[Paul Camuso]: The 37th regular meeting of the Medford City Council will be called to order. The clerk will call the roll.
[Clerk]: Vice President Caraviello. Present. Councilor Dello Russo. Present. Councilor Knight. Present. Councilor McCurran. Present. Councilor Marks. Councilor Penta. Present. President Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Seven members present, please rise to salute our flag.
[Robert Penta]: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States
[Paul Camuso]: Chair recognizes Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I'd like to make a motion to suspend the rules. Uh, number the rule number 33 to take paper. If I can find the number of it here. One four dash seven three two.
[Paul Camuso]: 14-732 on the motion to take that paper under rule number 33 being suspended. All those in favor? All those opposed? The ayes have it. Item 14-732. It was the allocation of the property tax fiscal year 2015 in city council, December 9th, 2014. And it was tabled. It is back before the Medford city council. This is the tax rate that was tabled last week. Mr. O'Neill. And there are four separate votes that the city council has to take on this particular matter. And hopefully someone has a motion to sever all the votes than when they are taken. Mr. O'Neill.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Thank you, Mr. President. We are once again appearing before the honorable body tonight for the purpose of holding the, uh, We already held a public hearing to discuss the following items concerning the allocation of the fiscal year 2015 property tax. Number one, to determine the residential factor to be used for fiscal year 2015. 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 a decimal 0.899216 number two to adopt an open space discount. This does not apply in the city of Medford, but a no vote is required. Three to adopt a residential exemption. If it dropped it, 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 liability 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 see an increase in their tax bills. Number four, to adopt a small commercial exemption. If adopted, small commercial properties, housing, and business employing ten or less people and valued at less than a million dollars in value may receive an exemption of up to 10% of their assessed 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 and industrial tax rate, all commercial industrial not receiving the exemption would see an increase in their tax bills. As part of the hearing, it is the duty of the Board of Assessors to notify the council of any excess levy capacity, fiscal year 2015 excess levy capacity. is projected to be $57,657.67, Mr. President.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you very much, Mr. O'Neill. Questions and or motions? Which item? We have four papers before us.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President.
[Paul Camuso]: One paper, four different questions on number one.
[Unidentified]: Shall we take these questions?
[Paul Camuso]: We have to. So on the motion of approval to determine the residential factor to be used for fiscal year 2015. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Camuso. I also have a resolution that I'd like to take in conjunction with setting the tax rate under motions, orders, and resolutions, paper 14-784.
[Paul Camuso]: Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174. Page 174.
[Paul Camuso]: You looking to do the levy? Reducing the tax levy. This is the budget that was passed by four members of this council in June. So there's going to be a million dollars in cuts or the mayor has to submit a certified letter stating that he wants to appropriate a million dollars or your amount under free cash.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I 100% disagree. There has been in 2012, I just want to let the taxpayers know in 2012, $2,475,075 was put into our free cash account from the budget. In 2013, $1.883,685,000 was put into free cash from the budget. 2014, we have $945,322. That's monies that you nor I knew we were voting for at any given June, because almost all of us have been here for the last few years. I, as one Councilor, did not vote back in 2012 to put $2.5 million to overtax the people $2.5 million to be able to increase our free cash account. Now, do I believe in savings? Yes. But $2.5 million in 2012, $1.883 million in 2013, and almost a million dollars in 2014. That is something I did not vote on.
[Paul Camuso]: So I completely disagree with you. Point of information.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. I believe just a couple of weeks ago, we did appropriate $1.2 million in free cash for a community improvement initiative. So I do think that some of this money that came in has been voted on and has been voted to be spent. And it's been spent on equipment, safety issues, and a number of resolutions that this council actually sent forward to the administration. Mr. President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, absolutely. I agree with you. Um, Councilor Knight, 100%. The issue with that is we still have over between six and 8 million in our free cash account. We have millions in our water and sewer retain earning accounts, which I, you know, I believe has to do with overtaxing over overcharging. higher rates. We also have money in our TV3 franchise fee, which we are charging our cable rate payers. We need to give the people a break. And this is something that we obviously cannot vote on each year. But I think this is the year to do it. We have numerous amounts of reserves. The people are hurting. We hear it in e-mails and phone calls all the time. This is something that we can afford to do, considering that we put 2.5 — between a million and 2.5 million into free free cash from the last three budgets.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information, Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Could the assessor or the Ms. Baker explain to us how we find ourselves in this predicament with money left over?
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: So I believe you wanted to know how the free cash is being generated?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes, please.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: As we discussed last week, the bulk of the generation of free cash is coming from excess local receipts that come in over and above what we budgeted. In fiscal 12, the local receipts came in $1,364,000 over what we budgeted. In fiscal 13, they came in $1,592,000, almost $1,006,000 over what we budgeted. And in 2014, they came in $861,000 of what we budgeted. In each of those years, the bulk of the excess money came in as a result of motor vehicle excise payments. We have no knowledge of what is going to come in from motor vehicle excise payments. So we cannot budget more than what we collected in the prior year. Each of those years that came in, excessively higher, much higher than we budgeted. Like in 2013, they came in $700,000 over. I believe the reason for this is that people are leasing new cars. Therefore, their excise payments are much higher than they were. At some point, a lot of people are going to have new cars, and it'll start coming down. Unless they keep releasing newer cars, then it'll stabilize. I think there's a recent blip in that category. We also got a little bit of extra money from Medicaid due to a change in the formula of the federal government allowing us to recoup some capital costs related to the Medicaid program. That, again, is not something that's going to be repeated all the time. It's just happened a couple of times. So many of these things are not recurring events, and they're not something we can budget. And possibly, they will go down. There's no way to predict that. So we've been the beneficiary of some good fortune in the recent years. But it's not necessarily that that's going to increase. We have not historically turned back budget money. Last year, we only turned back $122,000 of budget money. The budgets are being spent. And those are the budget levels are lowest, as far as I know. As far as I think, they're barely adequate to meet the budget needs of the city. If you look around, you can see the staffing in all the offices, including DPW, is very low. So I don't think that the fact that we generated in the last two years this level of surplus, I'm not sure that we can guarantee it's going to continue.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of further information, Mr. President.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of further information, Councilor De La Ruza.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Has there been in recent years ever a time when we haven't generated a budget surplus or surplus due to other incomes to the city?
