[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.
[SPEAKER_14]: 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.
[SPEAKER_14]: The council had a separate vote. You just read it.
[Robert Penta]: You just read it.
[SPEAKER_14]: 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.
[Adam Knight]: So if, in fact, the residential exemption wasn't wasn't passed this evening, and the council wanted to implement a residential tax exemption six months down the road, and we voted for it, that wouldn't take effect until the next time that you're before us to set the levy.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Correct. Correct. And the tax classification hearing, it's the only time you can do that, correct? And that's past. Once again, not May. Three questions ago. The council can take it up then and propose the home rule petition and exceed the 20%. Fourth time. Councilor Panto, we do it every year at this time. No, wait a minute.
[Robert Penta]: Fourth time. Let me ask you this.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: The answer's not changing. It has not changed. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Well, maybe you're not answering the question correctly. If you pass it right now, if you pass the question right now, yes or no, and the council decides in April or May they want to go to the exemption of 20%, which doesn't become operative, as you say, until January of the following year, correct? Do you still need a home rule petition for that or not?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: The only vote is right now at the tax classification hearing.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: You only need a home rule petition if you're going over 20%.
[Robert Penta]: Then let me ask you this. If you wait until next year at this time when the council votes up to 20% for a tax exemption, how are you going to have that figured out on this night? Wouldn't you have to discuss this ahead of time and give us an example of what the breakdown would be and what the cost is going to be by taxes? I mean, it would be kind of stupid to come here on a night like tonight and all of a sudden vote for 20% exemption and not knowing what the rates are going to be.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Councilor O'Panter, it's on page 12, last week's handout.
[Robert Penta]: No, no, I'm talking about having a legitimate conversation, Ed. not just having a piece of paper thrown at us ahead of time.
[L9vF4yM-fUc_SPEAKER_20]: If you want to start discussing it earlier in the year, we could provide estimates for you. That would be pretty close to the estimate, but you couldn't actually bring it up for a vote until the tax classification time. But we could provide estimates to be discussed in a more legitimate pace than trying to discuss everything at the last minute, yes.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you very much.
[Paul Camuso]: And then after tonight, you have to wait until the free cash is certified, Division of Local Services sign off next year. The only other mechanism is the home rule petition. Mid-year, correct? No, your free cash has already been certified. No, no, no. I'm talking about if we go to the exemption, Division of Local Services will have to be involved to certify the numbers. You only have to go for a home rule petition if you're going to go above 20%. 20%, which we can do at any time. Other than that, we have to do it in December. Unless it's a homo. That's correct. Thank you. All right. So on the number three, the council has traditionally voted no on this. The clerk will call the roll. Oh, we have a gentleman that would like to speak. Yes, sir. Name and address for the record.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Andrew Castagnetti, Cushing Street, Medford, Mass. I'm sorry. Too much luggage. Season's greetings. If I may wish you all a peaceful Christmas too. We feel like this is deja vu all over again and again. But will you please give the local owner occupied homeowner at least a 20% real estate tax exemption. only if they live in their house, which can be verified by their income tax filing address. As you know, this real real estate tax savings is being done in Malden, and Somerville is at 35%. Why not us? At least give us 20%, especially when nine of 10 About 90% of Method homeowners would receive a lower real estate tax bill than presently proposed, versus a historical 3% to 8% increase on a yearly basis. If I may, I'd like to give an example. This year, my home, Attu, has a $400,000 value, times the present tax rate of $12.25, per thousand, I paid $4,900. Next year, in 2015, my evaluation on the home will go from $400,000 to $452,000, times $11.70 at the proposed new lower tax rate per 1,000 that will equal $5,288 in real estate tax for next year as proposed. This yearly increase of $388 is almost 8% over last year, so much for Prop 2.5. There is hope. You, the elected city officials, have the power, through the Commonwealth of Massachusetts law, to lower this increase for the average homeowner in Medford if they live in their house as their primary residence, which is verified by their address on their income tax return. We, the people, are not politicians at this time. However, you, our, the elected city councilors, do have the power tonight to vote for a 20% real estate tax residential exemption and vote to send this request to Mayor McGlynn, because I believe only he, the mayor, has the authorization slash option to select and adopt this real estate tax exemption. along with your city council approval. Under Commonwealth of Massachusetts General Laws, chapter number 59, section 5C, we the people, the working class, need real estate tax relief. Please vote yes, help save our middle class neighbors before it's too late. Thank you kindly for listening and hopefully getting this done, for it's, in my opinion, 10 years overdue. Thank you for your time.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: I hope you give the taxpayers a nice Christmas present, and I hope it's a good new year without any fear. Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: The clerk will call the roll. Traditionally, the council has voted no on this number three.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Blanco-Kern. Thank you, President Caruso. I know I've spoken enough tonight, but I think this needs to be explained because Mr. Castagnetti makes a very good some very good points and has a very good argument. And I think it's one that we would all agree with, except for the fact how it's explained to us. And Assessor O'Neill can probably further explain it or much better explain it. If we voted for their exemption, up to the 20%, 15%, 10%, there would still be, if I have this correct, about 1,200 to 1,300 owner-occupied properties that would also get hit within the City of Medford. That is the reasoning why I, as one Councilor, have never voted for this exemption. It would, at this point, South Medford would be killed as property assessments are up there. West Medford would get killed. Any owner-occupied property worth more than $540,000 would also take the burden. So I just wanted to make it very clear to the people watching and, you know, people in the audience. That's the reason why I've never voted for this exemption, because it does sound great. Let's tax non-owner-occupied properties more. But that's not it. That's not the whole picture. The whole picture is you'd also be hitting 1,200 to 1,300 owner-occupied properties that are valued at 540 or more.
[Paul Camuso]: Very well said, Councilor Lungo. Thank you. Do you want him to explain it again, or you explained it right on target?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I think I tried to break it down as simple as possible. It only took, it only took me 12 years to learn.
[Paul Camuso]: So she was, she was right on target, right on. Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Councilor Lungo. Are you all set? Councilor Lungo? All set. Thank you. All right. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Ed, you have a $546,300 base for 10% exemption at any house valued above that, correct? That's correct. Okay. Um, and then you, and you indicated that represents 1,279 parcels. And of all these parcels in the city, you said there's 2,309 non owner occupied parcels. Uh, that's the number you gave us.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: This is part of the annual illustration, um, of the residential exemption. And that would be for the owner occupied.
[Robert Penta]: No, no, you gave us $2,309 non-owner-occupied.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, they're not including that. That's on the last page. The breakdown would be $12,032 owner-occupied to date. That number has gone up. Non-owner-occupied is $2,309. But that amount makes $1,279. That number is assumed to be owner-occupied. Of those owner-occupied, you go from $546 to what?
[Robert Penta]: That's what I want to know. What's the value? How high?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Over a million dollars. We have a million, a few million dollar properties in the city, but you don't have those folks would pay. Uh, as you go up in value, they would pay more. Even getting the residential exemption, they would still pay more now. And that's some of the, the problem with the way the law, the law or the exemption is to be implemented. But let's, let's stick to any councilor Penta because every year we do this, it's, it's non owner occupied. apartment buildings, anything over the breakeven point would pay more and the rest of the city owner occupied.
[Robert Penta]: We get a break, but we haven't done before. We haven't taken from five 46 300 and gone forward to say between five 46 to 600,000 and then from 600 to 700,000 to get to that number of 1000.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: We haven't done that exercise. No, no. And I think last year it was a 501 was a break even and there were 1059 over that.
[Robert Penta]: So if 501 was a break even last year, and it's been increased by 45,000 this year, because of the appreciation, that's a pretty, that's a pretty big appreciation to property value. Correct. Correct. Correct. So if a house between five 46 and 600, I'd like to move Mr. Clark, write this down, please. I'd like to get the breakdown. You don't have to do it for tonight between five 46 to six, six to six 50, six 50 to seven, all the way up to the minion that you said. And then I'd like to see the tax rate broken down to that, because I don't think it's as bad as everyone seems to think it is. I mean, if you have a house that's worth $600,000, $650,000, and you're going to pay a few dollars more, it's a lot better than at least you're giving something back to someone who can't afford a $600,000 house. And again, it's another way of giving a break. Which motion? I'm talking to him.
[SPEAKER_15]: Wait a minute. You're talking to the clerk.
[Paul Camuso]: The clerk works for you. He doesn't.
[Robert Penta]: No, he works for us too. Your motion to the clerk is? Is to have the assessor's office break down from 546,300 to 600,000 and $50,000 increments. Up to a million. Up to a million. And how that would affect the 1,279 taxpayers increase in taxes that they'd be paying. For example, do you have your calculator?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: I do. For you, Mr. President, I do have a few property assessed at $600, one at $700, one at $800. So just for an example to illustrate, with the 20% and owner occupied, they'd be paying $7,078 with the 10% and without it they'd be paying $7022. So it's about $56 more or less, depending on how you look at it. So $56 more or less. OK. And that's for $600,000. $600,000, correct. And go to a $700,000. And 10%? Yep. 10% is $8,344. At the 10%, and with just the no residential exemption, 8193.
[Robert Penta]: So there's a little bit higher. So that's another $144,000.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: $47 more. It's still additional plus on top of the regular additional increase. So it's compound, it's compounded $800,000 home with a 10%. It's a 10, uh, where are we? 9,654 and without the residential exemption, it's 9406. So it's another $248 more top of the already, you know, one 48. So it's compounded.
[Robert Penta]: So if you can bring us that back in some kind of a chat, We can see it. Because there is some merit to that. It doesn't have to be $15, $20.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Once again, Councilor Pentland, you're still increasing not only the $2.5 in the growth, now that, once you adopt it, that much more. So it could be a $300, $400 increase.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, but how many people in the city can afford $800,000, $900,000 homes? $560,000 in Medford.
[Paul Camuso]: $560,000 in Medford right now is half the city.
[SPEAKER_15]: Check out the latest closings. And your 546 that you have here with the 10%.
[Robert Penta]: Give us that one there, please. That 10%. The one that you have, the average is 546, 300. That's the cutoff.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: It just would be marginal at that point. So a few cents more, whatever it would be. I didn't do that illustration. I just took 670.
[Robert Penta]: So that being said, even though it's 1,279 homes, You have to look at between the 5 to the 6, the 6 to the 650, 650 to the 7.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Once again, you're taking a residential levy and you're shifting it. You're giving a reduction to the values that are less than the 546 and shifting it over to the non-owner occupied, the apartment buildings, and the high-end value properties. That's why there's only 14 or so communities in the Commonwealth that have adopted it.
[Robert Penta]: Let me go ask you this. Now, let's go back to someone who has a house worth $400,000. What's the tax rate right now?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: We did that example last year. Obviously, I didn't do it, but they would pay less. Right.
[Robert Penta]: But with a 10% exemption, they'd be paying even more than less. That's correct.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: That's correct. So it compounds the other way as well. Right. Right.
[Robert Penta]: So it has a value of one.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Again, the residential levy doesn't go away. It's still shifted to somebody else.
[Robert Penta]: But you're also getting at $2,309 non-owner-occupied And they're going to be paying at a higher rate, too.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: That's correct. And that helps offset the... An example of two and three families, right?
[Paul Camuso]: Yep. Councilor Penta. Yep. If I may, from the chair, I will support your resolution if we wait until the re-evaluation is complete, because right now it doesn't make sense to do the exercise that's parliamentary until the re-evaluation is complete.
[SPEAKER_15]: What does that do to be complete? He told us last week. You go ahead. I'm not going to speak for you.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Well, the year two of the inspection program has to be completed in 2015 calendar year for our fiscal 2016. That's the mandate from DOI. Every nine, every nine years we have to do the physical inspections.
