with the residential exemption. I think it's important to note that, that you're not giving me a property tax reduction, even if you give me a residential exemption. I have no tenant that I can turn to and say, Can you give me an extra $25 a month so that I can pay only $25 more? Because I know a lot of the renters in this town think that we're all sitting on a money pile. I owe the bank hundreds of thousands of dollars. My home is not going to give me any money. I won't be able to afford to do the new roof on my garage that I need because I'll be paying the city more. So I think you need to factor that in. People need to understand that homeowners aren't getting a reduction.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso, Councilor Caraviello, Councilor Knight, Vice President Lowell-Curran, Councilor Marks, Councilor Penta, President Del Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: No. With the vote of six in the negative, one absent. Uh, the motion fails. Number four, adopt a small commercial exemption if adopted, commercial properties housing a business employing 10 or less people and valued at less than $1 million may receive an exemption of up to 10 percent of their assessed value. This is accomplished by shifting a portion of the commercial industrial tax levy from these eligible properties to the other commercial and or industrial properties. Since this shift causes a high commercial and industrial tax rate, all commercial industrial not receiving the exemption would see an increase in their tax bills. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso? Councilor Caraviello? Councilor Knight? Vice-President Levin-Curran? Yes. Councilor Marks? No. Councilor Penta? No. President Dello Russo?
[Fred Dello Russo]: No. On the vote of five in the negative, one in the affirmative, one absent, the motion fails. Thank you all for your patience in this matter. Mr. O'Neill, could you please approach the podium and entertain through the chair the inquiry of Councilor Penta?
[Robert Penta]: On the small commercial exemption, you indicate here in the wording that you shift the portion from one group to another. And since this shift causes a higher commercial and industrial tax rate, all commercial and industrial not receiving the exemption would see an increase in their tax bills. When you use the purpose of somebody having 10 or more people and the value is less than a million dollars, they can receive the exemption. Is that state statute that says that? That's correct, yes. So how many of these properties exist in the city of Medford?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: That's for you, Mr. President. That is part of the annual handout. We go over this annually. Currently, there's 10 communities that have adopted it.
[Robert Penta]: No, no, no, no. In Medford? Yep, yep. How many people does this affect?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Yes. It should be on the handout. of 450 small businesses with less than 10 employees. The number of owner-occupied would be 72. An example of the impact on eligible owner-occupied would be 56 parcels. And if you look at the various columns, you see the percentages with 1, 5, and 10%. So the rate would go up. So the small amount that would get the exemption. the rest of the commercial, industrial, personal property tax levy would get shifted to them, and also the industrial properties do not, they're not allowed to get this exemption, so that they would pay a higher tax rate. Same thing as the residential.
[Robert Penta]: So you're saying that there's 450 small businesses that would be eligible for this, correct?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: But the ones that are occupied would be 72 out of that.
[Robert Penta]: 72 owner occupies, that would be 10 or less people, 450 that have the small business. So how many of the ones over that?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: How many- They're reciprocal of that, so that would be non-owner occupied, about 193 that we've identified. We get a list from one of the departments of, I think, employment and training.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Annual report. That's OK, Councilor? Thank you very much. On the motion of Vice President, I'll go to turn to address two papers out of order. 15-784, committee report. Committee of the Whole, meeting report from December 1, 2015, on fiscal year 2016 tax rate. Although we've just addressed the tax rate, we had asked for several papers out of committee. These all have been addressed and used in our discussions tonight. So on the motion of approval, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. and 15 796 to the honorable president and members of the medford city council communication from the mayor uh dear president and city councillors i respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve transfers from the overlay surplus to rate valuation account 0 1 0 1 4 1 5 3 1 0 totaling 250 000 as outlined in the attached memo from the city assessor and the board of assessors this amount will be will fund the state mandated revaluation of all real and personal property in the city required by the Bureau of Local Assessment of the Department of Revenue. The City Assessor Ed O'Neill and City Auditor Ian Baker will present this evening to answer, be present this evening to answer any questions. Very truly yours, Michael J. McGlynn. Mr. Assessor.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Thank you, Mr. President. This is to fund the three-year revaluation, just to give the council an update on what's happening. I know we have come before them for other funding sources for the inspection program, which is a nine-year program. We are just about done. As of this week, we'll have finished all of the first inspections, and in the next couple of months, we'll be sending letters out to do interiors. um, less than maybe 500 interiors to do, and that will be it. So we have satisfied the DOI's requirement for nine year inspection program. Um, this, so at this point, um, for fiscal 17, this, this is for the reval, which will then be fiscal 17, 20, uh, 2023. Um, so we went out to bid on these, um, and, uh, we addressed this as a committee, the whole meeting with council of marks on, on, uh, inserting comparative criteria to evaluate the vendors, and we did that. We've had a number of inquiries on it. At the end of the day, we had one bidder on each, one for real property and one for personal property. And Louise Miller, when she has free time, will be awarding those contracts shortly, because we have to start that in January.
[Robert Penta]: Quick question. When you came before us for the budget, how come this wasn't introduced? You knew what the dollar amount was going to be.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: We did not, because we have to go off a bid. We don't have a, that's a moving number.
[Robert Penta]: So is this bid going to cover us until when?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: This will be for the fiscal 17 rebate. And then what we do in the interim years, we do the statistical update, which we cover that in my budget, my annual budget.
[Robert Penta]: So does this dollar amount start from January, of this year and then goes to June and then start to jump the end of July.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: It's fiscal year, fiscal year, July 17, which July one, 2016 we'll, we'll start it, but we'll start, we'll start doing the analysis and testing the sales in January. Um, we were still inserting the sales and just so the council knows the 2015 sales are going up again. So, The interest rates are still very good. People are still buying. And we haven't seen a decrease in now beyond 24, 30 months. So I just want to let everybody know that.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The motion for approval by Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. O'Neill, what was the cost of the last reavail?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: The last three years? So that would be fiscal 14. I don't have those handy. I can get that to you. Was it in the same? Very similar, yeah. Was it in the same dollar amount? It's very similar. Yes, it's in that amount.
[Michael Marks]: And do we expend the full?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Like two thirds, around 220 something. This is like, yeah, this is very close to it.