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: Just it was only a few years ago that we had a free cash deficit. It was only in 2010 we had a free cash deficit of $500,000. So it's not that many years ago that we were in diastrates. It doesn't take much for one year for a receipt to not come in as projected that you fall into hard times. That's why you need to have surpluses, I mean, reserves around.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If I may. That's a long-hold claim. Thank you, President Camuso. If I may, Ian, I agree with you. We do need a surplus, but I don't know, I can't, what the total is. 13 million surplus, I think, is gonna be enough. I mean, I think this would be the year we could give the taxpayer a break.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: But the water and sewer surplus can only be sent to water and sewer problems. You and all the members of the council are certainly aware of all the flooding issues we've had and the problems. There's numerous programs that need to be done in the water sewer area, so the water and sewer surplus is probably barely adequate to meet the needs of what they had. The Water and Sewer Department and the city engineer has been very successful in getting grants on the MWRA to take care of some of our needs. So we haven't had to dip into the water and sewer retainer as much as we thought we might. So I don't know how long those programs will continue either. But the work that needs to be done in the water sewer infrastructure is going to continue. And the level of reserves we have, although seems a lot, we all know what the unfunded liability is in the pension, millions of dollars, and we all know what the unfunded liability is in the OPEB, the post-retirement reserves, which we have not funded at all. We are one of the few, one of the few cities and towns that has not funded anything to an OPEB trust fund for the after retirement benefits.
[Robert Penta]: We're in a clarification. Councilor Penta. And even though we know that, but this administration has been there for 27 years and they haven't put a dime on the table to get into funding that unfunded liability. And as you and I had our conversation and I put a resolution on here, we could stop by putting 500,000 a year out of our free cash. Is it a drop in the bucket? It's a beginning. Well, the thing with the beginning, he hasn't done anything. The administration has done nothing to reduce that fund. You're talking about the OPIP? Yes.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: Yes, we haven't—we haven't funded anything in that, and we've only—only—I would say only in the last two years we've had enough money in free cash that we could consider funding that. But we—but our obligation to the pension liability has increased dramatically. It's now $10 million a year to fund the pension system. And the Prop 2.5 level that was set in 1980 was set at a level that the framers who set it assumed we could meet our obligations before health insurance started escalating exponentially. So trying to meet the obligation of the city, only going up 2.5%, is a difficult task. And I think having this level of free cash, which is low in comparison to many, many places, It's a testament to what we've done as far as trimming the budgets. And each year when the budget gets presented, you know, it's looked at very closely and trying to be kept down at a level that's easy to meet, easier to meet.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn, you have the floor.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Councilor Camuso. Thank you for your explanation, Anne. I mean, what about in our tax receipt recap, motor vehicle excise? under-budgeted that account in June by, or from the results in June, by $600,000, but then we kept it at the same figure for 2015. Are we assuming that?
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: No, we, well, that figure, motor vehicle exercise, is budgeted at exactly what we collected last year. That figure in column A is the actual receipts. And we cannot budget any higher than that unless we can prove to the Department of Revenue that we have a reason to expect that we will collect more than that. Now, the fact that last year we collected more than we budgeted is fortuitous, but not anything we could have predicted. Again, there's nothing we can predict that would show that.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So do you have what we budgeted for last year? I don't have that number.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: No. Well, it was $582,000 less than that. Let me see.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: $5,302,000 last year. And we collected $5,682,000.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: Each year, we only budget what we get.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: But I thought that was under-budgeted by $600,000, then we only increased it by $300,000, so we're still under-estimating.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: What are you saying? When I asked the last committee of the whole meeting— We budgeted exactly what we received.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, but that doesn't make sense compared to the questions I asked last Tuesday, which, you know, I wrote down your answers. You said it was about $600,000 more.
[SPEAKER_12]: We under-budgeted.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: The previous year was 682. In 2014, it was 382 or over.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Either way, I mean, I think I'm well aware we need reserves. And I think reserves obviously are But to the point we're at now, I think we can chip away at this tax rate that we have. I think we can chip away and help the people, whether it's a little bit each year until we get to, you know, to a point. But the average homeowner is going to see an increase of, the average two-family home is going to see an increase of almost $400 for the year. Average three-family, over $500. I mean, it's going to take a toll on people. It's going to take a toll on renters, too. I mean, this, it's just, I'm I'm coming from a place where, you know, I'm not just thinking city budget. You have to think of the people too. You have to think of it all collectively. I'd like, you know, I'd like to get the input of my fellow Councilors, but I think it's, this is the year that we should start doing it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Vice President Caraviello, then Council on Night. Thank you, Mr. President. And I have a question. Okay. Taking. I'm sorry.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Okay. For you, Mr. President, that would reduce it 12 cents on the residential tax rate, bring it down to 45, 68, 31 cents. On the single family? At a million dollars? We bring it down 11.58.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: point of information, the tax levy is going up by over $3 million, so bring it down a third, almost a third.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Knight.
[Paul Camuso]: Go ahead. Point of information. Councilor Lungo-Kerr.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And I think it speaks volumes to where this council's at and where we want to go moving forward. I mean, taxing to the max at the 2.5% when you put in sometimes $2.5 million, which I consider being overtaxed, I mean, you're sending the message to not only the people but also the corner office that, you know, maybe we should look at our budget in June a little bit more closely. think there can be cuts. I think we can still make cuts and add to our police department and our DPW force. I mean, I believe it can be done. It's just a matter of having four people that want to be able to do it.
[Paul Camuso]: There were four members of the council that approved the budget and I was not one of them, so I can't speak to that. Councilor Penta, I'm sorry, Councilor Knight, then Councilor Penta.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I just think back to 2001 and All of us that have been involved in government since that time continuously hear from the Massachusetts Municipal Association about the need to restore local aid funding back to pre-2001 levels. We have a new administration coming in. We have a new governor coming to Beacon Hill. This is the governor who was the chairman of, he was the secretariat of administration and finance, and he was the architect of the nine C cuts that came into place. I think that we really need to be careful. Maybe now isn't the time. We had eight years of the same administration and we knew what to expect. Now we don't. We have a new administration coming in. The administration historically has supported nine C cuts to local aid after a budget's been passed, Mr. President. This makes me nervous, makes me very nervous to reduce the tax, to chip away at our free cash, not have reserves in the bank, and then be later on down the road, see something like this happen at the state level. We might be really put in a precarious position down the road if, in fact, this agenda item goes through.