[Robert Penta]: So for the year 2015, we could, we could still operate with these numbers.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Well half the city's done, right? Uh, no, I gave that close to half. It's close to half. Yeah.
[Paul Camuso]: It's like high forties on both. So it's unfair to get the numbers for half of one evaluation and half the other.
[SPEAKER_15]: That's my point.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: No, if he could just do, well, what's happening is my point of clarification is that it's just the inspection program to see if the property characteristics that we have on file, which is on the website in our office, it's all public is accurate. So, Some people take out building permits, some don't. So it's reflective of the inspections, correct. Some houses get better, some get worse. Right. So it's, again, it's a property tax is an ad valorem tax based on the value of the property on a given year.
[Robert Penta]: But for what you have right now, you could give us a sample for what I just asked for. If we would have, you know, it's kind of go up or down, whatever it's going to be next year.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: $400,000, anything below the $500,000 would be less. Correct. At the expense of the others. Correct. If he could do that, Mr. Clark. You have to add that in. It's a tax policy issue that the council has to adopt big picture. It's going to affect someone. It stays within the residential class. You can't throw it on the apartment buildings that are non-owner occupied, that don't live in the city of Medford. It goes on in the three different categories.
[Robert Penta]: But you also have the non-owner occupied, and that's what we're trying to address.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: That's correct.
[Robert Penta]: Right. So do that, Mr. Clark. You got it?
[Paul Camuso]: He's got it. On the motion of Councilor Penta, Councilor Marksley.
[Michael Marks]: So from what Mr. O'Neill just mentioned, what would it take to create a new classification with the Department of Revenue?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: For you, Mr. President, Councilor Penta, with all due respect, has been talking about that for years. And it's just something that goes back to, I think, the council in 98. They proposed to try to change that, add another tax rate. You know, it goes up to the state house, and then DOR has an opinion on it, and that's why it hasn't been changed, so it's not likely. But it's an act of DOR or an act of the state legislature? Well, it would have to be change in the state law, change in the classification law, going back to 1979, 1980.
[Michael Marks]: Do you know if other states have that classification?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: I do not. I do not think so. I don't know for sure. I don't think so. Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you, Mr. President. And my question really revolved around the cyclical inspections. And, you know, give or take, we're about halfway complete with the residential and the commercial properties here in the city. Do you have any facts or figures relative to the number of people that have jumped from below the break-even to over the break-even through the cyclical inspections?
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: It's a very good question. I don't have that. It's tough to, in an up market, so this market and next year's market, the assessments, I mean, we're still low as far as being at 100%, so we don't have that. But concerned taxpayers can get what they had, what their characteristics were last year, and then after the inspection, they can get the before and the after. But primarily, if the market didn't change, then you could see what the change would be.
[Adam Knight]: 8% over market or something right now in Medford? Pardon me? Medford's over market at this point in almost double digits in terms of sales, correct? Correct.
[L7QFU4RDE4Q_SPEAKER_01]: Right. Right. Again, it mirrors the 2004 market, fiscal year 2004, especially twos and threes. And I checked with Somerville. We talked about Somerville earlier. Same thing over there. They're twos and threes. The conversions, I think there were about 198 new condos, primarily from conversions, mostly, not all. This year, we had 48 twos and threes, one mixed-use property that went to condos. So it's, again, it's a business decision by the owner, and the market is there, so the return on investment is there. So that's why we're seeing, once again, the high number of conversions. Same thing as in 2004.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you, Mr. O'Neill.
[Paul Camuso]: All right. All in the motion. Clerk will call the roll.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Can I give some information about what was just said? Thank you. Mr. O'Neill made some good points. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have any taxes. That's why we threw the English show in 1776. However, if we do not adopt this 20%, the full 20%, residential, unoccupied, the full 20%, which is automatic, if you approve it, and the mayor approves it. Councilor Camuso, talking to you.
[SPEAKER_15]: I'm sorry.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you. If you do the full 20% in a perfect world, Zero owner-occupied should pay any increase. However, one, I believe, out of the 10, at a full 20%, I repeat, residential exemption, one will pay more. However, nine others would pay less. It's very important to save the middle class. Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. Clerk, call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? No. Councilor Knight?
[Anthony D'Antonio]: No.
[Clerk]: Councilor Lungo-Koehnan? No. Councilor Martins? No. Councilor Penta? Yes. President Camuso? No.
[Paul Camuso]: By a vote of six in the affirmative, six in the negative, one in the affirmative, the motion fails. Item four, adopt a small commercial exemption. This has traditionally been not supported by Connecticut City Council. The clerk will call the roll.
[Clerk]: No. By a vote of seven in the negative, zero in the affirmative, the motion fails.
[Robert Penta]: On that last vote that we just took, I believe that vote was on my resolution for Mr. O'Neill. I didn't believe. We didn't get to you actually. I move reconsideration to have it reconsidered.
[Paul Camuso]: Move reconsideration on the number three.
[Robert Penta]: Yes.
[Paul Camuso]: You were not on the prevailing side. On behalf of Council of Penta. On behalf of Council of Dello Russo. To move reconsideration. The paper is back before us. Council of Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Yes, I vote yes. Move reconsideration. I'd appreciate.
[Paul Camuso]: No, no, Councilor Dello Russo moved it for you because he's a gentleman. He is? All those in favor, aye. All those opposed, the paper's back before us. Item number three, to adopt the residential exemption, the clerk will call the roll. This is number three, back before us. Traditionally a no vote.
[Clerk]: No.
[Paul Camuso]: No. No. Zero in the affirmative, seven in the negative, the motion fails. Item number four, to adopt a small commercial exemption. I'm sorry.
[SPEAKER_15]: All right.
[Paul Camuso]: Uh, on Councilor Penta's motion to have the clerk, um, the city assessor to provide us with the data sampling, uh, sampling chart that he asked for all those in favor. All those opposed. The ayes have it. That is the end of that paper.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, we're under suspension.
[Paul Camuso]: While we're under suspension, council Lungo curd moves to take 14 seven 89, uh, out of order. All those in favor. All right. All those opposed. To the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council. Claimant name, Adelina Palermo versus the City of Medford. Date of accident, March 7th, 2013. Date of settlement, December 8th, 2014. The claimant, Adelina Palermo, age 73, of 112 Sheridan Avenue in Medford, Mass, 02155, seeks compensation for injuries suffered as a result of a raised sidewalk located near 106 Sheridan Avenue, Medford, Mass. Her injury occurred on September 29, 2013. As a result of her fall, she sustained a rotator cuff tear in her right shoulder, which required arthroscopic surgery. She was treated at Lawrence Memorial Hospital, as well as Note Suburban Orthopedic Associates. Her medical bills were in excess of $10,000. The necessary releases have been obtained from the clients. Medical cost was $10,172. Lost wages, zero. Others, zero. The total settlement, $5,000. Is there a motion? On the motion of Councilor Dello Russo, clerk will call the roll.
[Paul Camuso]: Yes, by a vote of seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the paper passes. Item 14-790, request for expenditures from the law department, claims over $1,000. To the President and honorable members of the Medford City Council, claimant name is Sharon Deioso versus the city of Medford. Date of accident, September 13th, 2013. The date of the settlement. Brief synopsis is the amount of the request is $4,200. The assistant city solicitor Scanlon has received all the appropriate documents signed off and there's a motion for approval from councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor of the clerk will call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, by a vote of seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the paper passes. While we're under suspension, 14-784 offered by Councilor Lungo-Koehn, be it resolved the Medford City Council vote to reduce the tax levy by the average of the last three years, a certified free cash amount, which is approximately $1 million. As stated to us on December 9th by multiple department heads, receive in place on file, Councilor Lungo-Koehn? We took a vote on this during the tax paper. Did you skip one? Well, I figured this one in case there was more questions before they left. 783, we're going to take up.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, I would lay that on the table. Whatever you want. Not on the table.
[Paul Camuso]: receiving place on file because we did act upon it during the tax hearing. Yeah. All right. While we're on the suspension, uh, item 14 dash seven, eight, seven. As my pen's falling apart here. Item 14 dash seven, eight, seven. From Mayor Michael J. McGlynn to the President and members of the Medford City Council regarding amendments to Division 2 Fair Housing Commission and Division 13 Human Rights Commission. Dear Mr. President and members of the Medford City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following amendment to Division 2 and Division 13 of the Ordinance of the City of Medford. This amendment strikes the present provisions of our revised ordinances that set forth the Fair Housing Commission and the Human Rights Commission and blends the two commissions into one commission that will be called the Human Rights Commission. This effort originated with members of the Fair Housing Commission and the Human Rights Commission. They have been working with the city solicitor for the better portion of a year on this consolidation. This amendment takes into consideration the respective individual jurisdictions of each commission and joins them in a fashion that will allow the resulting commission to address the significant and ever-expanding issues of human rights and fair housing in a comprehensive and streamlined fashion. The following is a full text of the proposed amendment. If I may give a brief synopsis on the proposed ordinance. Is the council is okay with that? We're at seven and a half pages, I believe. Is that all right, ladies and gentlemen? All right, on the motion of Councilor Dello Russo for a synopsis of the paper. This is submitted by the mayor on behalf of the request of the commission to combine the Human Rights Commission and the Fair Housing Commission, which Diane McLeod is our diversity director overseas at the current time. It also, I believe, adds additional classes that are recognized today. And just to read a few. So I know it's gender identity, transgender and things of that nature that are part of today's, um, city. And we're proud to have everyone inclusive in this community. So, uh, anything else you want to add before we take a look at this?
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: Uh, no, I just wanted to add that we have been meeting and we've been very carefully going through, um, the ordinance for a year and we did want to include, obviously we've included, gender identity, gender expression, and genetic information as well. We want all people in the city of Medford to have the same rights and privileges. We think that's important. And there are several members of the commission. Well, some had to leave, but we're here to support this as well. And it's kind of a natural progression. The federal government actually just recently updated their legislation as well to include with housing and banking information and mortgages. the same gender identity, gender expression. We had a forum here on that in the city of Medford, and we just think it's important that everyone's treated the same.
[Paul Camuso]: And I may add that Melrose recently just updated their policy to be very inclusive as well. It was reported today in the Statehouse News. So I hate to be behind Melrose, but we're right behind them, hopefully. Ours is better. Is there a motion?
[SPEAKER_14]: Motion for approval, Mr. President.
[Paul Camuso]: On the motion of approval by Councilor Knight.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. With the consolidation of both these commissions, will there be the same number of seats?
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: We'll have nine commission members that we had. We previously had nine commission members. We'll have nine commission members.
[Michael Marks]: So, so the number is going to stay the same. Okay. Are there any openings currently?
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: We only have one. We had someone who is interested in just told me last week that he's been a little busy and he thinks he has to, you know, take some time. So we'll fill that position. But we have eight commissions, commission members seated now.
[Michael Marks]: I want to personally thank the members of the commission. Uh, this is a very important task in our community and under your leadership, uh, in my opinion, uh, this community is moving forward on many fronts and, uh, of which housing and human rights are at the top of at least my list as a member of the council. So I want to thank you and the committee and thank the members for coming out tonight and listening to government at its best. At certain points it may not seem that way, but, But we do get to the root of what we need to do to do the people's business.
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: So I thank you again. Thanks, I appreciate it.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Dello Russo, then Councilor Penta.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, just one quick question. What was the piece of genetic information? Genetic information.