[Michael Marks]: And was the full amount expended?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So what we typically do is we do a transfer out of the overlay surplus. Once we declare a surplus in that account for abatements and exemptions. So we really self fund it. but obviously with the council's vote. So the Board of Assessors met and voted that out, approved the transfer to surplus. Now it's before you tonight.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just if I could, we have Louise. Can I ask Louise a question? When we were in Committee of the Whole, we were talking about the different surpluses in the city. The overlay surplus, is that part of the overall $20 million that's looked at?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: For you, Mr. President, we have
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Maybe five or six years of overlay reserve. We keep those in there. Historically, they've done it that way here, and I think it's a good idea because we do have some court cases. We do have uncollectibles and personal property, so we need those funds to actually abate anything that's uncollectible. on the personal property side.
[Michael Marks]: But is this part of the reserves?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: No, it was not.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: It is not.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Currently, as of November, the overlay balance after including this, taking this vote money out was about $490,000.
[Michael Marks]: Now, why would this be outside of reserves? If this is something that's kept 2, 3, 4, 5 years.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: This is an account the assessors maintain by statute to allow for exemptions and abatements. So we have a monthly report that we reconcile between three different departments.
[Michael Marks]: So it has nothing to do with the bond rating. They don't look at this when they come in and look at our bond rating?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: No. They may ask it, but I don't think it's typically not a big number anyway. What do we have in the account now? $490,000 as of November, end of November. Our last board meeting, $490,000. So taking the $250,000 out, there's $490,000 left. And then what do we anticipate for July 1st? We're putting in, what are we putting in for the overlay? $574,000 on the recap.
[Michael Marks]: So that will bring us up to three quarters of a million in that account?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: We have to give the exemptions out. There's about 200 and some thousand of those come January in the bill. So that will come off of that. So out of the 575, we got 200 and some odd that will come off automatically. So that will leave 300 plus the 490. Then we'll have abatements in January. So it's a continuous account that we have.
[Michael Marks]: And monies in the overlay surplus can only be used for what purpose?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Um, well overlay reserve until we, the statute says that the board of assessors and or the CEO of the municipality in this case, the mayor could petition the board of assessors to release declare surplus and release it, which we've used in the past for snow and ice deficits as well as rebel dollars. So we don't budget the rebel, um, the inspection program or the three year rebel. We take it out of the overlay.
[Michael Marks]: And you don't need, uh, that doesn't require approval of the council if the CEO.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Oh, it still does. Oh yeah. Yeah. He can request the board of assessors to release overlay reserves to surplus and it goes before the council. Oh yeah.
[Michael Marks]: When's the last time that's been done?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Um, we've had two votes last December of 14, December of 13. And we've asked the council to the board of assessors voted, um, So this is the past, uh, got December 13 and 14. Um, the assessors voted and came before the council with a paper to vote for the inspections. And this is for the, for the three year rebel. So if you look in your documents from the last two Decembers, you'll see the papers before you.
[Michael Marks]: And you said there's 500 homes right now that we haven't done a revalidate?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Well, the interiors, they've gone out and they finished up this week. We did the last reverse 9-1-1 to let folks know, and it was like four or five streets left. And we'll send letters out and set up appointments for walk-throughs for the interiors.
[Michael Marks]: And what happens ultimately if someone refuses to allow someone in?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: As a taxpayer, they can refuse it. They don't have to. You know, so what happens is the assessment will be based on the data that's in the system, and if the data's incorrect, you can have an incorrect assessment. So it's always good to make sure we have right information on properties. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Are you all set?
[Michael Marks]: Yes, thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor. Chair recognizes Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Ed. You just said that the money's used, it's put in the overlay surplus. Is this accumulated each and every year? Is it carryover money?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: For you, Mr. President, yes, it does. We have a, uh, it's on page, uh, two of the recap, uh, probably getting close to the top. It's a, it's an allowance for, for, if you look at page 11 on the handout from last committee, the whole meeting. So this is well, the reserve does.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah. Yeah. Historically, what does the city usually pay out in this account during the course of a year?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Let me just show you where it's on the recap. It's page two of the recap, line number 2D. That's in there annually, an appropriation that we make on the assessors with the consultation of the budget director, finance director. An estimate of what we think we need for exemptions, We track the exemptions and abatements annually, and we do a monthly report that's reconciled with the auditor's office.
[Robert Penta]: So what's the dollar amount, so the people can hear it?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: For what? It's $574,608.47. And this is a budget appropriation each and every year, correct? It goes in the recap.
[Robert Penta]: It goes into the recap and then it goes into the surplus.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: the overlay surplus? It stays in reserves until either the mayor petitions us to release it as surplus. If in fact we deem it to be, or we release it ourselves. Okay. So we have to do our own little analysis to say fiscal year 2013, we have 10,000 in there. Is that, is that enough to be released as surplus? That's how we do it.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I don't understand if Louise, you just got through saying that this, when council Max asked the question that this has nothing to do with our bond rating, but now all of a sudden, This can be taken out, I think, if you said by the executive of the community, in use for other city expenses, which is a direct reflection upon the budget.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: No, only the surplus can be. That's what we're talking about, the surplus. And just the surplus.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: We have to declare it, take it out of reserve, and declare it surplus by a vote of the Board of Assessors. By statute. By statute, correct.
[Robert Penta]: Or the mayor can make a request to take it.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Oh, he makes a request. We still have to vote.
[Robert Penta]: OK, so when you take a vote on, you say yes to do it. It now goes into a budgetary item, correct?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: It can be appropriated, correct.
[Robert Penta]: So if it's appropriated for a budgetary item, then why wouldn't that, in and of itself, the surplus in and of itself, be considered part of a bond rating? Because what if you had no money in there at all? What would you do?
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: Well, we have to have a sufficient amount of money to cover for abatements. But let's just say you fell short.
[Robert Penta]: What would you do?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Well, yeah, you can run a deficit out of the count. We haven't. We've been fortunate enough to manage it. the Board of Assessors and the Assessing Office, to manage it so that we're not in a deficit. I think a few years back, we had some deficits for some old personal property accounts that weren't collected many, many years ago.
