[Fred Dello Russo]: The 32nd regular meeting of the Medford City Council is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Camuso. Present. Councilor Caraviello. Present. Councilor Knight. Present. Vice President Lehmann-Kern. Present. Councilor Marks. Present. Councilor Penta. Present.
[Fred Dello Russo]: President Dello Russo. Present. Seven members present, none absent. Please join me in rising to salute the flag. Aye. Congratulations. 15-716 offered by Councilor Caraviello be resolved for Metro City Council have Mayor notified the T and Department of Transportation regarding the problems and recent incidents regarding the gates at the West Medford train station that have been knocked down several times within four weeks. Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, being a resident, living in West Medford, I get to see those trains a little more than some of our other councilors here. Folks, can we quiet it down in the back of the room, please? Council, continue. Thank you, Mr. President. I apologize. Over the last few weeks, there's been several incidents at that train station where trucks have knocked those gates down a couple of times. A woman got hit by a car. about six weeks ago there. And I think it's time that we have the DOT and the T come down and investigate that and maybe working some other kind of configuration, especially with those, since they put in those, that lane divider there, the trucks can't make that turn if they're coming off a place that road. So if you can send something, if the mayor can send something to the T and the DOT, to maybe do some kind of study or maybe work something out with those cones there.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. So on that motion of Councilor Caraviello, Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I'd like to thank Councilor Caraviello for bringing this up. You know, this is becoming a major problem in the West Medford area, not only for the business community, but also for the traffic. And unfortunately, these things over the last few weeks have been knocked down at the height of rush hour, whether it's five o'clock at night. It comes to a total gridlock every time the trains are coming by. They have to get the police cruisers out there, stop the traffic. It's just becoming a nightmare. I think it's about time, given that it's a state road, Route 60. that the Department of Transportation has to get involved. There has to be a total look at that whole area. We still have those things down the middle of the road that divide the road that we had to put in in lieu of the horns being blown every time a train comes by. But at this point, I think we have to look at a major upgrade of the entire West Medford train station. You know something? In the coming few years, there's excuse me, in the coming few years, there's going to be possibility down in that area for business. Have we ever looked at putting the train platform on the other side of the train tracks so that it stops behind, say, the liquor store in that area, so that it doesn't have to keep the gates down for a long time, that it stops before the gates, and then it, when it's coming from Lowell, it would go by the gate and then stop I'm not so sure. I don't know if we have the room, but with all the projects going on here from the DOT and our community right now, whether it's Craddock Bridge, whether it's the Green Line, I think we have to take a serious look at the West Medford train station because it is becoming a nuisance, not only this particular matter, but just the amount of foot traffic in the area, which we encourage for environmentally. We want to have people take the train, but at the same token, we want to have it the safest possible. And the best aesthetically pleasing that we can do as well, too. So just food for thought. We are going to have to do a big cleanup of that parking lot at some point. And it may be the appropriate time to tie all this in together, maybe. If there's people in that immediate area that are looking to maybe sell their property, might be an opportunity for an economic development engine too, where you could actually reconfigure some of the area down there, build brand new storefronts. There's a million things you could do down there. It's over an acre of land if you take the, what is it, Stevens Auto Body? The West Medford parking lot and, like, that whole area, it's over an acre of land. So the development possibilities are endless. So it's something to look at. It also abuts the Medford Housing Authority, which is right there. So I think it's something long-term. We've got to have a long-term vision in this community, and I think it's one area we could look at. But on the immediate concern that Councilor Caraviello brought up, I think it's something that has to be looked at sooner than later.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much, Councilor. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Caraviello for bringing up this important issue. This actually plays right into the presentation we just received from a group called Walk Method. And they just sent us a seven page brochure, I guess, on issues that were pointed out within our community and ways that We as a community could be eligible for capital improvement investments of up to $12.5 million from MassDOT. And all we need to do is outline a detailed program on complete streets and be certified by MassDOT. And we could be eligible for the funding, which would improve many walkways in our community, many areas right now that are deemed unsafe or unfit for pedestrians. And this is a perfect segue into this walk method. And at some point, Mr. President, we should either have a Committee of the Whole meeting or maybe a public safety meeting to discuss some of the initiatives that were put forth in this particular presentation and see how we, as a council, can actively participate in putting forward a complete street program so we can become eligible for federal funding and state funding also for projects within our community to help with pedestrian safety.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. Thank you very much, Councilor Marks. So on the motion of Caraviello as amended by Councilor Marks, all those in favor? All those opposed? Carries. Thank you. 15-717 offered by Councilor Penta. Be it resolved that the bus stops in the Main Street and Harvard Street locations be discussed.
[Robert Penta]: Regarding these bus stop locations, Mr. President, there seems to be an ongoing concern as it relates to traffic into the business part of the community of Main Street into the South Medford area over there. And the bus stops have continuously kept coming up after speaking with some of the business merchants on maybe looking at them, maybe moving them or readjusting their locations and taking that into consideration. And I think it was almost a month ago, The council asked for the T to come down to the city council as it relates to Medford Square and the Kratik Bridge and the moving of the bridge. Have you heard anything yet?
[Fred Dello Russo]: I think we're still waiting. The clerk and I are going to be meeting on a couple of things we're still waiting on. We were good enough, the clerk arranged for us to have that meeting from the Eversource people. last week. I know that took some coordinating with their schedules and hours, but I think the clerk's still waiting to hear from DOT and the T on the issue that you mentioned.