[Robert Penta]: I see this a little bit different. We had $7.9 million, I believe, in free cash a couple of weeks ago, two or three weeks ago. Then the mayor came in here with his particular pet projects for which the council has never advised or asked on any one of them. Point of information, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: I do believe that the council every week makes recommendations to the mayor as to what projects we'd like to see funded, as to what steps we'd like to see the government move, and as to what direction we'd like to see certain initiatives take.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you, Councilor. Mr. President, I believe that the mayor came in with his pet projects that took money from free cash and reduced it by $1.2 million, and then took another amount of money as it relates to where he would want to go. Anyway, to make a bottom line to the whole thing is, for some reason or other, we've accumulated surpluses in two very large areas that belong to the taxpayers. The first one is in the water and sewer account. The second one in here is in the free cash account. Now, as Ann Baker has alluded to, maybe we've been fortunate over the past few years, whether they be the car excise tax. And I think in our conversations, again, you talked about Medicaid, too. We got some reimbursements back from them for which we didn't expect. So that's helped us out in our issue of having a free cash surplus for whatever it might be. But there is no projects that are pending that are coming here now before the council asking for council input as it relates to whether it be the police station, whether it be putting more police personnel on. And then to flip to all of that, isn't it interesting, during this past budget, the school committee wound up with $2 million more this year than they did last year, and they went out and hired a whole bunch of more new people, for which the council was never asked of anything on the council's side of adding on to this budget, or any things to be included. I'm glad I voted for the budget, because I voted for the budget to get rid of the $800,000 and the water and sewer that, unmercifully, the taxing the ratepayers in this community of. But anyway, sticking to this, I don't see any problem taking the million dollars out, and I'll tell you the reason why. Maybe next year we won't have the opportunity to do it, but there is nothing before me on this table right now that's telling me there is such a major project that needs to be done that we need that surplus, because that surplus has been there over and over. for the past few years. And we've been getting over and over for the past few years. We need to keep it in there to keep our bond rating up. Well, where's our bond rating going at the expense of the ratepayers each and every year getting an increase in their taxes? Now, Councilor Caraviello, you just asked a question on that single-family house. It's $48 you would save, correct? And at the present tax rate, he'd be paying over what? $150 some odd. And for a two-family house, Ed, and a three-family house. Figure that out and see how much they'd get. It may not be much, but at least you're telling the taxpayers of this community for once, after 27 years, they're not getting a tax rate increase. We have the money. We're not taking all the money. We have the money.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information, Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Through the Chair, to Madam Baker or Mr. O'Neill, did tax increases begin historically in Medford only 27 years ago, or were they something that one could assume would happen every year in years previous to 27 years ago.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: Well, well, I've been working in municipal government for about 30 years in different cities and towns, and I've never seen a tax rate go down.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you, Mr. President. With all due respect, Anna, I've seen it in the city of, I've seen it in the city of Somerville. I've seen it in the city of Everett through the years. Tax rates have either gone down or been stabilized. But that's not the issue. You know, the fact of the matter, we've had a plentiful amount of new development here in the city of Medford through the years, a plentiful amount of development. And we were told when stations landing came in, that was going to be the panacea of new tax growth in this community. which would set the base. It's gone up and up and up. And since then, we've had four major developments of housing in this community, whether it be at Wellington Circle, whether it be on the Mystic Valley Parkway, whether the new one that's being proposed opposite the train station, or whether the new one down the street at the end of station, not stations landing opposite where the Tufts Boathouse is. But that's not the point. The fact of the matter is, we're not taking the last penny in the free cash account. If what Councilor Lungo-Koehn is alluding to, averaging out the last three years to take out a million dollars or 899,000, whatever it might be, it still leaves you with a balance in excess of $6 million.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: I just want to say one thing relative to the permits and the growth in the city. Each year when we do local receipts, permits is a component of local receipts. And each year when we look at what we've taken in the previous year, if we have seen a big project on the horizon, we have increased the permit the permits expected in those years. And generally, so the permit fees have contributed to reducing the tax rate, because we've always taken those into consideration to the extent that we know them. And generally, those large projects have many years in the planning. So we do have an idea when those things are coming in. And they have been incorporated into the tax rate. So you have seen the results of those permit fees.