[Robert Penta]: But how do you accumulate a $490,000 balance right now? So it's probably—it would be $720,000. As of right now, tonight, before this vote, there's $720,000 in that account. How much do you— No, no, no.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: That's separate. That has to be approved by DOI. That goes in tonight, tomorrow, or the end of the week. That has to be approved. That's not allowable now.
[Robert Penta]: You just said there's $490,000 left.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: There's currently, as of November, $490,000 left in the account.
[Robert Penta]: After this $250,000 goes out.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: We still have some real estate taxes that have not been paid in the past couple of years. We still have some uncollectible personal property accounts that businesses went out of business, or they moved, they didn't pay the tax. take that account and just deplete it. We have to manage it. We work with the collector's office to see what we have for- But real estate taxes in the city go into the general fund of the city.
[Robert Penta]: It doesn't go into an overlay surplus.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Correct.
[Robert Penta]: So why would that be part of this? You're waiting to collect on real estate taxes.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: It's the same account that we've used every year as part of the statute. it's part of the recap, which goes to a process with local assessment through all accounts to get approved. Um, I think it might be, what is it? 1% of the book, probably less than that on the budget. That's 1%. Yeah.
[Robert Penta]: Louise, you mentioned in the community, the whole that, you know, you're going to be having some new financial restructuring and consideration. You have two new councils coming on. I think it would be beneficial to have the entire council sit down and understand some of this because This can be confusing, and at the same time, it becomes contradictory, too. You can't have a real estate account that's going to put money in there, which is part of the general fund, and then once the money goes into the overlay surplus, it's not to be considered part of, you know, Standard Moody's, you know, standard. I understand this. It's moving money around. It's the old shell game, huh?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Well, we have to — For you, Mr. President, it's a process. The Board of Assessors, by statute, has to vote it, declare it surplus, vote it out. The paper goes to the mayor, the mayor sends it to the council, so we have the checks and balances in place. We have discussion on every single transfer of funds.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. There was a motion for approval on this.
[X_nYXZZ4ChY_SPEAKER_04]: I was just going to say, Ann Baker reminded me that a couple of years ago, the surplus was actually used to fund a snow and ice deficit. So the surplus does get used to fund city budgets or deficits when necessary as well.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. On the motion for approval by Councilor Camuso, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes, with a vote of 6 in the affirmative and none in the negative. The motion carries. Congratulations. Thank you. While we're under suspension, there was a committee meeting today, and we voted to report out of the committee. We discussed the bond request for $300,000 on the motion to accept the paper out and to table it. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. On the motion to revert back to the regular order of business by Vice President L'Engle Kern, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 15788 offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that a representative from Tufts University meet with the Council to explain the function of T. E. M. S. Be it further resolved that representatives from the Police Department, Fire Department, and Armstrong Ambulance be requested to attend. On the motion of Councilor Langel-Curran to table, all those in favor, all those opposed, the matter is tabled. 15-789, offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the Traffic Commission forward to the Council an update on the deliberations regarding citywide resident permit parking. On the motion of Councilor Lungo-Koehn, that the matter be tabled. All those in favor? All those opposed? The matter is tabled. 15-790, offered by Vice President Lungo-Koehn. Be it resolved that the Office of Energy and Environment update the City Council with regard to what has been done and what is scheduled to be done from the city standpoint regarding water conservation within city buildings. Madam Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. Last week, we had an extensive conversation. We had a committee of the whole meeting, and then we had an extensive conversation on the floor, the council floor, with regards to the deficit in the water and sewer budgets and how the city was going to overcome that. good hour to two discussion with regards to a few different points. Within that discussion, we discussed the city buildings and the probably lack of update with regards to water conservation. So if we could get a report back from Alicia Hunt, our Director of Energy and Environment, with regards to what has the city done within the last five to 10 years with regards to conservation within our city buildings, and what is the plan moving forward? I think it's important that the, you know, obviously the rate payers are conserving. That was proven. But we also want to make sure we conserve on the city side as well. And I'm sure a number of updates need to be made. So I'd like to just have any information with regards to water conservation. And I'd also like to be updated if any grants are out there or if we've tried to apply for any grants to help conserve within our buildings.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. It's one of the motion for approval by vice president Lugo Kern. All those in favor. All those opposed. Motion passes 15-seven 91 offered by Councilor Penta be resolved that one's freedom to speak at or before a city council meeting be discussed. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President. Um, most recently, uh, last week we had a situation here. Um, where a commentary was made by one of my colleagues, who's not here tonight, as it relates to he wanted to congratulate somebody for his recent appointment within a union position. And that's all well and good. And I tried to give my opinion as to why I didn't think it was a good idea. And my commentary was somewhat repressed by you sitting in the chair, Mr. President, because, you know, it's my right to speak. We have every one of these Councilors over here, men and women, give resolutions on any one given Tuesday night as it relates to who they want to congratulate and what have you. And if somebody has a different point of view, that likewise should be entertained. I wasn't speaking on behalf of anyone but myself. And while somebody is being praised for their promotion, I just did not feel it was correct because that same one person who you were praising for his promotion was the same person. who went into a municipal building and lied and told mistruths about me during this past campaign. And I didn't think that was true. And right. And I think the people ought to know this. If you're going to take advantage of sitting here and trying to acknowledge someone, you need to take the opposite side if somebody has a different point of view. There are people that come before this podium that try to express themselves. And sometimes they get shut off. Sometimes they're ignored. And sometimes they're being told enough is enough. You know, this is the only forum in the entire community of Medford that people have an opportunity to come and speak. You have a newspaper that's a week late, and that doesn't serve any purpose. You also have a school committee that meets biweekly, and sometimes that doesn't serve any purpose, because by the time you get the news after the fact, whatever takes place has already been done. But whether you agree or disagree with the purpose of that podium, it's there to allow the people to come and speak. And my commentary last week was, I did not vote for Nor would I approve of commending anybody who gets a promotion in their union job, who took advantage of his position, to come and bash another elected official. I just think it was wrong. I'm a big boy, and I can stand here, and I can take any abuse that anyone wants to give. But when they lie and distort the truth and misrepresent, and they get promoted on those principles, that's not the principles of hard and good work. That's just the principles of somebody who is just a bad person, as far as I'm concerned, as it relates to them doing a job that they did not do well.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor, we don't address people's characters here. Pardon me? We don't address people's characters.