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: That's basically, if someone were to make a decision, whether it was an employment decision or, for example, health care, well, you know, you don't really want to do that because they have an issue in their family and, you know, they've got, you know, historically they've got cancer in the family or some, it's, it's a decision made on someone's genetic past and it's really not appropriate. It shouldn't be done.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Thank you. Council Dello Russo.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Two points, Mr. President. Um, on the section 50 dash 65, it talks about appointments and it says the appointments of the human rights commission, the mayor shall appoint. Apparently he's appointing all the members. Is it there anything within your membership? that would go out of bounds, so to speak, and you folks elect members for someone who might be. Why are these nine members all mayoral appointments?
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: Well, normally what our process is, we have people that come to our meetings that are interested in participating. They normally come to a couple of meetings. We all get to know each other. They make sure it's a good fit for them. That's what they wanted to do. We make sure it's a fit for us. I mean, we've had people come in the past and they said, you know, this isn't what I thought it was. Or and then from there, we always talk about what can you bring to the commission. And we want people who are active and participating in the community. And then from there, we always send that person's resume to the mayor and say that we're interested in having that person on the commission.
[Robert Penta]: So who advertises for these positions, the mayor or the commission?
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: Well, the commission has done it in the past. But they always come to commission members first before they go to the mayor. So you put an ad in the paper? And that's his decision after.
[Robert Penta]: You put an ad in the paper.
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: We have in the past. We haven't had to. Um, we've had, uh, we've had quite a few people coming to meetings, so we haven't had that.
[Robert Penta]: So what would be the best since you're merging these two together? What's the background of the members who are on the commission? Um, are they here tonight? Any of them?
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: Some of them are here. Um, um, Dale Bryan is here. He is from Tufts university and he's the head of the peace and justice.
[Robert Penta]: They just come up, you know, this is brand new. Maybe if they come up and explain, their position, the people who might be watching.
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: Absolutely.
[Robert Penta]: This is a major blend of two commissions.
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: I will say David Harris had to leave to pick up his son, but he works at Harvard, um, civil rights and justice. Um, but he did have to leave though. Yeah.
[SPEAKER_02]: Brian 17 Walcott street, member of the human rights commission and full support of the change of the name and the combination of the two commissions. Thank you. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: No. Could you just explain what's your interest and why are you involved? How did you get involved with this?
[SPEAKER_02]: I was approached, uh, by one of the city chaplains to ask if I was interested in the commission. I had a discussion with the diversity director, Diane McLeod, if I would be interested in participating in the commission. I met with, again, one of the city chaplains to discuss the possibility. I met with the city solicitor. I met with the school superintendent. I met with the mayor to discuss interests that I would have on the commission. roles for the commission. And I participated several meetings before agreeing to have my name put forward to the mayor, uh, with the full support of the then commission members, which at that time included members of the, uh, persons with disabilities committee members.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. Brian, um, can, Can you just tell us a little bit about how you're liking it and how it's working out? And other than this ordinance, are there any other things that you guys have been working on? I know November was National Disability Awareness Month. Diane and I spoke at length about it. And I'd just like to maybe hear a little bit about your experiences being on the committee and how you like it.
[SPEAKER_02]: Well, I said to David Harris, who is the chair of the commission before he left this evening, In the first year plus time I've been on the commission, there's a lot more work involved than I knew to expect. Uh, the commission has contributed to a year long series of discussions within the community starting November of a year ago. And we'll conclude on Martin Luther King day next month, uh, that focused on the legacies of the civil rights era. and the legacy of slavery, starting with the Proclamation, Emancipation Proclamation. So we have held a number of events on the order of one a month and have participated with several nonprofit organizations in the city. And as an educator, I think we've done good work at raising public awareness about the issues of concern.
[Adam Knight]: Excellent, thank you.
[SPEAKER_02]: Thank you. Any other questions?
[Paul Camuso]: Sir? Chief Sacco.
[Leo Sacco]: Good evening, Leo Sacco, police chief. Reside at 227 Elm Street in Medford, and I am a member of the Human Rights Commission. I've been a member now for a good number of years. Very fortunate and honored to be a member. And I follow in the footsteps of Captain Hubert Hanlon, who has been a member prior to my appointment. But upon his retirement, I was appointed to the commission. I think one of the big things for the city of Medford is that we're out in front. Many of the human rights commissions around the state, or at least in our neighboring communities, do not have a police officer as a member of the commission. And it's very important to be right out there in the front. you know, be the first line to, to hear something or the concerns of the complaints in the community. And many times we hear it out in the street and we're able to bring it to the committee meetings. So there's a definite benefit, uh, for having a police officer involved.
[Robert Penta]: Is there any, um, to the chair, is, is, is there any involvement, um, with you as being the chief or having a police person on the board and now with the merger of these two organizations together, And not to bring up a sour issue, but unfortunately we've seen what's happening recently throughout this country regarding the police department, whether you're for or against, whatever the action might be. Is it possible that this commission can take an attitude of just going out into the community rather than waiting for an issue to appear before it and just see what's going on and see what their attitude is and whether it's human rights for the purposes of social issues, police issues, educational issues. rather than just having a meeting at City Hall, going into the neighborhoods and finding out what the possibilities are. What are your problems?
[Leo Sacco]: Well, in many cases, that already happens with police officers that are in the community that already have an idea of what's taking place in the community, and they would bring it to the commission. Diane McLeod and her role on a daily basis is dealing with issues in the community, and it gets brought to the commission level. As far as the actual outreach, I think that's something that's been done. repeatedly by the commission, not necessarily myself, but through Diane and David Harris and Dale and all of the various programs that are produced during the course of any given year. There's the outreach. The unfortunate part, and I'll say this, the unfortunate part is the apathy. People are quiet. People remain in their homes, remain in their neighborhoods, and they don't bring the issues forward.
[Robert Penta]: But wouldn't this be a perfect opportunity for which a lack of better terminology not for community policing, but for maybe community involvement. I mean, to me, this is big, merging these two commissions together to accomplish one goal. And I'm going to assume that the goal is to make sure that this community, you know, is looked upon favorably by all kinds of people for whatever, whether they're people of color, whether it's disability, whether it's a police issue, whether it's an educational issue. I mean, you can really run the gamut here and be such an adjunct to city government in such a way, I mean, you have terms here that run three years, two years, and one year. So you're not always getting the same individual because the person, maybe you have one year, maybe all done, he may or she may not want to come back. I just see this as an open door policy that can really, this city is changing so much. And I think this is an absolute unique opportunity to get into the bowels of every corner of this city with this commission, committee, whatever you want to call it. And this is what I would be expecting. this committee and commission to do.
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: I'd like to give you an idea of what we have been doing, because as we said the last year, we've had a forum of following and tracing our faces, which we had a takeoff from the faces of Medford. And we started last November, and that was our kickoff. And every single month, as we said, we've been doing an activity in the community. So not in any particular order, just so you're aware. We've had three films at Medford Library around different civil rights issues. And we've had discussions with either a professor, et cetera, after. So there was the general public that attended those events. We also had Dr. Bernard Lafayette, which is one of the Freedom Riders, was actually at the high school. And he spoke to the entire junior class. He left after that. He was so well-received. The kids were surrounding him after the event. And then he went and he met with the honors class. history class and he talked to that class for a while. He also spoke at Tufts University as well. We also had a project that we wanted to do with the students because we wanted youth involvement. So we had a project here a few months ago where you probably saw the photos that were around with the post-its on it. We had this place packed with over 300 people that day. It was students, it was teachers, it was parents, and we had a speaker. who was here, Muji Kareem, and he spoke to the kids about self-worth. And it was incredibly, they didn't want to go home. We had to push them out. There were so many kids, it was absolutely fabulous. So we did really have that program as well. And then we're also talking about planning our last event, which would be the MLK Day. And we are talking about what happened to the two youth. Ferguson and New York and how we don't want something like that to happen here. So we're going back to those youth to try and have a discussion about what we can do, what their self-worth is, and then what we can do to make something like that not happen here. How can we communicate better? And so we're just in the planning stages of that, but that's what we're doing now.
[Robert Penta]: So that's one of the objectives of this commission?
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: That's one of our forms that we've planned since last year, and we've been doing that. Like I said, every single month we've had something going on. I'm sure there's more. That's the ones I'm thinking of at the top of my head. But we haven't stopped since last.
[Robert Penta]: So the membership of the commission, how many?
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: There were eight of the nine positions.
[Robert Penta]: And how many of the Human Rights Committee? I mean, you merged the two together.
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: The Human Rights Committee is nine. That's what we've got now. We had some of the fair housing people that we had on the commission that had left. Actually, we had, she's now a judge, Elizabeth Cremins, who was working at the Community Housing Board. And we had people from the fair housing.
[Robert Penta]: But you're down to nine now. You're having nine members. Yes, we're keeping it at nine. But how many did you have between the two altogether? How many were there?
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: No, right now we only have eight, because as people left— No, no, no.
[Robert Penta]: Before you merged, the two commissions separately— We're both nine.
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: But as people left, we knew we were going to do this merge, and we didn't want an 18-member board. So as people left, as this was happening, we knew we weren't filling spots, because we didn't want to have—it was just uncontrollable to have that many people.
[Robert Penta]: And what do you have, a one- or a two- or a three-year vacancy? Which vacancy is it?
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: It would be a one.
[Robert Penta]: You also go to section 5066, meetings and quorum. And this is the one that I think I would make a suggested change. It says, when enough members are present to constitute a quorum, a majority of those present shall be sufficient for any action taken. So if only five out of nine show up, you're going to tell me three out of five and the decision? No, no, no.
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: Five out of the, it has to be five for a quorum.
[Robert Penta]: Right. But it also says a majority of those present. So if five show up, and a majority of five is three, they're going to set the tempo for nine members?
[c3JkoYgGg3s_SPEAKER_05]: I don't believe that. Give me the.
[Robert Penta]: Section 50-66. Right.
[Mark Rumley]: I read that also. The sufficiency of the vote would always be a majority, just like it is with a council rule. You couldn't pass something to the council unless you had four votes.
[Robert Penta]: But this doesn't say that.
[Mark Rumley]: It says that the majority.
[Robert Penta]: Those present. Those present shall be sufficient.
[Mark Rumley]: The sufficiency of the vote would always be a majority.
[Robert Penta]: But it doesn't say that.
[Mark Rumley]: A majority of the commission.
[Robert Penta]: Maybe that should say that and not of those present. It says a majority of those present.
[Mark Rumley]: That should say a majority of the commission. Sufficiency of the vote is always a majority.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Knight. I want to amend that last line. After the word majority of, it should say a majority of the commission and eliminate the words and those present out of section 50-66, meetings quorum, that's the headline.
[Adam Knight]: Can you say that again, please, Councilor?
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Just a point of clarification. As I read it, it says five members of the commission shall constitute a quorum. No binding decision shall be made at any meeting at which not enough members are present to constitute a quorum when enough members operate. Okay, so I see what you're saying, Councilor. A vote of three of five could constitute a majority vote as opposed to a vote of five of nine.
[Paul Camuso]: We have a motion for approval. Is there a motion to waive the three readings as amended? There's a motion by Councilor Dello Russo. You'll have plenty of motion to Councilor Dello Russo for approval of the ordinance, waiving the three readings, which speeds the process up, uh, as amended by Councilor Penta. The gentleman behind you, would you like to speak?