[Robert Penta]: Well, relative to the bus stops, I'd like to include this in there because before this becomes a problem that's probably not needed, maybe just have a look and see as to where the bus stops might be. Maybe they can be rearranged, move around because there's a serious problem as it relates to the commercial part of trucks coming down there loading and unloading. And, um, I just think it needs to be addressed. It's been discussed in the past, but I think it's gotten to the point right now it needs to be addressed. All those businesses down there, it's full occupancy. So there's some concerns relative to the safety and to the locations for where trucks can make deposits and during the course of the day. So I just think, um, I don't know why it takes so long for the T to come here. Do you? The bus drops are in the control of the council.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So, well, I think, uh, I have an opinion from, uh, uh, former city solicitor Riley saying that, uh, uh, that we cannot, uh, we do not have the authority to pass an ordinance empowering it to establish or relocate bus stops on our own volition. And so that has to be done in concert with the MBTA, as well as I think it would be prudent to involve the Traffic Commission in this decision-making process as well. Move the question, Mr. President. Councilor Camuso. Was I? I'm sorry. Thank you. Councilor Lungo-Koehn was in queue first. I apologize.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Sorry. Thank you, President Dello Russo. I, too, just want to concur with the sentiments. We were here two weeks ago to discuss the issue with regards to businesses, delivery trucks, parking on the sidewalks in the South Medford area. And the restaurants do need a place to be able to load and unload. But we do have an issue with the bus stops, and I think we definitely need to roundtable it with the MBTA and create make some changes to not only make it pedestrian safe, but also allow for businesses to have a loading zone. And I think moving that bus stop, we just need to figure out, in unison with all the businesses, the best place to move it to. I think that's something we definitely need to take a good hard look at. We thank you to the DPW who installed Bullards where the traffic commission voted to place them a while back. But those were recently placed. And still, I got a photo from a resident who cares about the safety in the community and in this area. And trucks, as of today, are still parking on the sidewalk. It's almost worse at this point, because the bullets are making the trucks completely take over the sidewalk. So if you're on Harvard Street, There is no pedestrian access on the sidewalk. And I, you know, we have senior citizens, we have strollers, we have the average person who, it's unsafe in this area. It's highly, it's a highly, highly trafficked area and we cannot have delivery trucks parked on our sidewalks for extended periods of time. It's unsafe for pedestrians. We need to figure out a way to accommodate pedestrian safety, number one, and number two, some loading zones for our businesses. So I hope that we can call a meeting with the MBTA. Um, next, next week is the election, but hopefully the week after, hopefully somebody is available so that we can sit down and make that change.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair recognizes Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I think that this should be sent to the transportation subcommittee. Um, there's a couple of papers in there. Uh, Councilor Penton is the chair. There's one paper in there from October 2014, a year ago, to discuss bicycle safety issues. And that hasn't been called yet. Maybe we can put that, as well as the Craddock Bridge discussion that was supposed to take place in the Transportation Subcommittee from March. Maybe if we have one meeting, if Councilor Pentos thinks there's a need for it, call a meeting as the chairperson and take all three of these matters up on the same evening. But there's been quite some time has surpassed. And there's also a couple other ones on the committee of the whole regarding the bus stop down here. Maybe, do we want to move it all into the transportation subcommittee? I don't know if we can parliamentary, but.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. I think it's safe to say that there have been a variety of issues that have come up before this body relative to the MBTA or the Massachusetts Highway Department. Councilor Marks gave a great discussion and a great synopsis on the walk grant money that's available for us there, provided we get certified. And I think it's important, Mr. President, if we're going to keep calling MassDOT down here to address certain issues in this community, that maybe we establish a comprehensive list so that we can do it all in one shot, as opposed to doing a resolution, sending it out there, telling DOT to come down here on this issue. They come down here on this issue. We resolve that issue. They go back to Boston. Two weeks later, something else comes up. We send another resolution and bring them in. and go on and on and on and on, Mr. President. I think it might make sense for us to have our transportation subcommittee take a look at the issues that are out there pending right now, Mr. President. and put a list together, maybe then we can meet in the Committee of the Whole, prioritize that list, and then have the representative from the DOT come down, which encompasses the MBTA, the Massachusetts Highway Department, the road management for the DCR, and we can move forward in that regard. But at least it'll be a little bit more comprehensive as opposed to, you know, picking one fish out of the barrel at a time.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. So a motion of Councilor Pente as amended by Councilors Camuso, Knight, and Vice President Lungo-Koehn. Yes? Ma'am, welcome. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Ann Fretts]: Ann Marie Fretz, 215 Harvard Street, overlooking Yale Street. I was here two weeks ago to address the parking on South Redford Square. If you all took a look at this, this is prior to the two bollards that were installed at the crosswalk here, preventing cars from driving directly into the Oasis private property. What was approved by the Traffic Commission back on March 18th of 2015 were bollards around the corner. It specifically says on the corner. And this is what Chief Sacco and I had put up. last October on the same corner right here to prevent trucks from driving straight through and parking on the sidewalk and blocking the sidewalk. The bollards have been installed, two bollards right here. Cars cannot block through, but what they're doing is jumping the curb. This was this morning taken by my husband at 11 o'clock this morning. truck drove right up onto the sidewalk, just as they have been doing all along. So there's no question that the bollards were supposed to be put along Harvard Street to prevent trucks from going in. There's supposed to be a 10-foot gap to allow public parking, I'm sorry, public waste management services to get in and empty the dumpster. I spoke with them again today, and yes, that's all they need is a 10-foot gap. And please put a chain there so no one else goes through it. And what I would like to ask is that someone find out why the bollards were not installed. I was told by several of the DPW workers that there were intended to put in the bollards along Harvard Street. I can't get an answer from anyone in any of the departments, whether it be DPW, the police department, and the chief is in Chicago at this point, but I'm sure he would be checking up on it as well. Mark Rolney doesn't know of any legal issue that the bollards would not be installed along Harvard Street. So the neighborhood expectations were that bollards would be put up to protect us. We have no place to walk that's safe. We cannot walk on either side of the street because trucks parking on that side drives cars to park on the other side of the street. I'm sorry, not the street, parked on the sidewalk. All the more reason to have a loading dock for Bocelli's, for Oasis, and for all of the other places that need their deliveries made. Licenses were granted. for these restaurants without loading zones. And when the street was paved in 2010, October 2010, by North Shore Construction and Development, they had asked for a cutout next to Oasis. At that time, there could have been negotiations to take over some of Oasis's private property to make it a sidewalk so they could have a loading zone cutout at that time, and it was refused by the community development saying the street would not allow it. So what I would ask is that the DPW, in lieu of putting up the bollards because of unknown reasons, A, find out what the reason is for the delay in the bollards along Harvard Street, and put these up to protect us. Please, along the lane. They could go all the way down to the driveway entry at 215 Harvard Street. That's how many trucks park on this street. They may be customers of Oasis. They may be delivery trucks. We cannot traverse these sidewalks because of these trucks. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. So, we'll do that as an amendment, Councilor Penta? Sure. So, as an amendment by Councilor Penta. Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Jim Silva]: Jim Silva, 115 Yale Street. Going forward with this proposal of the bus stop move, I would suggest that we engage the community as well as the business community. We have ideas. We have proposals. We should have three or four different options for both groups that will satisfy. I think a lot of the issues that go through is stuff is brought down and nobody understands what's happening. So by all of us working together, we could really come to some sort of resolution. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, sir. Good evening, welcome. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Anita Dantonio]: Anita D'Antonio, 14 Yale Street. I just want to follow up and say I look forward to any subcommittee meetings and discussions with regard to finding some solution for the businesses on Main Street. We are not anti-business. We just wanted some safety measures instituted. And we're more than willing, I am more than willing to work with any of the business owners on Main Street. I think they have interpreted our efforts as being somehow trying to affect negatively their businesses. That's not the case. Times have changed. Traffic has increased. Parking has increased. I think we need to make some good, solid changes that look forward. with regard to perhaps some ideas about parking on Main Street. Maybe we could do head-in parking where Arthur's Pastry is. I don't know. Maybe we can make some adjustments there. But the businesses definitely need a loading zone that is safe for them and for the pedestrians. We now have a sidewalk on Yale Street. We have a curb. And I understand that they need to make deliveries. Maybe there can be a small entrance into the alleyway. But the problem got so difficult and so, it was so exacerbated by so many cars and trucks, okay, and trucks parking there that it became very, very unsafe. And it was just tempting fate to leave it that way. So I'm more than willing to work with the guys and the gals on Main Street. I wish some of them had come here this evening, but hopefully they'll come to a subcommittee meeting and hopefully the MBTA will be there so that we can get some adjustment with the bus stop. And I'd like to see the bus stop just a few feet away from where it is now, perhaps in front of that dry cleaners. I think it might be sufficient and maybe even more safe than what is there now, right at the intersection of Harvard and Maine. We're willing, ready, and we just need the cooperation of the city and the business owners. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much. So, Councilor Marx.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I think the ironic thing about this whole issue is we're talking about a bus stop, we're talking about commercial vehicles parking on a sidewalk, And actually, the issue is that now we have a bus stop that's right next to the commercial vehicles parking on the sidewalk, which is an accident waiting to happen. So I would offer a motion, Mr. President, to get clarification from the Traffic Commission on the bollards. It was my understanding, too, the bollards would circle around the corner of Haven and Main. And that's, I thought, was the vote. If we can get clarification from the Traffic Commission on the balls going up Harvard, so that would prevent any type of trucks. Clearly, that picture is shows an accident waiting to happen with a truck of that nature parked on a sidewalk where baby carriages and young kids and seniors are walking. It just doesn't make a good mix, Mr. President. And also, You know, this topic has been discussed for a year now. When we traversed, along with the Salt and Effort residents in Smarto with the chief of police, there were a slew of issues brought up, and one of them was a loading zone and the need for a loading zone. And at that time, we said it may be advantageous to move that particular bus stop, which takes up at least five or six parking spots, over to the other corner, or maybe even a little further down, So it would help not only the Oasis, but other businesses that are getting deliveries throughout the course of the day. So, you know, I'm not sure why this has taken so long, to be honest with you. But within the next couple of weeks, we should be able to have a sit-down with all the inter- and I agree with you, Mr. President. If the team needs to be at the table, fine. The business owners should be at the table, fine. The residents, everyone that needs to be at the table, because we have to iron this out. There's no reason why the wheels of government have to turn this slow and wait for an accident to happen. So I'd move that motion for clarification on the ball, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: As amended by Councilor Marks, Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Mr. President. This petition was before us last week looking for action on the bollards, actually a couple of weeks ago. And this council was pretty vocal getting the bollards done in a quick fashion from the meeting moving forward, not a quick leading up to the meeting. Obviously, we're all aware that somewhat created World War III down there, as you just alluded to, the businesses and the neighbors and there's a lot of friction right now and there's some animosity. being thrown at some certain members of this city council, too, which is unfair, because council has fought for what they believe was the right thing to do. But I think once and for all, maybe we slow these modifications down, the loading zone and the bus stop, and get in a traffic engineer that actually we can pay, the city can pay, and they can look at it and find out what the safest, the most business-friendly solution is that certainly will help the neighborhood. Because the chief of police, the DPW commissioner, Cassandra up in engineering, they're all very good professionals at what they do. But only a traffic engineer can come in and tell us that, hey, you're going to get the best impact, the safest cutout in the curb is in this spot here. That the loading zone should actually be at this spot here. And if we spend $5,000, for a consultant to come in here and give us an actual framework on what the best solution is. At that point, it's totally on the city. It's not the neighbors against the businesses. It's not the businesses against the neighbors. It's the city taking the leadership role and taking the ball right out of your court, so to say, and doing what is needed in that immediate area. Because I can tell you right now, there's already a lot of animosity about this current paper on here this evening. And it hasn't even been heard yet. until about five minutes ago. So with that being said, I think we should put the brakes on and ask the mayor to bring in a traffic engineer and come up with a solid plan that no one can be blamed for. Because quite honestly, as I said last Wednesday, when those bollards went in, I spoke to several city councilors and the phones were ringing off the hook to all of us. And quite honestly, I don't even think that's over yet. There may be some legal action with those bollards. Businesses feel that the city shouldn't have come in and did that. But that's a situation for our law department to deal with. So with that being said, I just think the professionals need to come in and make these determinations. And quite honestly, if we're getting them in here, we should have them maybe in West Medford look too. Bargain spot lickers. Right now, they're a little upset with the parking lot closing down in a few weeks, where they have no parking in front of their store. Maybe we look at some of these squares as a whole, including Medford Square, and have a traffic engineer tell us, tell the city representatives where these bus stops should be, and not moving them because someone picks up the phone and haphazardly calls us and asks us to move a bus stop. We can make an educated decision on it based upon fact and not hearsay and people's personal preferences. Because one thing I know about this, it's like permit parking. You do this street, and they love it. The next street now starts, it's the trickle-down effect. And you do that, it's the same thing with bus stops. You put it in front of one business, and then the bank gets upset. And then you move it from the bank, and the next store gets upset. So if we could look to hire a traffic engineer, I just think it's It's the most professional way to proceed at this point.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the main motion of Councilor Penta, it's additionally amended by Councilor Camuso. Vice President Lango-Kern. You did, yes, we have that amendment. I should have summed it up. It's been amended by Vice President Lango-Kern, yourself, Councilor Camuso twice, and I think Councilor Knight had an amendment on there as well. Madam Vice President, please.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Briefly, thank you, President Dello Russo. I agree with possibly getting a traffic engineer to maybe look at the traffic in the area. But with regards to the public safety of pedestrians, I don't think that can wait. And I think this council's trying to also help the businesses. So I'm not really sure who the businesses are upset with. But it really doesn't matter. I mean, I personally know and see probably five different people that traverse Medford streets primarily by wheelchair. It's best if we have them on the sidewalk, and I think this is measures that need to be taken for the safety of pedestrians. So traffic study, I mean, could take months. I think we need some resolve now, and whether or not you do a traffic study, I think pedestrian safety needs to come first.