[Robert Penta]: Well, my character was addressed by that gentleman that you voted for, that you wanted to commend, Councilor Dello Russo. So if you don't like it, then you shouldn't have voted for it. And we're free to not vote for the resolution. And probably it shouldn't have been here. Are we going to commend and congratulate every single person in this community that gets a promotion in their job or graduates from a college? Are we going to do that? We might as well start doing that. There's a lot of people who are left out, who live in side streets, main streets, up in the hillside, West Method, South Method, in your own neighborhood, who are wonderful people and they've done great things here in this city. Never see them getting commended and congratulated. But when you go out of your way to pick a particular person, to congratulate that person who intentionally went out of their way to attack a councilor by saying untruths, mistruths, and lies. I am never going to sit here and let that get by on anyone, whether I agreed with you or disagreed. I would be defending your position, Councilor De La Russa. I wouldn't let anybody do that to you, especially if I knew it was untruth and it was a lie. Having a difference of opinion is one thing, but telling a lie I will not stand for. Listen, I've served 39 years as an elected official in this community, and there isn't one person that will be able to come to that rail and say I lied about them. I lied about what I was doing. I don't believe in that. I don't have to do that. And I don't need to have that done to me as it was in this past campaign. And I don't need to have people think that that's what took place, when, in fact, it did take place. So you can sit there all you want, Mr. President. And I would hope next year, whoever sits in that chair — I think it's your turn, Rick, to sit in the chair — I would hope whoever sits in that chair, if it's you, you allow people to come and speak, and you'll let them know what the truth is. Because that's the only forum in the city of Medford that allows somebody here to come. Try to go to City Hall. Try to go meet with the mayor. Get to the four secretaries. Good luck to you. And try to get your opinion expressed around here. It's right there. There's the podium where it all begins and where it ends. And hopefully that stays that way because that's the people's forum. And that's what we're getting paid to do, to represent the people, not to represent ourselves and to give out jobs and take care of each other with political appointments. No, that's not what we're here for. That's not what I'm here for. And I will never ever allow anyone in this community to stand there and lie about me in public or in private, knowing when it's false, it's not true. And I would stand here and defend any one of you. And those sitting on that community, out in that audience, because that's not the way government should be run. If you want to win an election, do it the right way. Do it the honest way. Don't go in there and lie about someone to try to generate votes, because that's what took place. You can say all you want. You can say all you want about the resolution that Mr. Knight and the gentleman that he wanted to congratulate last week. But I don't buy it. I don't accept it. And I think it was a terrible, terrible act that that gentleman committed here in the city of Medford, trying to con union members into this community, making them believe bad things about me during this past campaign, and I will not stand for it, and I do not accept it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Mr. President. Unfortunately, this has been a nice meeting, I thought, and I still do. You know, I'm not going to sit here and just let the Medford resident be bashed, to be quite frank. We're all entitled to our opinion, as Councilor Penta said. A campaign took place for several offices in the community, and nobody knows what happened in this particular matter. Nobody. But what happened last week during a congratulatory citation When family members, young kids that happen to maybe be watching this, it was classless. It was absolutely classless, in my opinion. And I understand the frustrations possibly, but this is right up there. When the same counsellor talked about a freshman captain on the girls hockey team and berated her and said that she, the girls didn't even want her to be captain. And the mother came storming down here. It's classless. It's classless, Mr. President. We don't know what happened in that particular matter, nor will anyone that was other than the people that were in that room may not know what happened. And I agree with the Councilor. We can all put any resolutions on and this and that and thank people, but last week, when it was a resolution of just to say congratulations. There's resolutions that every single member of this council have put on over the years. Maybe it was congratulating someone that was convicted of a crime. Maybe it was other stuff. And there's been instances where maybe people have been uneasy about supporting a congratulatory resolution or something along those lines. But the fact of the matter is, It just wasn't the appropriate time. If the gentleman has a problem with anyone, maybe pick up the phone and call him. I just wish it didn't get to this evening. I was hoping that last week was the end of it, but I just can't sit here and... And here's the other piece of it too. It is a big, the particular promotion that this gentleman received is a very, very, very big promotion. The vice president of the Teamsters, who the President is Sean O'Brien, that we know. But there's over 500 members of the Teamsters Local 25 right here in this community. It's not the City Hall employees. It's not the secretaries. It's not the DPW only. You got many, many, many, many, many Teamsters that live in this community. And like I said, Mr. President, this is America. Councilor Penter is certainly entitled to his opinion. But I just think last week wasn't the time nor the place during a congratulations for a gentleman that, like I said, we don't know really what happened in the situation. There's two sides to every story. But I just couldn't sit here and I just wish that this didn't come up another week because it's unfortunate that this took place. That's all I got to say. You know, I just, uh, uh, other than that, I'm really, I'm really just speechless that, uh, that during a congratulations, this would come up, but consular pent is certainly entitled to his right to say anything he wants. And he's got to stick by it. He's got to stick by it. If he, uh, if he's asked questions on it or what happened or anything. So, uh, there's really nothing else I can say.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Joe Viglione]: Uh, Joe Villalon. 59 Garfield Avenue for Mass. Albuquerque, New Mexico, December 15, 2009, six years ago, next week. The commission there, for two months, from October to December, was having the residents of Albuquerque go up and submit what they were going to discuss. And the council decided if they would entertain the citizens or not. The ACLU fought with the citizens and slammed that down. It's pervasive across the country. You can Google it and you can find these lawsuits. New York, there's a similar case in New York of people like myself coming to the council and getting censored with the gavel or point of information or anything to throw you off balance so that you can't speak. Now, I commend Councilor Penta. I agree with him a thousand percent. I, and I would appreciate not being interrupted because I didn't interrupt you. I heard you, sir. I heard you. And it was condescending and it was wrong. And people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Again, see, this is how people are censored. So people watching, this is how people are censored when you're interrupted by Councilors. So now you can consider the source and see what's just happened to me. And you understand that Councilor Penta was a thousand percent right. It was wrong of one councillor to keep putting commendations on when there were motions and resolutions. Now, look