[Robert Penta]: But the higher assessments that Mr. O'Neill's proposing comes up to $3,805,800,926. And in this year, in the budget, you have a new capital growth expansion of $999,941. That means the budget from last year to this year is expected in growth to increase by $4,805,867. And all the council is alluding to is if you knock off a million of that money by taking it out of your free cash and giving the homeowners a break. That's all. We're not saying take the whole thing out, but there is money there to give these people a break. You're getting new growth in revenue and you're getting new growth and business and you're having two more new buildings come on next year and that'll be more new taxes. So, To say that, you know, we tax each and every year is symptomatic. Well, if it's symptomatic, you know, we're all going to die someday, and that's symptomatic, too. But government can do something to help people rather than abuse them by saying, give me more money, give me more money, give me more money. And the only way you can give them more money is tax them to death.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: I really take exception to the term of abusing them. I think the city, the administration is trying to run the city and create a a lifestyle in the city of Medford and a lifestyle that's a pleasant place to live. And I think the tax rate is a reasonable tax rate in aligned with all the other communities around us. It's very low in comparison. And I just, I just would not like to hear that word that we're abusing taxpayers.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Marks and then Councilor Caraviello, Vice President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank my Councilor colleague Councilor Lungo-Koehn for bringing this up tonight. You know, we hear the terminology, especially in this particular tax season, that we hear the words free cash all the time. And I've had so many people stop me and say, where does the city get free cash? How does that work? And, you know, when I explain to them that it's nothing more than the taxpayer's money, You know, all of a sudden, a light bulb goes off in their head, and they say, well, why isn't this coming back to me? If you have free cash laying around, why doesn't this filter back to the taxpayers? And the same can be said with free cash, as we're talking about tonight. The surplus in the water and sewer enterprise account, we all realize you need a rainy day fund to pay for projects. For instance, the big rainstorm, many residents were impacted with the flooding. But to have excessive amounts of $6, $7, $8 million, in my opinion, and I think you're hearing it from some of the councilors, is about time that we finally go back to the taxpayer and say, you know what? It's time for an early Christmas gift this year. And it may seem like a small thing to save $45 for a single family or whatever it may be. But I think it speaks volumes to how this administration and how the city feels about the taxpayers. And at some point, we're going to be looking at having reserves that you're not going to be able to explain why they're so large. And I know you're going to disagree with that. But we've seen an escalation since the new water meters of reserves that build up from deficits to now multi-million dollars in surpluses in the water and sewer account, which is great. But at what point do we stop building those reserves? And the way I see it is, you know, the city shouldn't have their hand in the taxpayer's pocket constantly. And yes, we should provide ample services to the residents. And yes, we want to have a city that's moving forward, but to what extent? And I think that's the question that I have. And we never hear any talk about new growth. We never hear any talk about the revitalization of Method Square, which I may add has been under works by this administration for the past 25 years. The plan needs to be dusted off. We have three parcels of land in the downtown business district that's owned by the city of Medford. I don't know many other communities that can brag about that, but we have that in our community. And we're not taking advantage of these particular pieces of property that are being underutilized and can bring additional taxes in, and not from the beleaguered rate payer that's currently paying the bill right now. You know, we talked about surplus water and sewer. We talked about free cash, cable franchise fees. We haven't had a community cable access station in almost two years, but we're all paying a franchise fee right now. The mayor has hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting in an account with the earmark to provide local community access, and it's not currently being used. Does every franchise payer out there that's paying their franchise fee on their cable bill, whether you have Verizon or Comcast, do they deserve a break from this fee that's not being used for its purpose? I believe so. So I would support this tonight. I think the million dollars will leave the surplus well primed to pay for anything that comes up, any emergencies or anything that needs to be done. And I think it sends a message to the taxpayers of this community that, yes, if there are surpluses, you too will benefit in the surplus. And after all, it's your money. I will support this tonight, and I thank my colleague for bringing it up. Thank you, Councilor.
[Paul Camuso]: One question for, and this is to move the conversation forward. Councilor Lungo-Koehn has an amendment to the original paper here. If the million dollar request is approved, where is the million dollars going to come to fund the budget that's currently in place? That would be certified free cash if the mayor submitted it, or would it be cuts?
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: I'm not sure I followed your question. Can you say it again?
[Paul Camuso]: If Councilor Lungo-Koehn's motion is approved to cut the levy by $1 million, where will that be made up from? It'll just come out of free cash. But that would have to be submitted by the mayor requesting us to take the free cash.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: This is just a request that would go to the council. I'm not sure what the procedure would be for the mayor to... Well, maybe the question should be for the city solicitor then.
[Paul Camuso]: The request before us would basically be to cut the levy by $1 million and ask the mayor to submit a paper back to the council for certified free cash for that amount. Is that correct?
[Mark Rumley]: The mayor's input, actually this would normally, this type of thing would normally originate with the mayor. Exactly. That's my question. So which makes this a little bit different. Also, I'm trying to follow this, just watching it. This is what you're talking about the tax rate right now. I mean, the levy.
[Paul Camuso]: That's going to get voted on after the main paper. But if it goes through, the only way to fund that million dollars would be through either cuts or certified free cash.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Point of clarification. That could be your opinion of what has to happen. Most likely, this budget is going to have another million dollars in free cash, as it's shown the last four years. So there wouldn't necessarily be cuts. We just might not be adding to the free cash account for this year. That is big. I mean, I've tried to say we shouldn't tax to the max for the last six years, wringing my head every June and December. When it comes December, they tell me I have to do it in June. I finally, you know, we finally figured it out, how much money is going into free cash, that we're overtaxing the taxpayers. So most likely, we have at least a million dollars from this budget that's going to go into free cash. So basically, we're not going to be putting, I mean, if things have gone, or more than a million, so if things are going the way they've gone the last five, six, seven years, We're just not going to be adding as much to free cash.
[Paul Camuso]: We're sending the message. What happens if it's 2010, though, when we were negative $500,000? It's not going to be like 2010 with Director Burke. Well, with all due respect, we have a new governor that they're looking at 9C cuts right now. Point of clarification. Point of clarification. I'm sorry. Let me turn you on. And then, Councilor.
[Robert Penta]: On that 2010, Mr. President, it was $544,000. We're sitting on $7,594,000. So there's a huge difference, even even if you did go into the negative field next year. We're talking about this year. You've got $7,594,000. That's a lot of money. And we're only talking about taking a million out. Thank you, Councilor.
[Richard Caraviello]: Vice President Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President. Now, we voted on earlier this year to cut the tax rate $600,000 for the water, correct? The water and sewer rate. For the water and sewer?
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: Yeah, you cut the water and sewer rate.
[Richard Caraviello]: We cut the water and sewer rate, $600,000 or so. Where did that money come from? have we decided where that money has come from yet?
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: Well, you actually cut the budget. Yeah. And when you cut the budget, the effect of that was to cut the potential rate because you cut the budget.
[Richard Caraviello]: So we've already cut our budget $600,000 this year.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: This would not be a budget point of clarification.
[Robert Penta]: It might seem that way, but the Water and Sewer Commission just came out with their new rate structure, which is picking up during the course of the year, the difference for which this council voted for it, which is $800,000. It was $800,000.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Caraviello, Vice President Caraviello was correct. The budget that was approved was not the mayor's original number.
[Richard Caraviello]: We voted to cut the budget $600,000 in June, or whatever we voted for. A few weeks ago, you made a suggestion that we put $500,000, which I supported, into the unfunded liabilities. There's a million three already.
[SPEAKER_05]: That's up to the mayor.
[Richard Caraviello]: We have an underfunded liability in the city of a large amount of money. Again, like I said, the free cash is not always going to be there.
[Paul Camuso]: Well, we're all asking for a police station too, which is on the horizon, hopefully.