[Paul Camuso]: Point of information, Mr. President?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: The two papers that are before us are to move a bus stop, and then the second one is to possibly the amendment was to add a loading zone, loading dock, loading zone area. That's not going to affect pedestrian traffic at all. Those are both on the main street and not the sidewalk. So I'm just not really hearing how it's going to affect the pedestrian traversing.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'm not sure where you've been the last half hour, but we've been discussing the sidewalk and trucks parking on the sidewalk on Harvard Street blocking the entire sidewalk for the last half hour. I think we've included that within our discussion, and it's the utmost important in my mind. Businesses come second.
[Paul Camuso]: Well, with all due respect to the Councilor, the trucks are blocking a street and a sidewalk that are not even on the bus route, and they were asking for a loading zone to be placed on Main Street and not Harvard Street, because there isn't the room on Harvard Street. You couldn't get two trucks by if one truck was parked. And with the bollards now, They can't do that if you put one more, like you said, down at what, 259? Did you say 259 Harvard Street? You'd like to see the bollards go down to? No. Which was the address you said on Harvard? 215, OK. So 215. So as I stated, the pedestrians traversing these bus stops moving in a quick fashion in the loading zone does not affect the pedestrians. Dealing with the problem at hand on Harvard Street We'll do that, but I think we're making some progress with the bollards, but they have to be extended.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. Councilors and Councilor Knight. Um, yes, Mr. President, looking at the minutes from the, uh, October 13th meeting, uh, we did pass a resolution. The resolution had a number of parts. And if we look at part E amended by Councilor Camuso, that the chief of police look into doing community policing in the area a couple of days a week for the next two months to prepare a list of concerns and then draft a plan to resolve them. I think that that still makes sense. I think that that's a good course of action and a strong way for us to move forward. If we can get the chief of police down there, because it seems like this is an enforcement issue more than anything else. It's an enforcement issue. That's what it is. You know, we wouldn't need bollards if they wouldn't park on the sidewalk. They won't park on the sidewalk if they get tickets, but they're not getting tickets, so they're parking on the sidewalk. So it's an enforcement issue, Mr. President. So I think it makes sense that we reinforce our position from October 13th.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much, councillor. Good evening.
[Ann Fretts]: Good evening, Anne Fretz, 215 Harvard Street.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Welcome.
[Ann Fretts]: I'm all about public safety. I want a safe place to walk. I don't have one in my neighborhood. I'm not being sarcastic in any way. I took the chief and Councilman Caraviello on a walk October 7th, 2014. We looked at the trucks pulling into the private property that is owned by Oasis Restaurant, driving over the sidewalk. We looked at their dumpster on the sidewalk. I have sent all of you every picture I have taken of a car or truck blocking the sidewalk. I've called the police to the point where the police don't want to hear from me anymore about cars being parked on the sidewalk. They do not have the manpower to go out and deal with a minor traffic issue. They're aware of it, they're paying attention to it, but they're called away because there are two cars in each district. In our sector, there's two. They do not have time, in particular at the time of day when the school buses are going through and kids are exiting onto the sidewalk while the trucks are trying to deliver because cars and trucks deliver to Oasis all day long. They start at four o'clock in the morning. We know this because we can hear them and all of our neighbors can hear them. It's a safety issue. I don't understand why we're putting roadblocks up again when we've already spent since I think December of 2012, we met with Oasis and many of the neighbors and several of the councilmen to discuss parking. That was primarily on Yale Street, and we addressed the driving on the sidewalk and the deliveries on the sidewalk. You all read the letter that I sent to Morgan Memorial and to M&M Transport about their truck parking on the sidewalk and totally blocking the sidewalk. Unattended with engine running. This is what we face every single day and it's not just on Monday through Friday. It's every day of the week. We have been calling the police. We've talked to the chief. The chief has examined the area. He knows the issues well. to have him or Rich Carroll, Sergeant Carroll, or anyone else patrol the area to look for problems. They're aware of the problems. Alva Erickson has an eight-inch book, a listing of the problems and the incidents, because we wanted this documented because no one's doing anything about it. We can't even get orange barrels put down to protect us on Harvard Street because it has to be ordered by the Traffic Commission, who then tells the DPW, And it's approved by the police department. The police cannot go out and put traffic barrels out there to protect us. We cannot walk down there. We have to drive if we want to get to Arthur's Bakery. We have to drive if we want to get to La Casha, if we want to get there safely. I don't understand why you want to delay any further from doing anything. And all of you have seen it. I've sent you all the emails. I've sent you all the pictures. It's real time. This is what we're living with. I'm begging you to do something. Thank you.