at the track record of every councillor. Councilor Marx, council president, I believe council president might have two or three motions in the past six years, while Councilor Marx does a lot of hard work. The citizens, and again, I'm being censored again, because when someone laughs and jokes and snickers, That's what this is all about, free speech. That's what happened to Councilor Penta last week. Forget the topic, forget the individual. This Councilor started raising his voice, talking over Councilor Penta and censoring him. Now, in a conversation, not a monologue, you hear from one individual, you hear from another, then you hear from another. That's a conversation. We're having that conversation. The Councilor here was totally wrong, talking over Councilor Penta. That has happened to him a number of times. This 10 minutes that we get here at the City Council with no access TV, paying for access TV, watching as only 11 citizens come out week after week because one citizen here said to me, it's not apathy, Joe. It's not apathy. They're afraid that you can't fight City Hall. And it has come to this, that a councilor has to put it on on the agenda so that we can have free speech. I submit that councilors elect Scarpelli and Falco, consider this very carefully, councilors elect Scarpelli and Falco should know next year that we the people want to talk to you. You're the public servants and we're the public. We want to have uninhibited free speech with our city councils to talk about taxes, to talk about public access TV, to talk about decorum. And if you treat us well, you will find that we will treat you well in return. Treat us poorly, we'll put the mirror up. So thank you very much. Albuquerque, New Mexico, look it up on Google. I'll put a tiny URL out there so people can read about it. Councilor Penta, God bless you. You're absolutely right.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: My name is Anthony D'Antonio. I live at 12 Yale street. And I just want to make a comment regarding the statement that Mr. Penta brought up. Um, I felt myself not having been a candidate this year that that was a very inappropriate acknowledgement that evening because everybody in the city knew what happened. It was even self admitted by the individual who was being acknowledged. And then Mr. Penta was besmirched saying that he did something that he did not do because I was there when Bob Penta went up to defend his name. So it was inappropriate, there was no place for it. If you want to acknowledge him, send him a bloody card. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Robert Cappucci]: Thank you, Mr. President. Robert Capucci of 71 Evans Street. I used to teach public speaking at a university in southeast Kansas, and I have to say that We want to try to bring more citizens to this open forum. I actually looked up in the last week what the policies are in regarding the decorum and the rules, the Roberts rules that we follow in council meetings. And as a member of a state committee, we follow Roberts rules. But unfortunately, the rules aren't always followed. And coming to this podium, Oftentimes, people ask me, why do you subject yourself to that? Because I'm watching at home, and I see the Councilors aren't really listening to you. A few weeks ago, we were discussing, I forget what it was, but I brought up a comment by former president, God rest his soul, Reagan, about the nine scariest words he ever heard. And as I recited it, With all due respect, Mr. President, you were laughing at me from behind the podium. And people mentioned that to me days later, saying that was pretty disrespectful and rude. So I would like to see more people come to this podium, especially with a new council coming in and a new mayoral administration coming in. We're literally going to need all the voices we can get at this podium. And I want to thank Councilor Penta for his years of dedicated service and for bringing up this issue tonight. And thank you for your time, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Please state your name and address for the record. Castaneri, 20 Cushing Street.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Once upon a time, the unions served a really good cause when my grandfather was digging a ditch to build the pumping station on Spa Pond so they could pump that water up to the Hidden Res. These days, I'm not sure what's going on with the unions. Maybe it's a bit out of control, nothing to do with the other side of Jimmy Hoffa Stadium, but gotta put things in perspective, I think.
[Fred Dello Russo]: 15-792 offered by Councilor Penta be resolved that the matter of the school department cafeteria employees that was discussed at a budget meetings be reviewed. What was that matter Councilor Penta?
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, the matter was simply this. There are not too many of these folks that work in the school department. I don't think they've seen a raise in eight to nine years. Um, our superintendent, If the budget turned around, he said he would investigate it, look into it, and if they needed to get one, strike that. If that be the case, that he would take care of it. Well, nothing's been taken care of as we speak here tonight, other than a new $90,000 job being given out to the school committee last week. Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Yes. I believe the matter was reported to the school committee last evening, late in the meeting, but they actually negotiated a raise. with the cafeteria workers. So Councilor Penta is, in fact, not correct.
[Robert Penta]: No, that's not true either, because if that be the case, there's been no communication. This thing will strike that. I've got the floor, Paul, all right? The superintendent was going to the floor.
[Fred Dello Russo]: No, Paul, I'm going to the floor. Councilor Penta has the floor.
[Robert Penta]: Pardon me, sir? Say that again? Say it again louder. I didn't hear you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Penta has the floor.
[Robert Penta]: If you spoke up, maybe we could understand what's going on around here and you wouldn't be so rude. Okay. The fact of the matter is simply this. These workers have been waiting for almost eight and a half years. Can you please tell him to keep quiet?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor, you have the floor.
[Robert Penta]: We'll restrain ourselves. This has been going on for eight and a half years. It took place at the last budgetary hearing. Superintendent Sunday was going to get back to us whether this took place last night or not. I don't know. Still waiting for an answer. If it did, well, we could to school. Can we, did they vote this last night? They gave a 10% raise?
[Fred Dello Russo]: The gentleman may not speak from behind the rail.
[Robert Penta]: Pardon me? Can't ask them a question. They're going to be your future colleagues in January. Um, two of the colleagues who are going to be on this board next year just indicated that they got a pay raise. So with that being said, I accept their acknowledgement to that. Um, they seem to be more creditable than anyone else around here tonight. So I thank you for that information.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair recognizes Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. On this issue, at that time, we also brought up the discussion with regards to kindergarten aides and their $0.07 an hour raise and trying to look into that as well. We know administrators were getting $0.07, $0.08, $0.09. plus $1,000 raises. So at our budget meetings in June, we did ask the superintendent to also look into kindergarten aides. The other issue was that some kindergarten aides weren't allowed to work the full day. Their hours were kept to, I believe, half a day. So if we could maybe get an update on that with regards to the increase in more than $0.07 per hour.
[Paul Camuso]: Chair recognizes Councilor Camuso. So before we receive this and place it on file, I'd just like to say once again that the councilor was not correct. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of the councilor.