[Richard Caraviello]: A police station is a major priority in this community.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of clarification, Councilor.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: A point of information on that. If we can be guaranteed that savings is going to go towards a new police station. We didn't say that. Yeah, but that's not going to happen. He said it's going to be at least seven years, probably until we stop planning, another 15 years before we get a police station under that watch.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: That's only provided that the gentleman's there for another 15 or seven years. And I think every two years, everybody has the opportunity to, if they see fit, seek one of our office. And if they feel as though the city's going the proper course, or an improper course, they have every right to do that. You know what I mean? But I think right now, the issue before us is whether or not it's a good idea for us to reduce the tax levy by a million dollars.
[Richard Caraviello]: That's the real issue that's before us. We have a new governor coming in who has already said he's looking for cuts.
[Adam Knight]: Point of information, Councilor Knight. I believe the new governor just recently in the press has also discussed the idea of requiring municipalities to establish rainy day funds in order for them to maintain strong financial footing.
[Richard Caraviello]: Vice President Caraviello. Unfortunately, Mr. President, our city is becoming a popular city and popularity costs money. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_15]: Councilor Penta. What does that mean? Huh?
[Robert Penta]: What does popularity mean? I don't know. There's a motion for approval on the floor. As you're referring to an administration. It's a very hard community. I mean, real estate wise, real estate wise. And well, we, you know, we just got through talking about the state legislature passing a budget and they passed the budget knowing there was a $325 million deficit in the budget. Well, that to me doesn't make them look like they're very, They have a lot of brains up there to figure out that they have a $325 million budget. Rep Donato's doing a fine job in my eyes. We're not talking about Representative Donato. We're talking about the state legislature.
[Paul Camuso]: That's Rep Donato and his colleagues.
[Robert Penta]: Oh, okay. That's in your opinion. Bottom line is this.
[Paul Camuso]: Can't have your cake and eat it.
[Robert Penta]: I don't see a cake on the table here do you? Next week. Next week. Good. Bring it in. The bottom line to the whole thing is if you're astute as to what you're doing here and your local government and making sure that you're taking care of the taxpayers the best you can, Is this a borderline issue for you? Maybe it is. For me, it isn't. Because right now I feel comfortable in saying yes to getting rid of a million dollars because we're not down to the ground zero. We're not at 1 million, 2 million, 3 million, 4 million, 5 million. We're at $6.2 million left. And with that being said, I've got no problem with it. And I don't think any taxpayer out there would have a problem with it either because there's nothing. before this podium, before this council, of a great magnitude that needs this money to be spent, other than the unfunded liability for the pensions and the OPED. And we haven't seen anything from the mayor, and that's been at his desks since September.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Penta, I disagree with you. I mean, I see tons of projects in the city. Well, where are they in front of us? You met on one tonight. Our school department, our school repairs,
[Robert Penta]: It was you, Councilor Caraviello, on your first term. It was in the beginning of your second year of your first term, you produced a paper that said the school department was $1,200,000 in debt, and they haven't done anything to correct it. But they just hired $2 million.
[Richard Caraviello]: And I still advocate having these schools fixed. Imagine if this city was paying the taxes on those schools. We were fortunate that through the funding of the government, The citizens of the city paid a minimal rate for $100 million with the schools.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Knight. Thank you, Vice President.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I think it's apparent by the debate and dialogue that there are many options that we as a council and we as a city have for the utilization of the so-called certified free cash. However, if we don't have any certified free cash, then we can't do anything. So I think that those reserves are very important to the fiscal stability of the city of Medford. I think that those reserves are something that we need to build up. We don't need to move away from them. I think we need to be ahead of the curve. I think that that's something that we can all agree on. We need to be ahead of the curve. And we have a lot of uncertainty coming up in the next four years. We have a new administration coming in that historically has supported making cuts to local government, Mr. President. And for that reason and that reason alone, I'm voting against this resolution.
[Paul Camuso]: All right. There's a motion for the first question before us. is to determine the residential factor to be used for fiscal year 2015 by selecting the minimum residential factor, which the council has historically chosen this before us. If this is, once again, the council's choice, the minimum residential factor is 0.899216 on the motion of Councilor Dello Russo for approval. The clerk will call the roll. He has a different paper that's going to come up. Your paper is item 14-784. Councilor, we'll run this meeting.
[Robert Penta]: Can you call the roll, please?
[Paul Camuso]: There's been a ruling of the chair requested. The clerk will call the roll on the ruling of the chair.
[SPEAKER_05]: The ruling of the chair is being doubted. An amendment always precedes the main motion.
[Paul Camuso]: Let me turn this on so the people at home can see your behavior. I think you should hear it. The amendment precedes the main motion, Mr. President. Thank you. Know your rules of order. Thank you, councillor. Clerk will call the roll on the paper. It's been before us for a week. It's not, uh, it's not, it's not, section 22 is not available. The clerk will call the roll on this. Vice President Caraviello, before the motion is called.
[Richard Caraviello]: Before we call, maybe could we have an interpretation from the city solicitor before we put some guidance on the city solicitor before we move on with this?
[Mark Rumley]: First of all, parliamentary matters are ruled on by the chair and it's part of parliamentary procedure to have the chair challenged. So that's not a legal question. The second issue, and I'm kind of just speculating here on what's going on, but the second thing is, As to section 22, section 22 applies whenever an ordinance, order, or resolution can take all of its readings in one sitting or one night. And it's kind of a safety valve to stop something from being buffaloed through. But as I understand this paper, although I wasn't here, it was before the council last week and tabled at that time. So section 22 can only be invoked once. And it has been, as I understand it. Uh, but the chair rules on that. You've challenged the chair. So there's a, there's a process for that. Yup.
[Paul Camuso]: So on the challenge of the chair, we have a gentleman that would like to speak on this. Name and address for the record, sir.