[Jim Silva]: Thank you. Jim Silva, 115 Yale Street. As far as the bus stop and its current configuration, it's totally illegal. The bus can't pull to the curb. And from my understanding, the MBTA is not supposed to drop people or receive passengers in that sort of configuration. people are, it's a very dangerous situation. People have to go out to the street, they can slip and fall, jump over a river of water. In addition, if it's an older RTS bus, the lift is on the back door. The bus itself sits in the middle of Harvard Street. So as far as moving the bus stop is concerned, it should have been something that should have been looked at years ago. I understand you want a transportation person to come down, but it's a no-brainer. It really is common sense to move the bus stop. In addition, this is the sixth busiest stop on the 101 route. As far as the businesses that would impact move the stop, There's potential for 100 plus additional customers for the dry cleaner, for instance, that are getting on and off that bus. So I think it should be looked at. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you all. Councilor?
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, we, um, we hired a parking company to enforce parking, but, uh, we, we, we hired an understaffed parking company, uh, because, You obviously can't patrol the whole city with two people. And maybe if they had a little more presence down there, we maybe wouldn't be talking about this as much. Two guys in two trucks can't do the whole thing. I would think the republic need to be brought into this. I mean, as much as we don't like them, they're part of the problem there also, Mr. President. And I think Mr. Silva's right. with the bus stop, all the other bus stops were able to pull right up to the curb. To do that in that area, you'd probably have to lose half of those angle parking spots too. So that's something we're going to have to look into. Thank you, Councilor.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Yes, Mr. President. I think it's important to point out that the issue before us is the placement of the bus stops, not the ballings or anything else. On October 13th, we sat down, we met as a council, we passed a resolution. It was a multiple part resolution. Part of that resolution was for our transportation subcommittee to meet to discuss the issues related to the ball. It's down there. That subcommittee meeting is yet to be scheduled, Mr. President. So, um, until that subcommittee meeting happens, I don't know how much of a productive conversation we're going to have other than the fact that we're just going to be rehashing all of the items that we discussed two weeks ago. As we already have, you know, so with that being said, Mr. President, um, I move for approval on the paper.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Council a motion of council, uh, night to move the paper. Thank you, ma'am.
[Anita Dantonio]: I just wanted to, uh, to Councilor Camuso, through you, Mr. President, Anita D'Antonio, 14 Yale Street. Um, I, I, it's interesting. I know we hit a hornet's nest when that curb went up and the bollards went up, but you noted that you got loads of phone calls and as did the other councilors. I wonder if they could pick up the phone to call you and complain why they didn't pick up the phone and find out when the meetings were or when we could have a meeting and get together and discuss this. And on that note, we went through the proper channels. We came before the city council, and there was a council resolve. I believe it was 7-0 to take this action of restoring the curb and putting some sort of barrier up on Harvard Street. We then went to the traffic commission. We presented our case at that time, and at that time, The owners of Oasis and I believe the ex-owner of Maze Cafe were in attendance. They made their case. We made ours. And the chief and the traffic commission ruled on the issue. And it was to go forward from that time on in terms of they chose to restore the curb and put the bollards up. So there was no surprise with this. And it has been a little bit tense there. And there's been blame assigned and a lot kind of nasty attitude. So the other piece of this is that we've always been willing to work with the businesses to do something about where they can load and unload their vendors and to find some place for their delivery vehicles. So I just wanted to clarify and say, you know, it hasn't been a surprise and I think they should pull back on blaming people and blaming the residents and, you know, sort of it's gotten nasty and it shouldn't be. It shouldn't have been a surprise to them. And they did have the opportunity to speak. So that's all I wanted to say. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor.
[Paul Camuso]: And this evening, as I suggested, we send this to the Subcommittee on Transportation because the paper before us by Councilor Penta is to move the bus stop. And for us to do anything without, as you stated and as Mr. Silva stated, you want to work together, everyone should be at that table. as the last process. So the appropriate subcommittee is the transportation subcommittee where these things can be hashed out collectively and as well take up some of the stuff that's been left over hanging in there from 2014 and early 15 that has not been addressed yet. Maybe we can have like a marathon meeting and get some of it cleared up. That's not my committee. That's not my committee.
[Fred Dello Russo]: All my papers have been cleared up. And we welcome you, citizen, to speak. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Sqp6S0Yyr0A_SPEAKER_04]: Hi. My name is Rachel Tannenhaus. I can spell it for who has ever taken notes, because it's one of those, aren't you sorry you cut last names? You live at? 26 Pearl Street. 26 Pearl Street.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Welcome.