[Joe Viglione]: Joe Villion, 59 Garfield Ave. I want to thank the HRC for being proactive when a local church was hiding behind freedom of religion to speak out against other people's civil rights. That was a proactive move that I really appreciated. My question is that if a victim is a target of the recent graffiti, say, at a university here, is this new merger going to be proactive and help the individual that may have been targeted by that graffiti. You know, we had a local non-profit that was alleged to have engaged in racism and homophobia, and I spoke to the HRC, and they are a teaching entity, and Ms. McCloud can clarify it if I'm incorrect, but they couldn't step in and help us with that really bad situation, which this council and some of the community in the mayor and the city solicitor helped eradicate. But it took us a lot of time, and if we had an entity that could step in when there's blatant racism and homophobia, as we saw posted right in Medford Square, that would go a long way in making people feel comfortable in this city. And right now, I think it's only an advisory board, and I would like to see if that could be clarified and if we can move forward with a stronger commission that has more power. Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: Name and address for the record.
[Robert Cappucci]: Thank you, Mr. President. Robert Capucci, 71 Evans Street. If I could, through the President's chair, ask just a few questions. I wonder how many cases of discrimination of this nature in housing have happened, maybe recently, and what is the actual process of investigating these accusations? Because as, I think her name is Miss McLeod, alluded to, she said, like, we don't want to see things that happened in Ferguson happen here. Now, I know that the popular opinion of what happened in Ferguson, Missouri—and please, don't get me wrong. I want everybody's rights to always be protected. Our rights were never given by any legislative body. We believe in the founding of this nation. that our rights come from God, that are inalienable, that we're born with. And therefore, they should be protected. But what happened in Ferguson, if I understand the testimony from the grand jury, was that the officer, Mr. Wilson, I believe his name was, didn't do anything out of line. And he was just performing his job. So, but, like, it just concerns me, the process of investigation of these matters and how many of them actually happened. Because the truth of what happened in Ferguson, just on CNN the other night, there were correspondents doing hands up, don't shoot, and that never happened in Ferguson, Missouri. We have popular opinion causing Groups of people go out in New York City screaming, what do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now. We have high school kids that just today, through social media, left their classes and stormed the state house and other places. And I'm just concerned that everybody's civil rights is going to be protected, of course. But the truth is also going to be pursued. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Paul Camuso]: And that's how it has always been in Medford, and it will remain that way. Name and address for the record.
[Noah Evans]: I'm the Reverend Noah Evans, 260 Grove Street in Medford. I'm also the rector of Grace Episcopal Church. I want to stand in support of this ordinance, especially the expanding and adding gender identity and expression to the protected classes in this city. The vestry, the board of Grace Episcopal Church, signed onto a statement last spring in support of this expansion, and it's part of our faith commitment a faith commitment that we make in our baptism to respect the dignity of every human being. And I think that this community wants to be a community that's proud of its diversity in the way that it welcomes and accepts and values and protects all people. So I strongly want to stand in support of this ordinance and your passage of it tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Reverend.
[Jeanne Martin]: Name and address for the record. Jean Martin, 10 Cumming Street. I'm so on board with you when you talk about the taxes, but Bob, I got to talk about this. The issues around Ferguson specifically are just very complex.
[Paul Camuso]: I'm going to let you briefly talk on this, but this is about the ordinance. I'm going to give you a little leeway, but I just want to say it's complex. I understand, but understand what we're trying to do with this ordinance.
[Jeanne Martin]: Okay. Well then I, I, uh, I guess I'm okay with the ordinance. I just want to say that, uh, the issues are very complex. and simple answers for complex problems. It can't be happening.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. Medford has always been and will remain very inclusive.
[Jeanne Martin]: Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: On the motion of Councilor Knight for approval as amended by Councilor Penta and Councilor Dello Russo made a motion to waive the three readings on this ordinance. The clerk will call the roll. And thank you everyone for coming out this evening.
[Clerk]: Vice President Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Dello Russo? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Kerr? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Penta? Yes. President Camuso?
[Paul Camuso]: Yes. By a vote of seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, this is passed unanimously by the Medford City Council.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Are we moving on? Yeah. Just while we're under suspension, we have the chief of police here. If we could take paper 14-785. What else?
[Jeanne Martin]: Oh, mine's quick.
[Paul Camuso]: Mine will be quick. No, no. Item 14-785. Please. Offered by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Be it resolved that the chief of police look into the new program that many cities and towns are implementing, which is called Coffee with a Cup. Be it further... resolve that Medford look into implementing the program once per month after the new year. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Camuso. I saw a police officer, a friend of mine, posted pictures of coffee with a cop, but it was down in Barnstable County. So, you know, a couple months went by and I said, I got to talk to the chief about this. Then two weeks ago, I was in Chelsea at the Starbucks right across from Market Basket and Right outside the Starbucks was Coffee with a Cop, so I realized that it was happening within large communities like ours. There was probably, I don't know if what we do has to be as extensive as Chelsea, but there were probably 10 plus police officers there, you know, 10, 20 citizens coming in and out, so maybe about 30, 30 citizens just coming to meet a police officer, asking questions, mingling, What I thought was important about it and why I'd like to bring it to Medford is, especially in light of all that's happened in the last year or two, you get to see the faces, you get to learn the names, and it's not just the citizens learning the police officers' names, it's vice versa. It was the police officers seeing, there was young children there, so it was just seeing faces and getting to know the community. I think it's, I'd love to hear your opinion on it and see maybe whether it's once a month Every few months, we pick a different location. We have bestsellers. We have Mr. Coffee Roasters. I mean, we have Dunkin' Donuts, Starbucks all over the place. And whether it's one or two to 10 police officers at a time, I think it's something that would be beneficial. I mean, obviously, we'd like to start in the South Medford area where we have the biggest amount of problems. But I just thought it was a great program. I think people in Medford really take to it. I think it's an opportunity. to, you know, the community meetings you run, Chief, are great. I was very, very impressed with how many, you know, the detectives were there at the last meeting I went to. You were there. There was police officers there, probably the same thing, 10 or 15 police officers from all ranks. But that was on a, you know, weeknight at 7 p.m. I'd like to bring this. The one I went to in Chelsea, or I happened to be at, was at I want to say maybe 10 a.m. on a Wednesday morning, but I propose that maybe we pick a different day of the week each time we do it. I think you'd get a whole host of people coming out. They were gracious to my daughter, and, you know, it's just, she had a smile on her face. You know, she knew, you know, what the police, they all had their uniform on, and I think it's good for all ages, and I think it would be great for the community.
[Leo Sacco]: I don't disagree. In fact, I've spoken with Chief Kyes and Chelsea to find out how that was working. And he said it's been going very well. But just as you had mentioned, for 28 years, we've had the monthly community meetings at 7 p.m. on a Wednesday night, the first Wednesday of every month. Some meetings are better attended than others, but at least it's an opportunity. And it's coffee with a number of police officers. There's donuts, there's muffins. So we do that in our way and we've been doing that much longer than many of these other communities. We are looking for other ways to do the outreach and to market the good things that are going on in the city and the good things that are going on in the police department. I can say there are a lot of people in this community that have coffee with the cops. go by any donut shop, you know what it says. I know that there'll be some people who'll give me the business over what I just said, but the fact is, what it is, there are so many donut shops in the city, they could be substations, and we probably wouldn't have to worry too much about a new station. But the fact of the matter is, it is a good program. It's something new that's being done by various communities. We're looking at it, and we may not start it right away, I would say probably in June, July, and August when things slow down for our regular monthly community meetings, that would be something that we would definitely try by then. I don't want to just do it without having a little more background information and get some buy-in from the offices that they would want to be willing participants. But they're very willing to be part of the outreach program today is what they do in their normal daily activities. So I think this is a good thing.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Chief. I know we have, we do, I truly believe we have some great police officers in Medford. I mean, just to get them to talk to the people I think would be huge.
[Leo Sacco]: Just what I hear from the young people in the schools, you know, in the DARE program, you know, it's a big thing to wave, to smile, and you know, say hello. Three little things, very simple, that would go a long way. Thanks, Chief. Thank you.
[Jeanne Martin]: Name and address, Fleur. Jean Martin, 10 Cummings Street, and I'd like to just echo what he said, that this is a great beginning for street walking police officers. It's a great beginning. We need to get out there because we have had demographic shifts like never before. We have more students all over the place at Tufts University. We have whole neighborhoods that have changed. The Glenwood section, If you go to the stop-and-shop, you won't recognize anybody. There's so many new faces down at that stop-and-shop. You can see the new people coming in and going out. And these people are renters. A lot of these two-family houses have turned into rental properties, and so you need to make yourself a... You need to find them because they're not going to come to you. So I just want to encourage this program and to continue it. Thank you. Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: On the motion of approval by Councilor Alango-Kern, Roll call, please. Roll call has been requested.
[Clerk]: Yes, by a vote of seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion is approved.
[Paul Camuso]: While we're under suspension, item number 14-788. To the President and members of the Medford City Council, I respectfully request that the City Council approve the following so that the city may accept a state grant to be used to fund a portion of the Crystal Campbell Peace Garden on the grounds of the Medford Senior Center. Number one, that the Medford City Council authorize the submission of an application for Parklands Acquisition and Renovation for Communities Program in the amount of $299,350, $299,350.14 to the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Division of Conservation Services. Number two, that the mayor be authorized to execute a grant agreement and take such other actions as are necessary to carry out the terms, purposes, and conditions of this grant. Number three, that the city solicitor be authorized to prepare and the mayor executed deed restriction for land within the boundaries of the property at 101 Riverside Avenue as required by the E O E a preserving such land for the purpose of a public park under the provisions of mass general law chapter 45 section three and part two of the revised ordinances of the city of Medford section 62 dash 61 and all documents incidental thereto. Number four, that the following funds be appropriated and be available to fund the Peace Garden project and to up front the costs of the PARC grant, the sources of this appropriation are as follows. $100,000 from Cummings Foundation, $50,000 from Wynn Resorts, payment number one, $200,000 from Wynn Resorts, payment number two, $4,475 from Miscellaneous Contributions, a $475,000 section 125 federal transportation earmark will also be used to fund construction costs. The total estimated peace garden construction cost is $1,128,725,000. That the resolution takes effect upon its passage, and that is number five, that the resolution takes effect upon its passage. Name and address for the record.
[Laurel Siegel]: Lauren DiLorenzo, Director of the Office of Community Development. Mr. President, members of the Council, thank you for meeting with us the committee of the whole prior to this for presentation on the update of the Senior Center of Garden which is a Peace Garden which has been proposed to honor the victims of the Boston Marathon Marathon about bombing excuse me and I think we've talked about this project before we've been moving ahead on this we have a variety of sources of funds to move this project from a concept to a reality and I am asking for your support tonight to accept and a grant that we have applied for from the state in the amount of $299,350.14, and to also accept and to appropriate funds that have been donated to the project, as the president has detailed for you earlier. The project is well-conceived. It is probably one of the most special park projects and projects that we have done. In the city, there's been a lot of interest in it. You've all been supportive to date. I hope to seek your support in the future as we move forward so that we can actually get this project out to bid. And as we've talked about this before, it does serve a larger population, but it is on the grounds of the Medford Senior Center. And we think that it will be primarily used by the seniors. And I hope that we can move this ahead so we can get this under construction this spring.