[Robert Cappucci]: Robert Capucci at 71 Evans street. Uh, thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. City Councilors, a few things that came up tonight I have to speak about. Just I'll try to be as brief as possible. Ms. Baker, who spoke and didn't, liked the term abuse used by Councilor Penta. Those of us that are living in providing you with all these excess funds, Massachusetts is seventh on the list of most moved out of states. We are highest per capita out of any other state in the nation as the highest tax state. Through the chair to Councilor Knight, he wants to talk about a new administration coming in with historic cuts. This is the first time Charlie Baker will be governor of Massachusetts.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. I referred to Mr. Baker in his role as Secretary of the Executive Office of Administration and Finance, at which time the administration underneath Governor Romney, I believe, made unprecedented cuts under section 9c of the general laws, allowing them to cut local aid after the state budget has been passed, which left cities and towns in a very, very precarious position because they had already budgeted based upon figures that were provided to them. And that's why I'm a little concerned about the uncertainty of what his ideology will be, coupled with the fact that he publicly came out and supported the idea of local municipalities establishing rainy day funds, and this possibly being a requirement, would lead me to believe that this is something that he's going to keep his eyes on, Mr. President.
[Robert Cappucci]: Okay, two points, Councilor Penta, excuse me, Councilor Camuso to Councilor Knight through the chair. We've just had eight years of the Patrick administration who has already cut aid to cities and towns. this city was still able to create the $7 million surplus under that. Governor Patrick has repeatedly blamed the federal government for his having to cut aid to cities and towns. Another point I would like to make is, what was the other part of what you said?
[Adam Knight]: recently in the press, he's come out and spoke about the need for a rainy day fund in municipalities.
[Robert Cappucci]: The citizens of Medford who are paying these taxes, we'd like to have some rainy day funds in our pockets. And if taking a million dollars out of a $7 million surplus is going to allow, I mean, I don't see the city of Medford having bake sales. I don't see the city of Medford manufacturing products and selling them to the market. Government doesn't make any money at all until it levies a tax on the citizens. We want to make Medford an attractive and popular town. We do that by cutting tax rates. I don't think there should be a property tax increase on the residential properties or the commercial properties. We gotta make Medford attractive because Somerville has taken off ahead of us. And as far as alluding to those four votes, that come up, this city's constantly being told, next time for the police station, next time for the dark park. Well, next time is now, and we do have city elections coming up next year, and I hope everybody within the sound of my voice hears it, because we need that fourth vote here on the council, or we need a new administration in the corner office. Thank you very much.
[Paul Camuso]: Name and address for the record.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: Good evening, Anthony D'Antonio, excuse me, Yale Street. You know, it happens every year. The budget comes out, we all argue over the numbers, rightfully so. The problem exists at the conception of the budget, which, having moved back here to Medford several years back and watched how it operates, I'm disgusted with how this budget gets put together. You can say and defend everybody and anybody you want, but that nobody's worrying about the person who's on a fixed income right now, who's probably at home sweating, saying, am I going to be able to buy prescription drugs after this tax increase goes through? They're making $1,100 a month. Figure that and having a household that they own. You have to put yourselves in their shoes. A lot of times, elected officials, you're not affected by the laws that you create, by the rules, by the budgets, because you get that. You can handle it. You've got that money coming in. And I don't mean that in a derogatory manner. I'm saying that people do not have it now. Electric rates are going up. Water rates are going up. Everything's going up. Big deal. The fuel and everything is going down right now. Just wait. Watch what happens after. It's not going to be last forever, but you've got to stop working for the administration and work for the people. When you say you do it, do it. I mean, the majority of the council does not work for the people in the city of Medford. And I'm disappointed in that because it affects everybody. It affects people that want to come here. And we're just, you're not looking at the total picture. And as far as the new administration coming in, it's time that we have a change in it. It's time that we get somebody that maybe has to say, It's time for you cities and towns to take on some of this fiscal responsibility. This is insanity. You can't keep putting your hand in my pocket, in my neighbor's pocket, and everybody else in the city of Medford. You gotta do it at the onset, where it counts. And if you tell me you can't find room to cut the budget and make it a better city, then you're not doing your job because it's there, all right? Maybe they ought to start reading a book on it.
[Joe Viglione]: Good evening, Joe Villione, 59 Garfield Ave., Medford, Mass. You know, when my car drives down Garfield Ave., and it goes in a pothole after pothole after pothole after National Grid cut the street up, Mrs. Baker, all due respect, my car feels abused, and yet this City Council, four members, got themselves a raise.
[Paul Camuso]: Now, if you're going to take our money... The raise is for all members of the council. Seven members of this council. Four members voted for it. The entire council voted for the raise. Check the record. It's absolutely true, councillor. We will take... We'll give you the minutes. Go ahead, sir. You have the floor.
[Joe Viglione]: Well, you know, again, you're calling me incorrect when I was here. And maybe, maybe, maybe I'm dumb.
[Paul Camuso]: We'll provide you with a copy of the minutes.