[Sqp6S0Yyr0A_SPEAKER_04]: Hi. Thank you, sir. I am a pedestrian. I am also a bus user, and I am blind. It is extremely unsafe for me if the bus stop is set up such that the bus has to let me off in the middle of the street. My dog does his best, but he can't really take on a whole car. We do not disappear when we get off the bus. We magically become pedestrians. So when there is a bus stop issue, there is absolutely a pedestrian issue. And the other thing is that if I cannot go safely to a place, I'm not going to patronize the businesses there. This is absolutely a business issue in that if people can't walk safely to, I mean, obviously I'm not driving there. Even in Massachusetts, they don't give me a license. If people cannot walk to a business, particularly people with disabilities, if we can't get safely to that business, it's not getting our money. I mean, that's all there is to it. And I heard talk earlier about looking at complete streets policies for the city. I'm familiar with complete streets policies. I'm extremely in favor of them. But they don't magically start when you get a grant. You've got to walk the walk, as it were. And so this is, if you want complete streets, and you want to be able to put into a grant that you are committed to this, make it happen. Don't just wait for the grant to show up. This is part of complete streets. This is part of this policy y'all are excited about. So get excited about it. Because it is—it's one thing to talk about it and to say you're into it, but this has been sitting around, so make it happen. I think that it's best for the business, really. I mean, I'm not a business owner, but I bet they like it when people come in and give them money. And, you know, it's absolutely safest for the citizens. And you might want to—I am not an attorney, but I have 15 years providing— professional assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act, and you might want to talk to council for the city about what your ADA liability is if you don't take care of that, and also what the business's ADA liability is if their accessible routes are being blocked on a regular basis, and they're not doing anything to change that. I think you'll find that the Department of Justice doesn't look really kindly on that, and neither does case law. So I'm not saying that to threaten, I'm saying that it's really best for everybody that this be addressed quickly before somebody gets killed and before they lose money over it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much, Rachel. So on the motion of Councilor Penta, as amended by Councilors Penta, uh, Vice President Lungo-Koehn, Councilor Knight, Councilor Camuso, and Councilor Martins. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. 15-718 offered by Councilor Penta. be resolved that the rodent problem resulting from the Craddock Bridge reconstruction be addressed. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: During this past week, Mr. President, I was contacted by some of the tenants that live on work, excuse me, on the commercial pieces of property on Riverside Avenue. And as a result of the Craddock Bridge being reconstructed at the present time, there's been an ongoing weekly rodent problem that's continuing to exist, which is costing a considerable amount of money, not only to the owners of the property, but it's going to eventually come down to the renters because they are the ones that are feeling it. Um, I'd like to get a report back from the, um, board of public health on that. And at the same time, this was one of the things that we brought up as to why something called mitigation couldn't have been taken into consideration. Having the forethought to recognize that a situation like this could happen. Um, I think it's unfortunate that it is happening, but it has an effect on not only the business owners, but the renters. And their custom is, it's a daily cost, it's a weekly cost, and it's an ongoing cost. And I don't think that they should be the ones that should have to pay for it. So I move that forward, Mr. President. I also move that to the city solicitor's office to have them investigate and figure out if there's a way that the city, in behalf of the property owners, can retrieve financial remuneration for what they're going through as a result of this bridge.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Penter, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. 15-719, offered by Councilor Penter. Be it resolved that Teresa Castagnetti, a teacher within our Medford Public Schools, be congratulated for being chosen as the Massachusetts Teacher of the Year by the Massachusetts Association of Teachers of Speakers of Other Languages. Councilor Penter.
[Robert Penta]: What's interesting about this resolve is the fact that the young lady, not only having been a well-recognized teacher within our Medford public school system, and she also has this ability to deal with students that need to speak from other languages as it relates to interacting with English. I had the unique opportunity this past week to address a special class up at the high school as it relates to government as we speak. but the recognition of other teachers within the building and what they can do and how they're being recognized seems to be something that's not ongoing on a daily basis, or strike at, or on any kind of a basis. There is a huge, there is a huge inventory of teacher talent that exists in our method public school systems. And this young lady, Teresa Castagnetti, is one of them. It's sort of like an unrecognized hero, because on a daily basis, she has to deal with a bunch of students, once again, speakers of other languages, And to some teachers or to some students, that can be a hard interaction. But she seems to work it well. She's recognized for it as the Teacher of the Year from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. So I think she deserves a public acknowledgement for that. And also at the same time, on many occasions, her husband, sitting out in the audience, speaks as it relates to that. So he's blessed to have a wife who has this type of ability and to be recognized for receiving this award. So I move the question, and hopefully, again, it sets a nice tempo for teachers within the school system to know that they can and they are being recognized for the work that they do.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much, Councilor, and congratulations, Professor. Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you. I want to thank my colleague, Councilor Penta, for putting this on this evening. We all know Ms. Castagnetti. just a wonderful person a great teacher in our community and of course her husband who's not only a biggest biggest fan of all the city councillors, but also a friend of my aunt Carol, so just want to want to congratulate you and your lovely wife for this honor and thank you for councillor Penta for Bringing it up this evening giving her the recognition that she deserves Thank You Councilor Councilor Marks
[Michael Marks]: I too just want to echo that, Mr. President, and I thank Councilor Penta for bringing this up. Teresa has been with the school department for a number of years and has been a dedicated professional. And on behalf of this council and the entire community, I want to congratulate her on being chosen for this prestigious award.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. So on the motion of Councilor Penta, all those in favor? Opposed? Congratulations. Motion carries. 15-720 offered by President Dello Russo. Be it resolved that the council cancel the November 3rd, 2015 meeting due to the municipal election held that day. Just a note, that's a customary practice from time immemorial. On motion of myself, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. 15-722 offered by Councilor Knight. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council support HB 3811, an act regulating oxycontin prescriptions to minors. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. And hopefully you'll bear with me for a moment here. Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to speak with Representative DiZaglio from Methuen. And she represents the 14th Essex district, Mr. President. She's the lead sponsor of House Bill 3811, an act to regulate oxycontin prescriptions to minors. And she has prepared a written statement because she was unable to appear this evening, Mr. President. So I'd like to read that into the record on her behalf. coming from Representative DiZaglio. I write to express my deepest gratitude to the members of the Medford City Council for your resolution and strong show of support in favor of my sponsored resolution, hopefully. House Bill 3811, an act regulating OxyContin prescriptions for minors. This past August, the Food and Drug Administration approved the prescribing of OxyContin, the extended release version of the painkiller Oxycodone, known in recent years for its frequent abuse for children as young as 11 years old. Under this legislation, OxyContin would be prohibited for prescription to children under the age of 17 in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. OxyContin is manufactured by Purdue Pharma, a drug company which came under fire in 2007 after three of its top executives pled guilty to misleading doctors and the public about OxyContin's risks of addiction. Recently, the FDA decided to ask the same company to conduct its own studies on whether or not they deemed this highly addictive substance safe for young children. When I heard about this, I was outraged. We are, after all, in the middle of an epidemic related to opioids. It is no time to expand access to opioids, least of all to young, vulnerable children. I was immensely pleased when, on September 9th, a bipartisan group of eight U.S. senators, including Senator Edward Markey, Senator Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire, and Senator Gene Shaheen from New Hampshire, penned a letter to the U.S. Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee calling for an investigation into the FDA's decision to approve OxyContin as well as an examination of the rise in opiate abuse and overdose deaths. The letter noted the FDA decision was made without the advice of an independent advisory committee, which was approved by the FDA regulations on approving drugs. In a study conducted in 2014, the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that nearly one in 30 high school seniors had abused OxyContin. Each day, according to the American Society of Addiction Medicine, 2,500 youth in the United States abuse a prescription pain reliever for the first time. The number of opioids prescribed to adolescents and young adults has nearly doubled between 1994 and 2007. We in the Commonwealth have a duty to our children to regulate the distribution of an opioid like OxyContin to these vulnerable citizens. I thank the members of the Medford City Council for their support of this legislation and commitment to forcefully addressing the Commonwealth's opioid crisis. Mr. President, I bring this resolution forward because the statistics are alarming. If you do a little bit of research and you take a look into opioid abuse here in Massachusetts, you'll find that the Bureau of Substance Abuse Services conducted a survey in 2012 relative to the adolescent admissions into treatment programs. And this focused on the abuse rate among youths averaged age 12 to 17 years old. In Massachusetts during FY12, There were 2,254 admissions to substance abuse treatment services for children that were under 18 years of age, Mr. President. 48% of those seeking treatment were related to opiate abuse, Mr. President. So I think it's very important that the Medford City Council get on board and support this legislation. The city messenger was kind enough to pass around a packet that I had. And inside this packet, Mr. President, you'll find a copy of Representative DiZaglio's statement. an article from the Lawrence eagle tribune that outlines a little bit of the history of the bill as well. You'll also find in this packet, Mr. President, a legislative history of the bill. There was a hearing on the bill in the committee on mental health and substance abuse. This hearing was on the 22nd of this month. And from what I understand, Mr. President, it's going to be reported out of this committee favorably. Also you will find house bill number 3811 attached to this packet as well, Mr. President. So I asked my colleagues here in the Medford city council to continue their proactive efforts in combating opiate abuse here measured by joining me in voting in the affirmative to support House Bill 3811. Very good.