[Paul Camuso]: Is there a motion? On the motion of Councilor Dello Russo, the clerk will call the roll.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. At tonight's Committee of the Whole meeting, the issue of maintenance of this particular Peace Garden was mentioned. And from what we were told, Uh, the maintenance has not been outlined as of yet, but currently I guess is in the process of putting together a full fledged maintenance plan. And, um, I was hoping that we would have this prior to any vote of this council as we, uh, know from, uh, past experience in this community that, um, any project that moves forward, uh, the mayor and the administration is always looking for a maintenance infrastructure plan on how we're going to maintain, which is going to be city property, how we're going to maintain that property. And I would see this park as no difference. I realize the administration is touting this Peace Garden and that's under the mayor's purview to do that. However, while we have so many infrastructure demands, on both the municipal and educational fronts that require immediate attention in our community, I would support a balanced approach, Mr. President, of the $1,298,725, which would provide a modest memorial honoring the Boston Marathon victims while recognizing the local needs that we currently are addressing within our community, i.e., road and sidewalk repairs, educational programming, municipal building maintenance and repair, enhanced public safety measures. You know, we heard tonight that the different earmarks that are going to pay for this Peace Garden and Wynn Resorts has a total of two payments of a combined $250,000. I as one person that live in the Wellington area, and I think we all recognize this issue when the casino was first mentioned going to Everett, was the number one concern that residents had was the traffic impact in our community. And then the number two was public safety. And number three was the impact it would have to the local business economy in the area. And I am very disappointed that The mayor opted to put $250,000 from Wynn Resorts into a Peace Garden when, in my opinion, the number one issues that were mentioned over the past year should have been on the table and addressed, whether it's public safety, whether it's traffic mitigation. Any one of those issues, the $250,000 could have gone to improve conditions within our community, Mr. President. I am not opposed to memorializing the devastating impact that that marathon bombing had, in particular on one of our own in the community and four additional others, and many countless people that were injured during that day that still suffer the emotional scars from that particular time. However, I believe that we could do this in a way that we could accomplish that goal and also accomplish the many needs that we hear over and over again. As you can see within the chamber itself today, we have construction being done on the ceiling and parts of the ceiling that are caving in. We all know the conditions of our municipal buildings throughout the city. We heard earlier tonight about 1,200,000 of improvements needed in our public school system. And the list goes on and on. And I'm not saying that this demand list or this list that's out there of needs should replace any other thing that may take place in the community. We always need to move forward. However, I think there could be a balance of the spending on this particular memorial. And I would support moving forward on a modest memorial, one that can accomplish that goal and also accomplish the goals that are before us in our community regarding public safety, regarding road repairs, regarding infrastructure, Mr. President. So those are the comments I wanted to make. And I also wanted to clarify that the construction cost may be $1,128,725, but you also have to factor in the design and the initial survey cost. That's $170,000. And that brings it up to the figure I mentioned, a million — almost $1,300,000. It's $1,298,725. And I don't know how my colleagues feel on that. I believe the current lack of a maintenance plan, although it's in the works, and I'm not doubting it's not in the works, this project, according to the mayor, according to the article I have from the Boston Globe, and this was dated April 11, 2014, it said the design plans have been in the works for 11 months. So that would date that back to May of 2013, Mr. President, that this proposal was out there in the administration and his staff was working on it. And we, as a council, had very little input because my input at the time would have been, let's go, let's get something done, but not to that level. We have too many needs in this community. So those are my comments, Mr. President. Um, and I look eager to hear what my colleagues have to say on the motion of approval by Councilor Dello Russo clerk.
[Paul Camuso]: We'll call the roll. You didn't press your button until just now. Counsel, go ahead.
[Robert Penta]: Love to hear from you. Um, we've had many conversations about this as you know, and it's not that I'm opposed to the garden, but in part I'm opposed to the expenditure of this large amount of money. I also have an issue as it relates to how it's being dedicated. I believe, unfortunately, what happened to this young lady shouldn't have happened to anyone. But she and three others who the mayor has decided to nominate the dedication to be for, I think it misses the boat about all the people that really did get hurt and killed and some people damaged for the rest of their lives. Two parts that I don't agree with on this, as I attended the meeting in, what was it? The linkage meeting back in- April. April 16th of this past year. And the mayor at that point in time indicated, quote, that people are calling off the phone wanting to make contributions. And as we have indicated here tonight, with the paper that you've submitted, $475 on miscellaneous contributions. Now I look at the wind contributions of $250,000, two separate ones. It was this Medford City Council, I believe in January of last year, between Councilor Lengel and myself, who introduced resolutions on the matter of the wind casino being a community next door, having a preference as to, you know, what our position should be, who I believe there were seven resolutions between Councilor Lengel and myself, passed forward as it relates to the impact of that casino that was sent to the mayor, and the mayor never once responded back to this council, never once asked us in part of mitigation and as a surrounding community what we would be looking for. And if I remember correctly, he himself submitted a document to the Mass Gaming Commission indicating money to be used for the Wellington area for program study, for the traffic impact, and I believe there was another one as it relates to the Wellington Circle intersection over there. taking that and coming forward and now recognizing that Wynn has given us $250,000 and never once has the mayor ever come to this council and just saying, listen, I've got $250,000. I'd even like to use part of it at this park over here. What would you guys and ladies like to do with it? Nothing, never, no response, absolutely zero as it relates to that. And then we get the $100,000 contribution from the Cummings Foundation and that's all well and good. If he felt that he wanted to submit that, get the $100,000, so be it. But now you're taking the $475,000 from, which was originally going to be the mayor's water taxi park development over there on Clippership Drive, for which, again, council never, no public hearing ever took place before this council to ask for our recommendation. And as you alluded to earlier this evening, even though it's a federal grant, a lot of the times, cities and towns make the request and there's no votes that are taken. Well, it would have been nice to have a vote. I don't have the exact date in front of me. From my understanding, I believe that the mayor, our state representative, and yourself took a picture less than a month ago indicating that the city of Medford was receiving this $299,000 grant. A great presumption by this mayor of how this council would vote. And I think the time has come that this has got to stop. $1,300,000 $1,300,000 for this particular garden. This is all the mayor's doing. There's been no interaction with the city council. There's been no action for inclusion with the city council of what we would like. You know, there was another individual who unfortunately died in that bombing when it took place at the marathon. And in that community, we'll leave it nameless, in that particular community, that individual has a nice little grave with a nice little stone with a flag. and a plaque that identified how and why. No multi-million dollar peace garden. And when I think of this, and I think of all the veterans that are in our cemeteries, and the ones that are going to war now, and the ones that are going to be dying now, and the ones that will be dying in the future, they don't get this million dollar peace garden. And this is not even being dedicated to them. It's just being dedicated to how this memorial is basically being set up. It was the marathon of some two years ago. And as the gentleman tonight so nicely explained delicately where all these spots are going to be and the compass that's going to be used, you know, and the references to along the way, the 26 mile way would give you an idea of where the marathon took place. I want to make this clear, especially to the Campbell family, if they're watching and if they have any sense of understanding of what I'm trying to say. It was a tragedy and I understand that. And there's nothing I or anyone else can do to bring back your daughter. But this community, I believe, should have had more of an interaction. This city council should have had more of an interaction. This mayor should have been more interactive with us, rather than going on his whim of, I'm going to develop this million dollar peace garden. For which, completely, it keeps commentary, keeps coming. It's going to be mostly used by the seniors. Well, to me, that's not what the peace garden should be about. It should be mostly used by the community. It's at an intersection that's highly visible by an awful lot of traffic. but there's going to be no place for them to stop and park. And if it's going to be used by the seniors, sure, the memorial for the seniors, they're going to pass on. As the memorial that we have up in the high school on Winthrop Street, it's there for those kids to see each and every day to give them a remembrance of the fellows and the ladies that pass on because they went to war to defend our country and for the freedoms and privileges of other folks and other countries and other lands and for other opportunities. I think a scaled-down approach would be much more palatable. I think the monies, if this city has this unique opportunity, and you certainly do a good job of getting money for parks and recreation in this community, there's no question about it. But I think if the efforts could be geared into another direction for community use. I know you're dealing with a deficit. You have a very small office, maybe two people at the very most, two and a half. Go to your sister city in Somerville, and they've got 13 and 14. And that's the reason why they're way ahead of us as it relates to development and things to be done, because they can spread their wings and look at things. The Peace Garden started off as a priest garden. Then they said they didn't attach a name to it. Then now they're attaching a name to it. Is the gesture nice? Yes, it is. Is the remembrance nice? Yes, it is. of having the remembrance for this young lady, yes, and for the three other folks. But I don't think it fits the budget right now. I don't like to be presumed and have my vote presumed on any dollar amount in this community. And as a result of that, Mr. President, I'm going to make a recommendation that this dollar amount be reduced by 50%. And if they want to put something together, I think they can have enough monies to be put together to make a very nice memorial at a $500,000 clip rather than, and I think the money's already there to make the $500,000 meet the obligation.
[Paul Camuso]: So motion to strike 1.1 and add $500,000, is that correct?
[Robert Penta]: Yes.
[Paul Camuso]: Okay. Vice President Caraviello and then Councilor De La Russa.
[Richard Caraviello]: Lauren, a quick question. The money from Wynn, is that over and above the million dollars that we're going to get or is that part of the million dollars?
[Laurel Siegel]: This is a separate commitment.
[Richard Caraviello]: So this is not part of the $1 million commitment, is that correct?
[Laurel Siegel]: Is this a solicitor?
[Mark Rumley]: Yes. The $250,000 is part of the agreement with Wynn. It's part of the $1 million that we're going to get. Yes, I could break it down for you if I had the agreement yet. But it's certainly not that Wynn only committed $250,000. There are many other elements to that agreement.
[Richard Caraviello]: I know Council Marks mentioned earlier about the maintenance agreement. I'd like to see that too, as soon as possible. You know, the $475,000, that was coming from the water project?
[Laurel Siegel]: No, no. The $475,000 is a federal earmark for the Clippership Linear Park and pathway.
[Richard Caraviello]: Was that part of the water earmark?
[Laurel Siegel]: The water taxi is a separate earmark in that it's off of the Clippership Linear Park. So is that part of the 475?
[Richard Caraviello]: No, it is not.
[Laurel Siegel]: That's additional allocation for that. It's a separate earmark.
[Richard Caraviello]: Is that water taxing money still floating around?
[Laurel Siegel]: We have a proposed scope of services that's been sent to the state. They send it to the feds. It's at the feds being reviewed now. So yes, it is. They're not floating around. It's still there, and we are attempting to access that money.
[Richard Caraviello]: So that money couldn't be used for this pact?
[Laurel Siegel]: No, that will not. That's a Feripo discretionary grant. It's very specific. Just as this park grant application is specific to this particular project based on the application that we have. If you don't mind, can I just clarify that if this allocation is cut in half, all of the design plans have to be changed, this earmark would not be available, and really the funding package would have to be completely changed. So I just want to stress that.
[Richard Caraviello]: I'd like to see as soon as possible you know, the, uh, the maintenance package.
[Laurel Siegel]: We, as I said, at the committee of the whole, we have a meeting this week with some of the division and department heads to discuss how we best going to approach maintenance and that I was going to be donating services, right? I'll submit, I'll submit that plan to you as soon as we know what it is with, with an estimated cost.
[Robert Penta]: Point of clarification, Mr. President, clarification. Did you just say that? The $75,000 for the water taxi is not part of the 475?
[Laurel Siegel]: $475,000 is a separate earmark. That is a transportation earmark for Clippership Linear Path and Parkway. The ferryboat discretionary grant is approximately $795,000. It's a separate earmark. When was our public hearing for that one? Well, we don't even have an approved scope of work. Once we have an approved, the feds have allowed that to go forward, we will have public meetings on that. I understand your frustration. It is the process that we don't have that money yet. We have an earmark without the money being allocated, I should say, to the project.
[Robert Penta]: Just to point that further, Mr. President, how could you, why would you want to spend that much time, effort, and energy on something that, I mean, if this is another project of the mayor's, I mean, it's taking away from other projects that the city needs. And this council isn't even aware of that one.
[Paul Camuso]: All right. Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, again, I motion approval of the paper that was presented before us.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. And just one clarification, um, your motion to strike out the 1.1, that is, uh, you can make a resolution, but the motion before us is just to accept the paper and authorize submission by the city.