[Joe Viglione]: I was here, I heard the vote, and three people voted against, and four people voted for. Now, the mayor got a raise, so you people, you know, Paul, you get $82,000 at the sheriff's office, that's public record, and then you get about another 30, 32 here. That's a lot of money. That's correct. And the citizens deserve a break, Paul, you know, because this is our money, and it's very, very hard. It's very, very hard for people to put that money out there and want to go to the city council or to public access to have free speech and be interrupted all the time. Now, you know, I was at a press conference last week and I'm paying for this. You're paying for this. I'm talking to Comcast. Who interrupts me? The mayor shuts me off. I thought it was America, not Havana. I thought we had free speech rights. I'm talking to the cable TV provider that I paid what over 10 grand to. And I can't speak because the mayor beelines it for the podium. Oh, we're going to talk about access next week because I have a new station coming in. There'll be a press conference. Well, where's the press conference we're paying for? This is a city budget. The mayor works for us, not himself. You people work for us. And this council has to be proactive because that fellow, as nice a guy as he is outside of City Hall, and I like Mayor McGlynn outside of City Hall. I really do. I'm taping the lighting of the Christmas tree years ago, and the mayor's smiling. Nice man. But is he a leader? No. No, he's self-serving. This budget is very important. I don't know why there aren't 30,000 people banging on this door. They're afraid. I've talked to people around town. They say, Joe, they just think it's a lost cause. You can't fight City Hall. You can fight City Hall because we own City Hall. It's our money. You people have our money, and I thank the three and a half councilors here that do the right thing, and I hope that half a councilor falls on the right side of the fence this time.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: All right. Councilor Lococo. Thank you. Last comment. Thank you, President Camuso. I just bluntly feel that maybe one councilor might be on the fence, and I just wanted to make a statement. We're letting the administration know that, you know, What they're doing in creating a surplus is a good thing. What Director Burke is doing is a great thing. But we're saying this tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, spend, save, save, save has to be balanced out a little bit. We can always change it next year. We can always, hopefully this maintains and we have a surplus on top of this amount in free cash this year. But we always have a vote in June and a vote next December that will all be us. January will be the change. This year, we're sending a message. You know, Councilor Pence talked about it a couple weeks ago. School Department, from what I understand, created a job for 90,000. Administrators are getting large raises. This has been happening, you know, I know of them years past, still happening. Let's tighten our belts. Let's start here. I've been trying to do this for five or six years now. Let's start here. This is the way to do it, considering how much is being put into free cash each year since 2010. And believe me, Director Burke did it since she started. It's going to happen again. Do it how you run your household. You make money, you spend money, you save money. You don't tax the people from every different angle that you can to the maximum every single year. And the speakers are right. People need a break. And we're going to hear it in January, February when the calls start coming in and the emails start coming in. I'm moving out of MedFed because I can't afford this. This $200, $300 increase, I can't afford it. Or the commercial properties. Why are you killing us? We're trying to run a business. Let's send a message tonight.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Councilor Lungo-Koehn. All right. And for the record, for the gentleman that was just at the podium, paper 14-098, There was a motion by Councilor Marks on a roll call vote of three in the affirmative and four in the negative. The amendments failed. And then on the final motion regarding the increase to pay for the department heads and the city council was included. It was upon the motion by President Calamuso from the floor that all three readings be waived and to be ordained on a roll call vote of seven in the affirmative. That's all members of this council and zero in the negative. And it was ordained.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. The reason why that that was ordained because everyone else was mixed into that vote. The council had a separate vote. You just read it. You just read it. You voted for the whole paper. You read it for the whole paper because other people in the city were waiting for those raises. You were the first one at the bank.
[Paul Camuso]: All right. The city auditor.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: I just want to say one thing. My motivation, my mission here is to just see that a tax rate gets passed. I just want to say one thing. The tax rate has to be passed here before then it goes to the Department of Revenue to be approved there, before it can come back to the city to start the process of getting tax bills in the mail. If we don't get tax bills in the mail by January 1st, to be due on February 1st, we will not have tax bills due on February 1st, they won't be due until May 1st, and the cash flow in the city will be disrupted. I just implore you to finish the process, whatever process you want to pursue, to finalize a rate so we can get it to the Department of Revenue and get a tax rate approved to get the bills in the mail, because otherwise the cash flow will be a problem. That's the only thing I want to say.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: I have a question for Mr. O'Neill. If, in fact, the levy limit set at the 2.5% increase from last year, And we're going to reduce the tax levy just by a monetary amount. But that wouldn't necessarily reduce the tax levy, correct, for next year? An excess levy or an excess levy limit?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Through you, Mr. President, that would be actually, there's a line on the recap on page two at the bottom. It says 3D. Other revenue sources appropriated specifically to reduce the tax rate are free cash appropriated on June 30th and on or before July 1st of 2014. So that figure would go into that spot on the recap sheet. So the levy would stay the same.
[Adam Knight]: And then next year, if in fact we didn't do the $1 million reduction and the tax levy limit went up another 2.5%, we'd see the recuperation of that million dollars that was cut as well as another 2.5% increase if in fact that was adopted. That's correct.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Right.
[Adam Knight]: Right.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: You don't, you don't, you don't lose that. It's on the handout from last Tuesday, page two of the levy limit. If you care to go over that, um, Councilor halfway down, you take fiscal year 2014 on the far right, just about halfway down the levy limit. Add the 2.5%, which is 2.3 million, plus the new growth, which has just been approved at 999,941, gives you a levy limit of 96504, which is the starting point for next year. You're not taking it off the levy limit. You're not taking it off the levy, so next. Appropriation on page two on the recap.
[Adam Knight]: So next year, when the tax rates set, that figure at $96 million or five is still the levy limit plus the 2.5%. The levy limit doesn't go down to $95 million.
[SPEAKER_05]: The levy limit stays at $96 million.
[Adam Knight]: No, it comes off the money collected for the 2.5%.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: It just reduced the levy. It reduced the tax levy on the recap.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Essentially does the same thing.
[Adam Knight]: But the percentage stays the same, correct? I mean, it wouldn't change the tax levy from 2.5% to whatever the factor would be, minus the million. The levy stays at the 2.5% exclusion, right?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: No, you don't have that option to earmark 1.5. No. You do it essentially getting to that same point by appropriating money and inserting it in page 2 in the recap, reducing the levy on page 1 at the top of the recap.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: So the excess capacity, instead of being $57,000, would be $1,057,000.
[Adam Knight]: But next year, when you open the tax levy, it's going to include that million that was just cut plus the additional 2.5% on top of the 96 million.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: You don't lose that million.
[Adam Knight]: So it's safe to say that if, in fact, there's no reduction in the levy limit next year, that people see an increase of this million dollars that we're pushing, that we're not going to be spending Right, but it still stays in the levy limit for next year for when they collect.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: Again, the tax rate is a function of trying to meet the budget. It all goes back to the budget. We're not trying to raise it to the max. We're just trying to fund the budget in the fairest way we can come up with.
[Adam Knight]: Right, but what I'm saying is the levy limit right now as proposed would be $96.5 million, right?
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: plus two and a half percent.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: So that would be- That's the levy limit, right. If you look on the recap page one, it's 96, 446, 667.33. Page one on the recap, it's page 11 in the handout from last week. I missed it something here? Page one is this. Oh, sheet 11, okay. Sheet 11, page one at the top, third line down the right.
[Unidentified]: Okay, yeah, that's right.
[Robert Penta]: President, I make a motion to sever the motion to allow Councilor Lengelkorn's motion to prevail.
[Paul Camuso]: All right. On the motion of Councilor Lengelkorn, do you have a dollar amount? $1 million, I think. No, you said $980,000. And did you calculate what the minimum residential factor is going to be if indeed this passes? So when we get to that vote?
[Robert Penta]: No, that will stay the same. That will stay the same.