[Richard Caraviello]: So on the motion of approval by Councilor Knight, Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleague for bringing this up. I don't think there's anybody in this room that hasn't had someone touched by this. And I would hope that our legislators will take this and pass it swiftly. Again, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this up. Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Patu.
[Robert Penta]: One of the things that the bill addresses, it goes back to 2007, where it takes in particular an age group between the ages of 15 and 19, which basically represented 4.3%. So I'm assuming, I would have to assume that since 2007 coming forward, as we all know, that has greatly increased. The one thing that's disturbing, I think, in this press release is the fact where it states in the study conducted in 2014, The National Institute of Drug Abuse found that nearly 1 in 30 high school seniors had abused oxycodone. Now, when you say 1 in 30 high school students, I mean, just look at Medford High in and of itself. I mean, I can't believe that 1 in 30 of every one of those high school kids uses it or abused it. And I think the damning effect, when you make press releases like that, I don't know how Medford High gets itself involved into the national statistic. Adam, you had statistics there for the state. And I don't know if the state was broken down by each city and town, because these responses had to come from students who readily admitted and acknowledged that they either used it or abused it or were on it, one or the other. And I just don't want people to think, when they hear 1 in 30, that that represents Medford High School as well, because it's a national statistic that took place in 2014. We know we have a problem here in the city of Medford. We know we have some. I think it's an excessive 84 deaths over the last five years, and it is a problem. But I just don't want people to think that our high school is lumped into this national drug survey that's unsubstantiated. I think it's an unfair commentary.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, the data that I referred to was put forward again by the Bureau of Substance Abuse Services. The report was prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau of Substance Abuse Services, and the Office of Data Analytics and Decision Support, Mr. President. Books like this fact sheet was put out in 2012 that I have here relative to the press release that Representative Zaglia put out and asked for me to read into the record, Mr. President. She didn't cite where she got her data. However, I take it on face value this is part of her testimony that she used when she chaired the caucus relative to the passage of the bill in the hearing as well. So I can understand what Councilor Penta says. However, he doesn't see it in Medford High. I'm a little bit closer to some of these children and I do see it, Mr. President. And when you think one in 30 children, you're thinking one kid in every single class. And when we're looking at this epidemic that's facing our city, our state, our region, and the country, It's foolish for us to think that we're immune to it, Mr. President. It doesn't discriminate. And national averages and national averages and, you know, we're a part of that. We're a part of this nation and we're a part of the data collection module.
[Robert Penta]: I would happen to think, Mr. President, that the students in our city and the parents in our city that unfortunately might have children that are either using it or have been abused from using it had to go through that suffering. But I cannot believe that one out of every 30 students or one out of every students in the classroom is either using it or abusing it. And sometimes statistics can leave you in a different way. As a matter of fact. The press release is even different than that for which is being presented from 2012 to 2014. Councilor Knight can have his opinion. I have mine. And, uh, I just think that one particular statistic, um, doesn't vote well. I think it's a, uh, a false representation of every school district and every school throughout this entire country where they got these statistics. I don't know that method city, um, people from the city of Medford that families and students become part of it, that they take part of it. I don't know, but I just think it's a, an unfair commentary to make that one in 30 high school seniors have either used it or abused it or run it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Penta. The chair recognizes Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. I think there was an article in the Medford Patch last week that stated, I think statistics are statistics, but the Patch article stated that Medford had one of the highest Top 10 highest death rates from opiate abuse. Top 25 in the state. Okay, top 10, top 25. Yeah, the article came out last week, so I think that's what we need to focus on. We need to focus on the facts, and we recently had a Medford resident pass away this past weekend, so it's happening. It's real. Statistics are statistics, but let's face the fact, and I thank Councilor Knight for bringing this forward. Anytime this is a topic of discussion, it's important to continue to bring awareness and continue to take measures statewide, citywide, nationwide to help stop this epidemic. And I think this is very important. I think the language of the actual bill is what people need to focus on. And the language states, no pharmacy or pharmacist shall issue, dispense, or distribute medications or prescriptions containing oxycontin. to any person under 17, and no practitioner, nurse, licensed practical nurse shall utilize, dispense, or prescribe a controlled substance in the Commonwealth to anybody under the age of 17. I think that's a no-brainer. This is one paper I didn't need to have two weeks ago to decide on. That is a no-brainer. These drugs are killing people. And this is a measure that probably should have been enacted years ago. And any measure that's going to prevent this epidemic and children from suffering from this epidemic, you know, I'm in full support of.