[Robert Penta]: I'll move to amend the paper. What? I'll move to amend the paper. To amend the paper to 1.3.
[Paul Camuso]: The paper isn't requesting us to amend it. It's authorizing the mayor to submit the application. I would ask the city solicitor for clarification. The bottom line where the mayor put 1.128. We're going to amend the paper, amend the dollar amount.
[Mark Rumley]: This is only to submit the grant, correct? If you amend it, let's assume for purposes of analysis that there was an amendment to reduce the dollars. Then we wouldn't be in compliance with the grant.
[Robert Penta]: It doesn't make any difference, because I think as the rest of the dollars— We don't have to apply for the grant, because the rest of the dollars are there.
[Mark Rumley]: We do have to apply for the grant. We have to get this approval, or we're stuck in the mud. We'll be spinning our tires.
[Robert Penta]: You already have $350,000 from private people. All you have to come up with is another $100,000.
[Paul Camuso]: You can make a recommendation to scale down the project. You don't agree with the project as presented. But what we're voting on as the Medford City Council is to authorize the submission of the grant. for what the mayor deemed $299,350.14.
[SPEAKER_15]: And you can amend it and then vote on the main paper. If the amendment fails, then you can vote on the same main paper, or the main motion.
[Paul Camuso]: The $1.1 you want to amend, it's just informational. It's not declarative. It's not asking for anything. It's just informational. The total estimated Peace Guide and construction project cost is $1.128. If you want to amend that to read $500,000 when it's not realistic, you can do that, councillor. Councilor Knight and then Councilor Langel-Koenig.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. It was very interesting and informative presentation that was given at the committee of the whole meeting. One of the things that jumped out at me was the fact that with the passage of this project will be multiple ADA improvements down at the senior center and multiple ADA compliance improvements down there. Absent this project, I don't think that these improvements are going to take place. I think that these ADA compliance improvements are vital based upon the location alone of where the Peace Garden is going to be. It's located between two facilities that house elderly and disabled individuals in our community. Also, I think that it will beautify the square. It will give people a reason to come and to stop and to stay and to sit, and it will begin to create a revitalization and a utilization of our waterfront. which is something that this council talks about frequently. We have a very underutilized asset here in Medford, and that's our waterfront. And I think we need to give people a reason to come to our downtown business districts and a reason to stay in our downtown business districts. You know, I certainly like the plan. I think that it provides improvements for accessibility, but it also provides improvements for a cycling community. It puts bicycle racks in there. It's accessible to be accessed through multimodal transportation. Mr. President, I think this is a good expenditure. It's something that I'm going to be supporting.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Councilor.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn and then Councilor Marks. Thank you, President Camuso. I have mixed feelings about this. You know, it's one of those votes where your heart wants to vote for you ahead. It's just saying it's very extensive, $1.3 million for 25,000 square feet. And I think a huge, huge aspect of this, which has been mentioned, is the maintenance aspect. from what I understand, May 2013, that's one year, seven months, and we really don't have a maintenance plan. I'd like to see a maintenance plan before I move forward with this vote, whether that's, you know, I know there's a meeting on Thursday with department heads. I'd like to know what the maintenance figure would be per year, what the DPW, our Medford DPW would be able to handle. If they come in and say we cannot handle another thing, then we're talking landscaping bills weekly bills for landscaping during six months of the year. So I would like to know what the DPW can handle, what we're going to have to contract out, how much that is going to cost the city. You know, it's very good, you know, what the mayor's done and where he's taken money from. The initial money would be a lot better to handle if we know the taxpayers are going to pay $5,000 in maintenance per year versus $150,000 per year. I really think that figure is extremely important component of this project. I also would like to make a motion with regards to the fountain. I think that's one of the most expensive aspects of the construction and the maintenance. How much is that fountain going to cost?
[Laurel Siegel]: The estimated cost of the piece of the fountain is $275,000. That's just an estimate at this stage. It hasn't been bid yet.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And that's part of my concern. I'm sure it's going to be beautiful. Believe me, this is something that any city or town would love to have in their community. But a fountain at $275,000, if that breaks down in completion, say, five years from now, who's going to come up with the $275,000? I think that's probably the most expensive component of this project. I think this project's great. ADA, accessibility. open space, green space for the seniors and the community as a whole. It's something that I want to vote for, but I just really feel like we need a little more information. I think something could be put together to make me feel more at ease by next week, especially with the meeting coming up on Thursday. I think that can be done.
[Laurel Siegel]: The majority of the cost of that is the actual vaults that are put in there, so those won't really break down. There's pumps that have to be maintained and cleaning. In terms of the maintenance, maintenance is always an issue with everything that we do. And it's something that's a function of government. It's something that has to be addressed. I've asked the council to move on this paper. We are coming up on a holiday season. The grant agreement has to be executed, excuse me, by December 31st. And, you know, I know that we all know that grants are still taxpayers' dollars. We have not accessed any municipal taxpayer money to fund this, and I believe that the maintenance amount, the mayor's intention is to get donations for that, and he has had people who have offered to make donations, as Councilman Pinto had talked about before, since some of those will be labor-related. So I understand your concerns. I think that they will be addressed. They have to be addressed, and I'm still hoping that the council move forward on this paper tonight.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If I may finish it, I think that's important aspect of these donations coming in on a yearly basis. Is it going to be a one-time donation? So five, 10 years from now, it's completely up to the city. I think these numbers, we need to know these numbers. I mean, that's, and I'm sorry that it's December 31st. We're going to have a meeting a couple of days before Christmas. We can vote on it then. I mean, this should have came before us a month ago.
[Paul Camuso]: All right. Um, just to clarify, Councilor Lungo-Koehn, your motion you just asked for, Vice President Caraviello asked for that already, the maintenance program and costs.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yep, and then what will the DPW be handling and what will we have to contract out for?
[Paul Camuso]: So Councilor Lungo-Koehn, DPW be handling and what will be contracted out. And these are all resolutions and there's a main motion for approval right now by
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And just last one, how much to maintain, what's the estimate to maintain this entire project?
[Paul Camuso]: Vice President Caravino, like I just said. He asked for the maintenance program and the cost.
[Michael Marks]: All right. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I would just caution my council colleagues that moving forward on a plan that doesn't include maintenance is not being fiscally responsible. And I would also state, Mr. President, that we're looking at contractual services. Now, it's been discussed that we're not sure what the DPW is going to handle. But at some point, we're going to outsource services. And we don't know what the actual cost is going to be. And I believe, as a member of this council, before we move forward on any project, especially with the track record this city has on maintaining our infrastructure. If this city had an impeccable record of maintaining its current infrastructure, such as City Hall, the Police Department, the Public Library, the, the dilapidated DPW yard, the fire stations, the list goes on and on our roads. Um, then I would say if our record was impeccable, yes, you know, I have every faith and trust that the city is going to come out and devise a plan that makes sense on behalf of, uh, the rate pays in this community. However, that is not the case. And I think asking the question beforehand just makes common sense. That's the only thing I'm saying. It makes common sense. You know, we heard tonight that none of this is going to be taxpayer money. And we all know, as was mentioned, grants and so forth come from taxpayers' money, which Lauren is correct on that. My issue is not the fact that there's taxpayer money being used. The money that's going into this project could be allocated for a different use. The 250 from wind management could go for anything we want in this community. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise. This happened to be the mayor at his pecking order list, and he chose to use it for this. Now, that's every prerogative the mayor has, and good for him. But that 250,000 could have been used for any need in the community. The Cummings Foundation, if you read their grant application, it includes a list of causes, and this is not limited to them, human services, education, healthcare, social justice. And if you look at, it's the 100K for 100 programs, it's $10 million a year the Cummings Foundation gives out to local cities and towns. The town of Burlington got their 100,000 and they're using it for a mobile command unit facilitating greater effectiveness and management of critical police incidences and the lives and safety of the people in their community. That's what they're using it for. Now, Reading's using it for understanding disabilities to meet increased needs of students and families by renewing its disability awareness curriculum. Watertown's using it to support early stage empowerment programs, reaching people with early stage Alzheimer's disease to improve quality of lives. That's what some of the communities are using it. The mayor sought to use the $100,000 to apply for the application to do a peace guide. That's his prerogative. I just want my colleagues to know that there's other potential uses. The park rent, it says in the park rent itself under section C eligible projects are those for the purchase of parkland development of a new park or renovation of an existing park by any municipality with an improved open space and recreation plan, which we have. So that could be used for one of 24 different parks, and I realize the mayor just came before us to renovate a few more parks in the community, but I is one that attended the parks as growing up in this city, and also my kids know the need in each individual park, inherit from residents. So I believe that the park grant money, if the mayor opted to, the $299,000 could have been spent to revitalize some of the parks in the community, and we could have put together a committee and so forth to find out what the actual needs are rather than someone dictate what the needs are, and move forward on improving many of our parks. So there are a host of issues that could have been looked at with this money, and the mayor opted to use it this way. I happen to have a fundamental disagreement with the mayor, On this, I think we could accomplish both goals. However, I was never involved in the process. According to the article in the Globe, April 11th, says that the design plans have been in the works for 11 months, but McGlynn said the proposal was kept private because the city did not have the money to build the Goddard. So they were working on this with his inner circle for a number of months, and we found out about it. I speak for myself. I found out about it by turning on the local news. That's how I found out about it as a member of the council. So, you know, I think, honestly, Mr. President, I don't think anyone wants to be pitted one way or another I think it's a worthy proposal. Do I think we could make handicap improvements and disability improvements to the senior center without building a peace garden? Absolutely. I mean, we don't need a peace garden to provide. And I would say, why weren't we doing this in the last 10 years? You know, provide what's necessary for the senior center in that particular area. One last thing, Mr. President. You know, it was back in October 27, 2014, that there was an article posted in the Medford transcript. And from what I understand, it was a press release from the mayor's office. And the first paragraph is, and this is October 27, 2014, Mayor Michael McGlynn was pleased to accept a $299,350 in grant funding from the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Parkland Acquisitions and Renovations for Communities Park Grant Program, which will be used towards the construction of the Crystal Campbell Peace Garden. Tonight we heard that this grant wasn't approved until sometime the beginning of December and maybe a couple of weeks prior to that. So I'm not sure how the mayor takes the liberty to come out before the grants approved by the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, accepts the check, which is a picture in the paper, I'm not making this up, and Lauren, you're in the picture, accepts the check, and then says, don't worry about the council. We know they're gonna accept this check. Don't worry about them. I'm going to accept it. I'm going to have my own press conference. I'm going to release my own press releases in the paper. And then the council will eventually vote on it, like everything else. They'll vote on it. They'll submit to my pressure, and they'll vote on it. So I would say, Mr. President, that, as I stated at the beginning, I support a modest memorial honoring the victims of the bombing of the marathon and with The additional monies that could be used, such as the Wynn grant, as far as I'm concerned, the Cummings grant would have to reapply and put what we really need in this community. But that would be my — if I had my druthers, that would be what would happen, Mr. President. So, tonight, I cannot support this grant that's before us for the $299,000, based on the reasons I just mentioned, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I can certainly understand the concerns that my colleagues raise about a maintenance plan, a perpetual care at the site. However, I want to point out that this isn't Hormel Stadium. It's not Placed at Park. It's not even Barry Park, Mr. President. This location is the size of a large backyard in the city of Medford. And the city owns a portion of the space now and does provide maintenance and upkeep to the area. So the only major expense that's going to be outside of the ordinary, in my opinion, would be the fountain. And I don't think that the maintenance and upkeep of a fountain is going to change the scope of what's being done there right now too drastically. So, you know, I certainly understand the concerns about a maintenance plan. I think that these concerns are warranted, but I think they're warranted when we're looking at projects that are on a much larger scale. I know there is an expenditure of, you know, $1.1 million to construct this, but I think that the ends are going to justify the means, and I think that the benefits are going to fire away the costs. Thank you. May I also add that I feel as fitting tribute to those that were lost in the Boston Marathon bombing, Mr. President. And I also am proud to be a part of the community that's going to have the largest scale monument to that tragedy to date.