[Robert Penta]: That's not what the resolution says. The resolution says. No, no, I'm talking about your dissertation. Mr. President, are we going to be able to speak without being interrupted? Are you going to rule them out of order? Please.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor, may I read the resolution again for clarity?
[Robert Penta]: Read it, please.
[Fred Dello Russo]: 15-792 offered by Councilor Penta. Be it resolved that the matter of the school department cafeteria employees that was discussed at our budget meetings be reviewed.
[Robert Penta]: And that's what we talked about being reviewed. And as I realized until coming in here tonight and just a couple of minutes ago, nothing came across my desk telling me that they have been gotten their raise. I just asked our two new colleagues coming on in January that they got their raise last night. So I thank them for the information again for the second time. Thank you. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Penta that the paper be received and put it on file. Yes. All those in favor? Aye.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: No, I have it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: She amended it.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Oh, and your amendment was that the- Superintendent report back on the pay raises for kindergarten aides.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So that, then that will be the motion that the superintendent report back on the pay raises for kindergarten aides. Are we going to vote on this? May we? Let's merge.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: While we're discussing school issues, I just wanted to see if we could bring my motion under suspension up.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Vice President Mango Kern to take this paper off the hands of the clerk. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? To merge it with the aforementioned revised motion of Councilor Penta. Be it resolved. that the Medford City Council be updated on with regard to the new PR position that was put into their budget as of last night's vote in executive session. Madam Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. It came to my attention about seven o'clock last night from a few people who were kind of upset about a possible new position. I watched the school committee meeting for a while. From what I understand, and I can be corrected if I'm wrong, in executive session, there was a vote to take place for a new position worth $85,000 with regards to PR within the schools. This is something that was not on the agenda for the school committee. I believe it was something that was thrown in front of them at the last hour. I hear that it was sold pretty well, but at the same time, We're, you know, we're going to have to discuss this in June. The school department over ran by over a million last June. So it's, it is relevant to the, to the city council. It's relevant to our deliberations in June and what we'll have to vote on with regards to the city budget and the school budget. You know, people are upset. Um, it sounds like it's a backroom. The school committee heard them out and voted the way they did. But my concern is more with the administration and how it was brought on and how it was, you know, kind of not on the agenda. It was done in an executive session. It all seemed a little sketchy, seems a little sketchy. And people are, you know, there are people upset and people calling and putting this in my lap and asking me to, you know, ask the proper questions. And I think that's something we need to know about. It's very important. I've spoke up. A few months ago with regards to the five new positions that were implemented in the school system worth almost $100,000 each, that's half a million, and they were implemented within the last 18 months. I believe the superintendent verified that. That's money that we could be using to do other things within our schools or money that, do we need a PR person? I think that's something that the city council should have been apprised of and definitely, definitely where the administration was involved, we need to know more about. So if we could have the superintendent report back, what is the job description? What is the actual salary? You know, what will this person do? Who will they work under? Where will their office be located? And, you know, why is this position needed when we, you know, it's been discussed other things that we need, obviously, in the school. I mentioned it before. don't get much money for supplies. They pay for their own supplies. Raises at the lower levels are minimal, if not at all, for years. I just really would like some information on it, and as soon as possible before this position, whether or not they know who's going to go in there. I do hear rumors. But is this job going to go out to bid? Will this be publicized? Will anybody have a shot at it, or is this kind of a done deal?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. So that's an amendment. Mr. President, Penta's paper 15 792, which was a discussion. And so that having been discussed, we've amended that to resolve asking the report back. uh, from the superintendent of schools to give us an update on the salary increases for kindergarten needs. And, uh, also for an update on the, uh, newly created, uh, position that we know of, uh, Mr. President, other means, Mr. President, Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, first of all, um, just a couple of minor corrections. The school department has not ran on a deficit the last, I would say, at least five years, as long as I can remember. We have Louise Miller here who can verify that. The councillor stated that a million dollars overrun last year. We haven't bailed them out, I would say, since 2004 or 2005. That's probably the last time that they had to be bailed out, and it was during tough economic times. The second thing is, this was done actually in open session, because I saw the same point where the cafeteria workers were discussed, so that was not true as well. The last thing is, I think the sketchy part of this whole thing is someone's talking about negotiation and legal matters out of executive session. I mean, that should be investigated. Obviously, the councillor has her ear to the ground and someone is reporting to her about executive session stuff. Until that is approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting, the minutes and stuff, it's not something I think, I mean, that's the sketchy part of this whole thing. So maybe we could ask the superintendent of schools to maybe look into that as well. With that being said, I'm being facetious on that, but obviously there's a purpose for executive session, and that's for negotiation and legal matters. And that's to discuss the pay raises, negotiation, legal matters, whether the teachers, the custodians, the secretaries get a contract. So like I said, obviously there was a lot discussed last night. in negotiation and legal matters, as it appeared to be after the fact when it was back in open session. So I just wanted to point those few things out. The biggest thing was, though, that the school department has not been a million dollars in deficit. I'm glad to see the two new Councilors over there shaking their head, because they know the budget. They've been around for quite some time, and that has not been overrun in at least, at least, I would say, six or seven years. I don't want to go any further, because I know there was a rough patch where We did have to bail them out. I believe it was before Louise Milleville. And Louise, you've been here how many years now? Four years now. So, but I think that those few factual things I just wanted to point out. Here's the other thing, last but not least. I don't know much about the position, but a lot of people have been talking about we have to make the Medford Public Schools more attractable to people and stuff. And if this is a public relations, it's going to get people back from charter schools, get people back from maybe Minuteman, from other schools that we're actually doing. I mean, this position could pay for itself. But like I said, as I have in all matters, since I've been on this city council, I do believe the school department and the school committee are tasked by the taxpayers. And if it's something that they're saying they need, then I support it wholeheartedly.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor. Chair recognizes the citizen at the podium.
[Jeanne Martin]: Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Please state your name and address for the record.