[Paul Camuso]: That will stay the same. No, it won't. That will change as well if we- No, it stays the same. It stays the same. It stays the same. All right.
[Richard Caraviello]: On that motion- Mr. President, so I may make sure I understand this. So the residential tax exemption stays the same, correct?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: This is a- This- This is for question- Councilman Kern's motion.
[Paul Camuso]: This is similar to the paper she has later in the meeting.
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay. So at this particular moment, we're voting on question one.
[Paul Camuso]: We're going to vote on Council Lungo's motion. A motion to reduce the tax levy. Do you want to, Council Lungo-Koehn? Explain it. Can we make a motion to table it, take your other paper, and then whatever the results of your other paper is.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: My other paper will be moved. We're reducing the tax levy just like Auditor Baker mentioned, so we were not taxing to the max. We had 57,000 we were told last week that we didn't tax up to. Now we're going to be, whether that's a million or 945,000, plus the 57,000, we will not be taxing. What's the number, the ultimate number at the end? 322 is last year's dollar amount that was put into free cash, which is the lowest of the last four years. Yes.
[Clerk]: Correct. When we do that, what will the tax rate go down to from $11.7 million to what?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: For you, Mr. President, I did not prepare a 945 scenario. I prepared the 1 million. And the 1 million would drop the tax rate, residential 12 cents, and the commercial 24 cents. It almost doubled it.
[Richard Caraviello]: It would drop down to 11?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: 11.58, and the commercial would go down to?
[Richard Caraviello]: 22.53. Somebody fall down in the hallway, or are they just sitting there?
[Robert Penta]: Move the question.
[Paul Camuso]: On the question where this is a money paper, this will be a roll call vote. Clerk will call the roll.
[Richard Caraviello]: Could you re-read the motion please?
[Clerk]: It's basically the paper 14-784 council, correct?
[Paul Camuso]: $1,000,000 and insert the other number.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: It's not an average of the last three years. If we average the last three years, it would be much higher. But for Councilor Caraviello to... We just got these numbers on Friday, so when I wrote this, I wasn't aware of the free cash figures.
[Paul Camuso]: Vice President Carabello. One second, please. Vice President. One second, please. Oh, I couldn't hear you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: No.
[Clerk]: Councilor Ntuker.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Martins. Yes. Councilor Paterson. Yes. No, three in the affirmative, four in the negative, the motion fails. The next paper before us is on a motion of approval by Councilor Dello Russo to accept the minimum residential factor of 0.899216. The council has traditionally voted yes on this. Roll call vote, Mr. Clerk.
[Clerk]: Mr. President, can I be offered? Yes. Councilor Dello Russo? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Lungo-Koehn?
[Paul Camuso]: Hold on one second. Councilor Lungo-Koehn, is that you? And this is to, for the residential factor. To accept the minimum residential factor.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Neill. Yes. Councilor Franklin.
[Robert Penta]: Yes.
[Clerk]: President Wilson.
[Paul Camuso]: Yes, by a vote of seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the paper passes. Item number two, to adopt an open space discount. The City of Medford has traditionally voted no on this, but it does not apply in the City of Medford, according to the paper before us. On the motion, the clerk will call the roll.
[Clerk]: No.
[Paul Camuso]: No.
[Clerk]: No. Mr. President, before the roll is called.
[Robert Penta]: You gave us, Mr. O'Neill, you gave us some examples of what the rate would be. I did some research as it relates to our sister city of Somerville, which is up to 35%, and I guess my question to you is this. If in fact the city decides to vote this either yes or no, is this one of, is this, one of the four things we're going to vote on that could be changed at any time during the forthcoming year? In other words, this has to be adopted now, yes or no? Or could this number three be put on hold?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Three, Mr. President, it should be voted on tonight. So if it's voted on tonight? What Somerville did was a home rule petition to exceed that amount. And that seems to be now, I think there were a couple of communities that I think initiated that early in the tax rate process. Um, the law allows up to 20%. They go at 30, I believe Cambridge and Boston have 30 as well.
[Robert Penta]: No, they're up to 35. They would have proved up to 35%.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: They're the first one to go to 35. Correct. Right.
[Robert Penta]: The question is this, if the council votes, however, they vote a number three, which is this one coming up. And this one says up to an extension of 20%. If the council were to vote to change that, strike that vote to accept the exemption, and change the number, 5, 10, 15, 20, 20%, whatever it might be. When does that become effective on the tax base rate? Would that be after July 1st of 2015, or would it be January 1st of 2016?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Well, the council can only vote currently in the statute up to 20%. It would have to be a home rule to exceed that amount. So you can't exceed 20%. So let's just say we do the 20%. The scenarios that I prepared as they always do, is 20, 15, and 10%.
[Robert Penta]: No, you're not answering the question. If the council votes to do this after this vote tonight, at some point in time between January and June of this 2015, when does this become operative? July 1st or January 1st of 2016?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Oh, apparently January 1st tax bill, right.
[Robert Penta]: No, you're still not missing.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: You're still missing. No, right now, fiscal 15. No. Correct.
[Robert Penta]: We're not voting for this right now. We're not voting for an exemption right now. Let's just say we discussed this and in either March or April, the council decides they're going to impose the residential exemption. When does that become operative in the budget for the purposes of the budget or the tax rate? Is it July 1st or January 1st, 2016?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Councilor Panto, the vote is taken in December for the current fiscal year. It can't be voted on in April. The home rule petition could be filed then.
[Robert Penta]: You're not listening.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: The option is you vote it tonight or you vote it next December. Unless you change to exceed the 20% with the home rule petition.
[Robert Penta]: You just got through saying without a home rule petition, you can go up to 20%.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Correct. The current statute allows up to 20%. Now that you voted tonight, we'll kick in a January.
[Robert Penta]: But what happens if we decide we want to vote on this in April or May? What do we need? We need a home rule petition or can we just vote on it?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: No, you can't vote on it then. You can only propose a home rule.
[Adam Knight]: If I understand the dialogue, Mr. President, I think, um, what the assessor is trying to indicate is that the tax levy is set every year. And when this tax rate and tax levy is set, that's when the exemption is taken into consideration. If this happens semi-annually, this is something that DSS is not going to take up until the next tax cycle?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: That's correct. We can't. It's tonight. It's annual.