[SPEAKER_15]: I agree 100% and support it wholeheartedly. Councilor Penta. I'm just shocked.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Marks, did you just, I wrote it down. Did you say October 27 and then left a transcript? There's a picture of the mayor accepting a check for $299,000.
[Paul Camuso]: How does this happen?
[Laurel Siegel]: Ceremonial checks. You were all invited. Who was invited? You may have been invited.
[Paul Camuso]: You were all invited as a council.
[Laurel Siegel]: I beg to differ with you. Ceremonial checks when the secretaries come out and announce the award of the grants to communities.
[Robert Penta]: How could you accept a check when the council hasn't even discussed it for a vote?
[Laurel Siegel]: It's cardboard, and it's this big. Well, you know something?
[Robert Penta]: Two weeks ago, Mr. President, you said we already voted on this and we didn't. So you were proven wrong. You're going to be proven wrong, too, because this council has never voted on this.
[SPEAKER_15]: Officer of Community Development. Yes. Has this been before the council previously?
[Robert Penta]: No.
[Laurel Siegel]: We've talked about the PSCART. Not for a vote. We've talked about it in terms of the block grant application.
[Robert Penta]: Not for this vote.
[Laurel Siegel]: This particular vote in front of you for the allocation of funds is not.
[Paul Camuso]: The Community Development Block Grant contained funding for this project.
[Robert Penta]: Not this vote, Paul.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor.
[SPEAKER_14]: This is a different vote altogether. It's a different vote, but it's been before us for a vote. The park vote has never been before the council.
[Robert Penta]: I was correct.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: You were wrong.
[Paul Camuso]: That's your opinion. It is my opinion. Motion to table. Motion to table is undebatable. Until next week. Until next week. All those in favour?
[Mark Rumley]: Aye.
[Paul Camuso]: All those opposed? Aye. The clerk is in doubt. Roll call, please. Do you want to wait until your council colleague gets back? It's up to you.
[Robert Penta]: You can't interrupt a roll call.
[Paul Camuso]: It's going to fail anyway.
[Robert Penta]: I'm sorry. Motion to table. Oh, no.
[Adam Knight]: I'm sorry.
[Robert Penta]: Why should you guide him to tell him how to vote?
[Adam Knight]: I didn't know what we were voting on. I thought we were voting on the paper. I apologize. It was my error. As a matter of fact, I'll move for reconsideration after the vote, if need be, Mr. President.
[Clerk]: Councilor Turner? Yes. Councilor Martin? Councilor Fenton?
[Paul Camuso]: Yes. President Caluso? No. By a vote in the affirmative, the motion is tabled, three in the negative. All right. Offered by, while we're under suspension, Offered by Vice President Carvey-Yellow. There's two papers. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council offer condolences to the family of Medford School teacher... Wait a minute, you have my resolution.
[SPEAKER_15]: How could you do that?
[Paul Camuso]: It was tabled. The whole paper was tabled, Councilor. What table? The whole agenda? No, there's more on the agenda.
[Robert Penta]: There's more on the agenda.
[Paul Camuso]: You can have it your way. I guess you want your way all the time. Offer 14-783, which, oh, we'll go to Councilor Lungo-Kearns, who's the next one on the agenda. Item 14-783, offered by Councilor Lungo-Kearns. Be it resolved that the city council receive a copy of the last three years' certified free cash forms, which were signed off by the DOR. Be it further resolved that the council receive a breakdown showing which accounts the certified free cash came from for each of the last three years, each account and dollar figure.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Thank you. I'll be brief. President Camuso, the first part we received on Friday. The second part I would move approval on. I'd like to see where the free cash is coming from, which accounts. if we could get a breakdown of that for the last three years. Motion for approval.
[Paul Camuso]: On the motion of approval, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. Next item on the agenda offered by Councilor Penta. Be it resolved the Mayor's newly implemented water rate tiered program be discussed. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, as we know, we had a committee of the whole meeting a little while ago with the Water and Soil Commission as it relates to the new tiered water rate structure. And at that meeting, it was kind of like informative that there was some issues of concern that they were going to investigate as it relates to the tiers, whether it's tier one, two, and three. The one especially as it relates to tier two, which would be the rate set for the commercial business and the minimum of zero to 800 in tier one for the residential. And that's something to be looked at. The city council voted this past budget to knock out $600,000, from the estimated amount that the MWRA would be having to impose on the city of Medford. And as a result of that vote, for which was eliminated from the budget, the Water and Soil Commission then implemented the tier rate system, which will, in essence, not only recapture the amount of money, but probably more than that. My concern right now is the mayor not addressing that for which the city council addressed during the budget and at that last meeting. So I went back into my inventory, which is January of 1989, and there's a front page headline that talks about water rates pushing up again, and the mayor is quoted. I'm going to read his quote on the increase in the water rates.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information, Council Knight.
[Robert Penta]: I was in the sixth grade in 1989.
[Paul Camuso]: All right.
[Robert Penta]: Should have learned something then. Bottom line is, With many residents getting water bills of between $400 and $600 for six months. Remind you, this is back in 1989. $400 and $500 for six months. The increase could bring the annual cost of water bills for a family well over $1,000. If the city's passed along all of the increased costs, Mayor McGlynn issued a statement saying, I am challenging the state and federal officials to And this is very important. We're going to go to page eight now. And this is the key part of the story. The federal governments have abdicated from their sense of responsibility to clean up the harbor. Commenting that the state and federal government fully expect us to pay an obscenely disproportionate share of the cleanup of these efforts, McGlynn called upon local and state elected officials to provide support to legislate proposals that would take the funding off the local communities and to work to bring about administrative action to the same end. And that's nothing more than I think what this Council, myself, and other people have been saying. We didn't have a revenue reserve fund back then. We didn't have, no, $8.5 million. We had all we could do to make sure that the people were paying these bills. subsequent to the enterprise fund coming under foundation. And here we have the mayor going back to 1989, back then, recognizing and addressing that the cost was not only going to be prohibitive, but cities and towns and the people who make up cities and towns are going to be paying for this. And here we have a chance, or here he has a chance right now, for the purposes of giving the break that he's talking about, that he was blaming the feds and the state for. So with that, Mr. President, this isn't me making it up. This is what he said. These are his quotes. So it's written in the paper in 1989. In 1989, as a matter of fact, we had a resolution on the council agenda on that same night to strip the MWRA of its powers because of obscene charging to cities and towns. I'm asking, Mr. President, that my colleagues make a request to the mayor to hold in abeyance this tiered rate system for one year and to find out and to let's just see, you know, where we're going as it relates to the savings in the water and soil count. We have $8.5 million, and now you're increasing the tax base even more for water and soil customers. Totally contrary to what the mayor argued way back in 1989, and at the same time, it's the same issue that's before us now, and we're sitting on $8.5 million of reserve. We had no reserves back then. Now we do. And again, to me, I think you're penalizing the ratepayers for this.
[Richard Caraviello]: President Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Yes, thank you for bringing us up to date on the 1989 meeting of the Medford City Council. But this city council, if I recall, time after time after time have been the driving force behind having the tiered water rate system. And now that we've paid a consultant, Hitchcock or Babcock, after the Water and Soil Woodcock, I'm sorry, after the Water and Soil Commission has done yeoman's work on this, to now ask to hold it in abeyance, based upon your article from 1989, and... Point of clarification, Councilor Fenton.
[Robert Penta]: It's not my article, it's what the mayor has said, and what the mayor was quoted as saying, not what I said. Quoted 30 years ago, Councilor. No, this is 1989, not 30 years ago. Yeah, so what's wrong with that? If you saw the light back in 89, you had no reserve then and you got eight and a half million dollars now, why wouldn't you want to give it back to the rate payers?
[SPEAKER_14]: So let's go back to 1939 and govern the city of Medford. You're making no sense at all. Where does it end? Where does it begin? That's the question.
[Paul Camuso]: Where does it begin? Mr. President, I cannot sit here and logically support this. Don't. To hold it in obeyance. You never do. To hold it in obeyance. So I ask for a roll call vote on my esteemed council colleague Robert M. Penter's article and being a councilor back in 1989 for his insight, but I can't support him now in 2014.
[Robert Penta]: Well, then all I can say in response to that, Councilor, is simply this. Back in 1989, there was no dollar surplus. We were fighting to stay survival. And from 89 until now, and while your friend the mayor has been in office, he's accumulated $8.5 million in surplus of tax and ratepayers' money, and he doesn't want to give it back to them, and he wants to keep charging them more and more.
[Paul Camuso]: What about you? What about me what? You personally requesting for a tiered rate system.
[Robert Penta]: We asked for a tiered rate system. We didn't ask to have it imposed as they did. We asked, and I believe the whole idea was to show us what it would be like not to implement it.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor, we asked for it, now it's not to implement it.
[Robert Penta]: It's the same thing with the parking meters. You've got parking meters all around the city.
[SPEAKER_14]: All we ask for the meter is to negotiate.
[Robert Penta]: Of course it is.
[SPEAKER_14]: We're referring back to 1989 now. We might have to. We might have to refer back to 1983 if you want. We can. We can go back. We can go back. History always tells us a story.
[Robert Penta]: What's the story that history tells us?
[Paul Camuso]: The best predictor of the future is the past, and I think your past has come as far as America.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Heisner.
[Adam Knight]: Merry Christmas. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I look back to some of my notes, and I have here resolution dated 09-803 brought forward by my colleague, Councilor Penta, relative to the creation of an excessive water use program, which passed unanimously by this council. Again, in 2010, Councilor Penta, implementation of a tiered rate system. Paper number 12720. So I think that this is something that's not uncommon and not unheard of, Mr. President. I went back and I, I, please.
[Robert Penta]: What a clarification. The asking for a tiered rate system. It's true. I think we all asked for that because we wanted to know why we didn't ask to have it implemented. I think it was council max. It was the only one at the time that voted against the old, the new water rate, the new water meter system. And it was Councilor Marks who introduced the idea of having possibly a tiered rate system because of the commercial people in the city. And those that use more water would be paying for more, and that's not what's happening.
[Richard Caraviello]: It's your family. Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen. Gentlemen, be civil, please. I had the privilege of talking with one of the water commissioners today about this. And Mr. Kamara alluded to me that After the first bills come out, they would re-look at the rate, not the rate, but the usage, see if it may be moving from 80 to 1,000 or where it should be, because they have no history to study. So after they have a little history, they said it would be re-looked at again.
[Robert Penta]: And that was the recommendation made at the meeting. Thank you. OK.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor, did I hear that? Again, like I said, Councilor Penter, I mean, Councilor Marks, I have here at least eight resolutions that was put forth by past city councils over the last seven years that would ask for the implementation of a tiered water rate system. The administration responded to recommendations made by the council over a seven-year period. I'm scratching my head on this one a little bit, Mr. President. Thank you very much.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. Gastineau, you name and address for the record, please. I'm sorry, you what?
[Andrew Castagnetti]: I'm sorry. Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Andrew Castaneri, Cushion Street, Method Mass. This, I think Councilor Panter brings up some good points about this tiered rate. I believe it's presently very unfair to the residential versus the commercial. And if I may think off the cuff here, I doubt it was the peoples that polluted the harbor, general public. It was more so like the Tannenmills in Lawrence or the Monsantos where the ProPublica casino probably is going to go.