[Jeanne Martin]: Welcome. Jean Martin, 10 Cummings Street, and my blood pressure is going through the roof again. This is unessential spending. First of all, word of mouth. If we have a technical high school that has awesome stuff in it, because we have a building fund that puts money into the building, the word of mouth is going to be, oh, man, Medford High has a great tech school. That's going to be word of mouth. I hire construction people. I hire plumbers and electricians from my house. And word of mouth is the best. Not the ads, not the fancy ads. You talk to people and you say, did you use Mike? How did he go? That's what you do. And when he gets reputation after reputation, then you go with Mike. It's that simple. And so what I'm saying is, with all due respect, we're hiring a spin doctor for our schools. That's what you're doing. You're hiring a spin doctor. And you're going to put a spin, and you're going to try to put a nice package on something. Well, let the package speak for itself. OK? This is an excessive amount of money. And I mean, I pick on other issues, too, in the city of excessive spending. And this is just one position that we do not need and should not be had. by the city. And it has nothing to do with the quality of education. And it's absolutely absurd. So thank you for listening to me. There's very few issues that get my blood up more than ridiculous spending. So let's put a marquee on the theater and not hire this guy. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Chair recognizes Vice President Ludlow-Crank.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I think I'm good. I just wanted to point, I didn't mean to say deficit. The school department's budget was increased by over a million last year. Increased. It was not running a deficit, but I believe it was increased. Yes. 1.2? Yeah.
[Paul Camuso]: Chair recognizes Councilor Camuso. I would just hope that this doesn't have to do with other unions and union leadership that may be bucking up at the school system, whether the secretary's union wants this in association or other unions, because that certainly could be a person of the general... I want to use my wording correctly. A person of the general mind could think that this is the union issue, similar to the Teamsters that we just talked about a few minutes ago. But with that being said, I just want to say if the school committee and the school department I think it's needed, and I support them. They were elected by the citizens of Medford, as were we. Very good, Councilor.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the motion, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I, as one member of the Council, would be interested to see where this particular funding came from the budget that was established in July for the school department. Secondly, we met with the superintendent two doors down. We went over his budget, took us hours, Mr. President. You were president and every member of this council was president. I don't remember one word uttered by the superintendent of schools saying he needed a position of this nature. And that's fine. All of a sudden, six months after the budget, two weeks before the mayor leaves office, they decide to put an $85,000 administrative position on the school side. And I can almost guarantee, and I will guarantee, Mr. President, there will not be a nationwide search. That person will be found very close to this building. That person may even work in this building right now. And I can guarantee you, Mr. President, and I'm not privy to any inside information, but I can guarantee you, Mr. President, what's going to happen. And I think it's a shame. that it's going to go down this way, Mr. President. I really do. I think it's a shame. You know, when we talk about education, it was already mentioned about the lack of supplies in the school system, the fact that our new schools, which are 15 years old, need millions of dollars in repair. And, you know, we have sports teams that can't get uniforms. And here we are creating another administrative position. Yeah, it sounds great, Mr. President. Am I talking too long, Mr. President?
[Fred Dello Russo]: No, I'm agreeing with you.
[Michael Marks]: It sounds great with the position, Mr. President, but, you know, how many times has this council said we'd like to see another code enforcement officer? How many times have we, like, mentioned about putting on — Councilor Pentland mentions all the time about new police cars every year, making sure we have three or four new police cars every year. It never gets looked upon. But all of a sudden, there's a need to place someone — because this administration is leaving — place them in another position. Bango. We found an $85,000 job. Just happens to be what you're making now. We'll just move you over, lateral move. No one will be the wiser. That's a shame, Mr. President. It really is a shame. And, you know, I'd like to know, maybe the school department budget is bloated. If they can find $85,000, $90,000 like that at a whim, maybe it's bloated and maybe this council hasn't done their due diligence and their homework when it comes up for budget review to make sure we scrutinize that budget and make sure there's not hundreds of thousands of dollars left so they can play games with it, Mr. President. That concerns me, Mr. President. You know, we just had a security scare. We had a woman walking around rubbing eight pocketbooks at the McGlynn School. And then the school department came out, and good for them. Now they're going to be passing out ID badges and so forth. And I hope it works. I hope it works. But I don't think we need an $85,000 PR position. I think we need 85,000 security people walking around our buildings, Mr. President, and making sure our kids are safe in those buildings. and not a PR person that's going to sit in an administrative office and do nothing, Mr. President, because that's what's going to happen. The only PR person that school system has had for the last 15 to 20 years has been a great PR person, and it's the superintendent of schools. You can't find a better PR person. You can't find a better PR person. So, you know, it is what it is. It's a shame that government has to work this way. It's everything that I hate about government, Mr. President. And it's a shame, a couple of weeks before this administration is leaving, that he's trying to create all these positions and these golden handshakes before he leaves. Maybe the mayor should create his own business and hire these people to work for him. Maybe the mayor should hire these people, Mr. President, and not put it on the back of the taxpayers in this community. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Joe Viglione]: Thank you, Joseph Villion, 59 Garfield Ave. I want to thank Councilor Marks. Very accurate. That October 30th robbery at the McGlynn School wasn't announced until November 3rd, strangely, two hours after the election. That was very odd. But the police sent out a press release last week about a woman getting on a school bus and sitting down with the students and telling them that her baby had died. Now, how can a school bus driver let someone come on a bus? This is the second incident within a month or a month and a half. So Councilor Marks is right. That $85,000 must go to security because if we're going to have public access TV up at the high school, I certainly don't want a PR person. I want a security team up there. God knows what can happen up that dark alley.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Vice President Lungo-Koehn as amended, all those in favor? Roll call vote has been requested. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. That was the motion for the report. That was the finished motion or the clarified motion of Councilor Penter, actually. Yes Yes Yes with a vote of six in the affirmative one absent the motion embarrasses 15-7 39 offered by councillor Penta beat resolved that Medford residents Henri and Evelyn miller in be awarded a council citation for for the continuing supporting work within the disability community within Medford and with surrounding communities. Their efforts were most recently recognized at the November meeting of ARC, a nationally recognized organization that deals with the intellectual and physical disabilities of those less fortunate. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, Henry and his wife Evelyn have done a tremendous amount of work in this particular area. and it's nice to see them get recognized. These are the type of resolutions that belong before the council. These are the type of acknowledgements of letting our people in the community know that folks such as this are doing this as works of humanity and for community awareness. The ARC community recognizes folks such as Henry, the national, Henry and his wife, because it's just not in the city of Medford. They go to other communities and they work with the intellectual physical disabilities of people that just unfortunately just don't have it. Um, they're very quiet unassuming folks. They don't go out there and beat their chest and say, look at me. They're just wonderful people who live here in the city of Medford. And I just think it's great to give them the acknowledgement that they deserve and for the work that they do.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor. Councilor. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to commend councilor Penta for putting his on it tonight. Um, having a, uh, a person in my own family that's intellectually and physically disabled. I know the work that Henry and his wife have put in in helping these people with these type of problems. And just this weekend, I was able to reach out to Henry for some assistance in helping a veteran over the weekend. And again, I want to thank Henry and his wife for their good work and their continued success of their work.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. On the motion for approval by Councilor Penta, all those in, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, want to thank Councilor Penta for putting this on. I believe it was about six or eight months ago that Henry received another award, a statewide award, in this community for his work with the disability community and his outreach to not only Method, but many other surrounding communities. And he really is a source of pride for every resident in this community. I personally would like to thank him and Evelyn for their work on behalf of all the different segments of the disabled community throughout Method and throughout the state.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very generous people. Councilor Longo-Kurt.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. I want to just echo the comments of my colleagues. a wonderful couple and they do so much for this community and statewide, so I just want to thank them for all their service. It's done from the heart. They don't do it for any other reason, but they're very good people.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. On the motion approved by Councilor Pantra, all those in favour? All those opposed? Motion carries. Motion for suspension of the rules to take papers in the hand of the clerk, uh, offered by council, uh, Mongo Kern. All those in favor. All those opposed. Motion carries. Offered under suspension by Councilor Camuso, be it resolved that the Medford city council commend congratulate and welcome home Jimmy Granara. Jimmy finished off his tour of duty of eight years with the United States Air Force. On the motion for approval by Councilor Caraviello, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. And finally, offered by the entire membership of the Medford City Council, be it resolved that the Medford City Council offer its sincere condolences to the family of Alfonso Alfreza on his recent passing. If I may, from the chair, state that Mr. Fraser died yesterday or early this morning after an accident. Al was the longtime managing editor of the Medford Daily Mercury when it was an engaged, active, and considerate newspaper in the community. He served as a kingmaker in many ways for many of the young local athletes for generations, making sure that they were acknowledged for their athletic achievement and prowess and also for their good sportsmanship. Al finished out his career after years in the newspaper by serving as chief of staff to longtime president of the, I'm sorry, speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, George Kaverian, and also served for several years as a legislative liaison for the Environmental Protection Agency. Al was 89 years old, I think, and was a good man to this community. So if you would all join me in rising for a moment of silence. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Al was the unassuming type of a fellow that, be it politics or sports, he was the guy, he was like the go-to guy to go to here in the city of Medford because in his early days when he worked at the Method Mercury, which happened to be the old Mystic Bakery location, he was an interesting fellow. You could walk into there and you'd talk about sports and you'd talk about your local politics and you would, And you get a pretty good answer. And he was a pretty honest reporter. And he was pretty fair in how he reported. But the best part that I think about Al, he would always talk to you. He always, in his opinion, really meant something. And he was appreciative of the fact that you would take the time and either shake his hand or go to talk to him. You know, he's the type of a staple here in the city of Medford that you don't see very often, you know. And unfortunately, he's no longer with us. But I would hope that his family and friends that did love him and did respect him understand that, you know, it's a part of your life. It's a part of our city. And as Council President Dello Russo alluded to, when he was writing for the Medford Mercury, he was a pretty fair guy, very hard to find in today's journalism. And so with that being said, I think we'll take a moment of silence.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Mr. President. I would be remissed if I didn't say a few words about this gentleman. You know, when I came on the school committee scene back in 1999, I didn't really know Mr. Fresa. But when I met him, he was one of those guys that you pick up the phone, you make sure you go see, like Paul Kavanaugh, Honorable Justice Adam Alden, and just a real, real nice guy. I had the opportunity of getting close with Mr. Fresa through my wife's uncle, Bob Mayorko. And so for the past 10 or 12 years, serving with Uncle Bob here on the city council, I got pretty close with Mr. Frazer to the point where I'd have coffee on Sunday nights once in a while with him and Justice Kavanaugh down at Brigham's. And just a real good guy, you know? But when I got the call this morning, it's one of those things that you just didn't want to believe, you know? because just this past weekend he was out and about, stopping shop, doing his shopping with former President Mayocko and just a really good guy. I'd also like to acknowledge, you know, Bob Mayocko was very, very good. to Mr. Frazer, especially after he couldn't drive anymore and stuff. Just a real gentleman. I mean, you didn't see Al if you didn't see Paul Kavanaugh or Bob Mayorko on his arm. So for that, I'm sure that the Frazer family is very appreciative. Where Al's family, a lot of them were out of town, but he certainly had his Medford family. And I know I'll miss him over at Bob and Cheryl's house on some of the holidays and things of that nature. So may he rest in peace.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I've known Mr. Fraser since I was a child. Mr. Fraser was a very close friend of the Caraviello family for many, many years. And not a day goes by that I, when I see him in Colleen's, I would always stop, have coffee with him, and just listen to the wisdom that he would give to me, myself, and just anyone who was there. Again, same as Ben Everbrook. While he counts, those type of men just aren't there anymore. And he'll surely be missing this community.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The records of the meeting of December 1st, 2015 were passed to Councilor Caraviello. Councilor, have you had a chance to inspect the records? So noted this meeting is held by the motion of council Caraviello in memory of alfresco and also Councilor recommends the approval of the meeting minutes Yes, so on the motion of approval of the minutes all those in favor all those opposed motion for adjourn by vice president Longo current all those in favor All those opposed. Thank you
|
total time: 23.78 minutes total words: 1828  |
total time: 28.11 minutes total words: 1940  |
total time: 17.95 minutes total words: 1072  |
total time: 1.11 minutes total words: 125  |
|
total time: 9.94 minutes total words: 767  |
total time: 10.2 minutes total words: 523  |
total time: 6.07 minutes total words: 242  |
total time: 1.65 minutes total words: 146  |