[Richard Caraviello]: The commercial people will be paying the higher rate.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: You sure? Yes. Because it seems like three tiers. Listen---- They are paying the top rate. No, I don't think so. I disagree with that, sir. Let me, I'm going on my recollection. The first tier was like 800, up to 800, I believe, right? At whatever it is, 13 and 12 point something cents. Correct, Councilor Buenaventura? Something like that.
[Richard Caraviello]: It's the higher rate.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: But wait a minute.
[Richard Caraviello]: It's higher than residential.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: It doesn't say commercial in their Councilor Knight, does it? Right.
[Richard Caraviello]: So they will be paying more.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: I'm not sure that's accurate. You're right, thank you Councilor. Right.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor Marks. The commercial pays the second rate, which is higher than the first rate. So if you're a residential user and you use 700 cubic feet, you're going to pay that low rate. Once you go over the 800, 801, for that one cubic foot, you're paying the high rate for that one foot.
[Robert Penta]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: But commercial is going to automatically pay that second rate.
[Robert Penta]: Automatically.
[Michael Marks]: Automatically.
[Robert Penta]: Right. So they are paying the high rate. But they're paying the second rate, the middle rate. Right. But they're not paying the third rate, which is the highest of the rates. That's 1,800 and above, 1,600 and above. If they use it, they will. If they use it, they won't. The commercial, if you went to the meeting, you would have heard what he said. Oh.
[SPEAKER_14]: Point of information.
[Paul Camuso]: You just said they won't use the water. The commercial rates, if you read the note, the note says... So the Lawrence Memorial Hospital's gonna not use the water? I mean, the big users should be paying for the system that they're taxing. The Lawrence Memorial Hospital, Budweiser, Tufts University. These are people that are doing millions of gallons of water a day.
[Robert Penta]: Read the message that went out to the people.
[Paul Camuso]: Mrs. Jones on 3rd Street is using two cubic feet to take a shower and to boil some macaroni.
[Robert Penta]: How do you know she's making macaroni?
[Paul Camuso]: Because she's a young Italian woman. Like I said, we've asked for this, we've championed this under the leadership of all the members of this council. It came to fruition, and now we're asking for a year, holding it in abeyance. Roll call vote.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: If I may, if you are going to buy a gallon of gasoline, you buy 1 gallon, it is whatever the price is, $3. If you buy 10, it is $3. As far as the wholesale rate, I am not sure about that. In my limited mathematics, I would have Mr. Lasky, the director, figure this out, but I would start with at least $1,000 for the first tier, $2,000 for the second tier, ballpark here, and $3,000 for the third tier, and above that $3,000, I don't care if you're residential, commercial, or the shoemaker, you pay the highest rate. So you pay as you use and try to conserve. And these old corporations that are defunct, Chapter 11, Chapter 7, like the Monsantos, how much do they pay to clean the harbor? Why do we saddle with this beyond our children's times?
[Richard Caraviello]: It's not fair. It happened in 1989. If you'd like to lower the water rates on all of us, then the city of Medford will have to let the school department will pay their own water bill, city hall will pay their own water bill, the fire department will pay their own water bill, and the police department will pay their own water bill. None of those, none of the municipal buildings pay a water bill.
[Robert Penta]: The taxpayers do.
[Richard Caraviello]: The taxpayers do. We pick it up. In effect. I'm sure. I don't have any free cash in my pocket.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I just wanted to point out, thank you, vice president Caraviello. I can't support this tonight. This is in committee, this issue, and we are going to reevaluate once we get, I think we only went through one or two quarters with the new tiered rate. Once we get through three or four, we're going to reevaluate.
[Richard Caraviello]: That is what the commissioner told me today.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Correct. And we're going to possibly make changes or advise them to make changes or recommend.
[Richard Caraviello]: So I think... He said once they have some history on their side, they will make a change if necessary. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Again, I kind of concur with Councilor Lungo-Koehn in her assessment. You know, there is a paper. It's the same exact paper that's in committee. 90 days haven't passed since that paper was disposed of by this council and no report from that committee has been issued forthwith to the body. So I don't think this is a matter that should be appropriate for discussion at this point in time based upon our internal rules. However, I mean, I'm not going to challenge the chair. I'm not going to raise a question, a question of rules. I just think that We're looking at this, and we have a set of rules that we're agreeing to live by. We voted to suspend rule 33 today to take items out of order, and that's it. It says, if a matter is disposed of, 90 days before it comes back to the floor. We have the paper that's still in subcommittee, and the subcommittee hasn't reported on any findings, Mr. President. I think that this is where that discussion should take place.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Roll call vote has been requested. You want to refer it? It's already in committee, if I'm not mistaken.
[Robert Penta]: The reason why I brought this up is very simple. Yeah, it is. History tells you the story. And if the mayor back then recognized the fact that the people were getting walloped for having high water and sewer bills, how does it explain today when you have eight and a half million dollars and you can't give the people a break? It's as simple as that. Can't have it both ways, as you say, Councilor Camuso. I don't like cake, so you can eat it, all right?
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion to place it on file. All in favor? Move on. Name and address for the record, please.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: Was that vote all taken care of?
[Richard Caraviello]: Are you speaking on something else? Yes.
[Adam Knight]: Public participation in the agenda.
[Richard Caraviello]: He's not speaking in this matter. He's not speaking on this? No. He's speaking on something else. Thank you. Thank you. All right, gentlemen.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: Gentlemen. Anthony D'Antonio, Yale Street. One meeting. I have a question, and maybe somebody on the council can enlighten me. taxpayers and people that may be watching on TV and the overcrowded and the Council Hall here. But I was on my way to City Hall today to get a parking placard sticker and I bumped into my neighbor just as I was leaving and he said he had already come from City Hall and they said he cannot get the stickers any longer like we used to do at City Hall. Is there a method or a way to do this? Because right now-
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: From what I recall, they're waiting until the parking meters are put in place to issue permits. We discussed this in committee, does anybody else recall? That would be January, February.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: So then the placards we have now are grandfathered in until that date?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, they're not going to do any enforcement, but then the people that are going to enforce the meters are also going to enforce permit packing. So South Medford is very excited about it. I know there were a number of residents from our meeting that were there. that want this to move forward. It wasn't our decision. This is just what we were told. I understand. I think it's important you brought it up, because I did get an email on it this week. Somebody very concerned they couldn't renew their permit.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: That's good. That's good to know. I have other things to say about the parking program, but I had enough for tonight. Thank you, everybody.
[SPEAKER_15]: Mr. President. Mr. Councilor.
[Robert Penta]: You just bring up, and you just, she just jogged my memory on something. I was told that you won't be able to come. You'll have to go online and make an application to get them. If that's the case, everybody doesn't have a computer in this community. So if you don't have a car, how are you supposed to do this?
[Paul Camuso]: Residents are getting a break, too, in some of the parking.
[Robert Penta]: No, I understand that. But if they don't have a computer, and if they're telling you that's the only way you can do it online, that's. I'm sure there'll be other mechanisms.
[Paul Camuso]: Yeah, I don't recall that. I don't recall that.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: One of my neighbors does not have a computer.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: I am aware that they do have public computers at the Medford Public Library that's accessible, and people are allowed to use them there as well. It's just a point of information if anybody's interested.
[Paul Camuso]: They're actually going to be set up, too, in certain areas to get this off the ground. This is a huge undertaking.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: As long as the public is informed, that's great. Now, one last thing before I go. Councilor Knight, you were talking about the construction up on Smith Street to Hicks Avenue last week. But I have a question. On the corner of Main Street and Alexander Avenue, there seemed to have been a mistake. The council addressed this a few weeks ago. But I understand that. But why in God's name do we have to have a bolted in sawhusk wood with yellow caution tape on it. I mean, it's terrible. I mean, when can we get rid of this damn thing?
[Paul Camuso]: You know, there is a permanent plan that council asked this question a few weeks ago, maybe three or four weeks ago.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: Cafe dear. I believe it's in front of them. Yeah. Cafe dear. Yeah. I hadn't been to the last couple of meetings. I missed out.
[Paul Camuso]: Yeah. We missed you. Merry Christmas. All right. The records were passed too. I'm sorry. We have two papers in the hands of the clerk, and they are two condolences. They're both submitted by Vice President Caraviello. The first one, 14-791, offered by Vice President Caraviello, be it resolved that the Medford City Council extends its sincere condolences to Medford school teacher Bill Carter, who passed away last week after losing his battle with cancer. He'll be missed. On the motion of approval, all those in favor? All those opposed? And offered by Vice President Caraviello. Be it resolved, the city council offer a moment of silence for the recent passing of Marie, Mary Butler, long time resident of Medford. The chair recognizes Vice President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, we often come up here and we give resolutions and condolences to many people, like a school teacher, or someone's aunt, uncle, grandmother. Last Tuesday, a woman, Mary butler was killed in a tragic accident on high street. Mary butler was born and raised in medford. She has lived pretty much by herself her whole life. Her parents died at a young age. Her brother died at a young age. This is a woman who has no family, no sisters, brothers. home, there's going to be a small ceremony but there will be no family there at 730 tomorrow morning at St. Carty's but this woman has no family to be there and there's no condolences or anything. And we're always offering condolences for people that someone's grandmother or someone's work for the city. This woman was just a regular woman, taxpayer, whole life in the community, good Just recently moved over to the Regency condo because the house was getting to be too much. She was a neighbor of mine for 30 years. Nice woman, no family, and I'd like to offer this moment of silence for her just because the city is her family.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could touch upon that, and I appreciate Councilor Caraviello bringing this up. That marks the second fatality in that particular area within the past year. Two fatalities in the past year on that particular stretch of High Street. I've offered several resolutions regarding the lighting in front of the school and in front of the church. in that particular area and along High Street. And this council has offered many, many suggestions on traffic-calming approaches in this community. And as I mentioned before, we need to take back our streets from speeders and people that are breaking the rules and the laws of the roads, going through stop signs, Mr. President. And it's unfortunate that an incident like this takes place. However, it's becoming more available in this community, and we're seeing more pedestrian accidents in this community. And I don't know what we need to do, Mr. President, but we've discussed about widening sidewalks. We've talked about raised crosswalks. We have a pilot program going on right now, and we still fall short of the mark, in my opinion, in providing pedestrian safety. We don't clearly mark our crosswalks. They're not painted in a timely fashion. The lighting throughout the community is poor, Mr. President. The signage is inadequate, in my opinion, throughout the city. And we very seldom see any type of traffic stings or radar stings within our community that do have a profound impact in slowing cars on our streets. And really, Mr. President, I don't know what it's going to take, but in my opinion, we're at a situation right now that's epidemic in our community. And when you have two pedestrians within a year's span killed in the same area, Mr. President, that should raise a red flag. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you, Andrew Castagnetti. I just wanted to say, when you voted on the owner-occupied exemption, even though we all knew that 9 out of 10 of the owner-occupied would see less of a tax increase, I'm very shocked there was 7 to nothing against the proposal from the state. which is from the state we could use. I figure at least you're going to offer 10%, half, a half a bone. I guess I'm not surprised. Maybe capitalism wins again.
[Paul Camuso]: All those in favor to adjourn? All those opposed? The ayes have it.
|
total time: 27.09 minutes total words: 2702  |
total time: 11.73 minutes total words: 1237  |
total time: 17.51 minutes total words: 1717  |
total time: 0.87 minutes total words: 69  |
|
total time: 33.22 minutes total words: 2574  |
total time: 6.42 minutes total words: 598  |
total time: 22.17 minutes total words: 503  |
total time: 4.97 minutes total words: 401  |