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Madam Vice President. Councilor Camuso. Thank you, Mr. President. And this isn't about statistics. This isn't one in 30, one in 60, one in 10, one in five. This is one. It's one. If it's one person in the city of Medford that we can help save their life and put them in the right direction, then we support it or we don't. We're all entitled to our vote this evening. The statistics, as far as I'm concerned, are semantics. This is something good that the Medford City Council can get behind to save one life. One life is enough, as far as I'm concerned. You know, you go up to Medford High School, you go to Somerville High School, you go to Woburn High School, you go to any number of high schools around here, and the kids will tell you, it's easier to get pills than it is to buy a case of Budweiser down at the liquor store. It's easier. It's easier. So, when there's a paper like this before us, and of course, on first face value, when I got my packet this weekend, I reached out and I discussed this with Councilor Knight, and just, I wanted to make sure that that kids that are suffering with terminal ill cancer, kids that are suffering with diseases that are going to ultimately be fatal, whether there is still mechanisms in place that they can be prescribed the needed doses of pain medication so that they can die with dignity. And in my little research I did this weekend, there is many. Whether it's Dilaudid, whether it's morphine, there are other substances out there that can be used, but I think this is a positive thing. Just look at collectively as a city council, this council as a whole, all seven of us stood in unity a year ago to push for the hiring of a full-time substance abuse coordinator for our community. We stood strong And the mayor took our collective recommendation from all seven members of this council. That is in effect today. We didn't hire a full-time $80,000 a year salaried position that had unanimous support from the seven members of this council and the city administration because topics that we're talking about right now are not an issue. It's a major issue. This is something we can get behind on the ground level. We can be, and I get passionate about this obvious for obvious reasons. You know, but if we can get behind this and it can save one life, one life, then as far as I'm concerned, it's one of the best votes we can take as a city councilor. We were arguing about bus stops a half hour ago. We were arguing about other stuff. This is the real deal stuff. And I ask my colleagues to all support this this evening in the interest of saving one life here in our community. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Camuso. Chair recognizes Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my council colleague, Councilman Knight, for providing the documentation and also for putting this on the agenda. As part of the House bill, it lists the petitioners that have signed on to this. And many times, it's multiple pages. And I was just wondering if any of our state delegation has signed on to this, Mr. President. And if not, maybe if we can ask the reasoning why. I assume there are probably more petitioners than what's on this page one. But this is a worthy legislation, and I agree with all the comments that were made here. And I would like to also see our state delegation, whereas they would have a direct vote in this, be on board also, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Markswell.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Knight, do you perhaps have any information on that? I think we can let the people from the podium speak, Mr. President, if that's all right with you, and then I'll close. Thank you very much. You're all set, Councilor Marks? Yes. Thank you very much, Councilor. The Chair recognizes the lady at the podium. If you would again, share your name and address with us for the record.
[Sqp6S0Yyr0A_SPEAKER_04]: Yes, sir. Thank you. My name is Rachel Tannenhaus. I live at 26 Pearl Street. I thought I was coming up here for one thing, but it turns out I'm coming up for two, because as it happens, I am a public health professional. I do not represent my employer. Well, I am standing up here. I'll just make that clear right now. But I am familiar with some of the survey instruments that are used, so I would like to address both the meat of the issue and also answer your question about the statistics. The years on the citations can be a little confusing. misleading in terms of how recent they are, just in that it can take a year or two to process the data. So, for example, we don't have 2015 data in 2015, because it can take a while to... It doesn't mean it's bad data. It means it takes a while to... That's a lot of data that they got a crunch, a lot of numbers they got a crunch. What they're asking, the exact wording of the question matters a great deal. If you're looking at have you used or abused Oxycontin, that could be as simple as have you ever taken Oxycontin without a prescription? And that can be a situation where somebody was in pain and say their parent gave them one of their pills and that's illegal and that's off the prescription, but it doesn't mean the kid is necessarily addicted or is abusing it habitually. Or they could be asking questions about, are you habitual, and again, I'm not sure exactly what the questions are. I'm willing to bet that the citation on there is for the Youth Health Survey, the YHS. That's usually what's given in the school, one of the, surveys that's given in the school system to survey the health behaviors of youth. Sometimes it is an underestimate because there are some kids to whom it's not accessible, and so they don't necessarily, you know, if you're in a special ed class, for example, or you need help filling out the survey, then, you know, you may not be taking the survey. Likewise, it's self-report, so you always have to, you know, I mean, obviously there's probably kids who didn't say that they were using OxyContin. It does look at statewide. You may be able to, I mean, it's public data, so Department of Public Health may be able to get you data down to certain areas. Is it down to Medford? I'm not sure, but it's worth calling and checking. And if you don't have data from Medford, they can at least tell you if they can give it to you. There are some areas that are small enough that either N isn't, they're not measuring enough kids for things to be statistically significant. I bet this isn't one of those areas, but it may be one of those areas where for some questions you have few enough people responding that you might be able to identify them so they aggregate the data with another area. I don't know about this one, but you can find out more.
[Adam Knight]: The study was conducted in 2004 by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
[Sqp6S0Yyr0A_SPEAKER_04]: Okay, but the stuff you got from DPH?
[Adam Knight]: And that's a subsidiary of the National Institutes of Health. Okay, yes. That was in Representative D'Souza's press release. The stuff that I got from DPH was from the Bureau of Substance Abuse Services. That was their fact sheet. The annual report provides information on adolescent admissions to substance abuse treatment services.
[Sqp6S0Yyr0A_SPEAKER_04]: Great. OK.
[Adam Knight]: The admission data presented here reported to the Bureau of Substance Abuse Services Management Information System in FY12 by licensed providers.
[Sqp6S0Yyr0A_SPEAKER_04]: That's awesome. They probably also have stuff from the YHS that they can give you if that's something that's useful. So that's great. But really, a lot of it is going to depend on how they worded the question. Now, saying that those kids aren't from Medford, I think that's probably a little bit idealistic. But is it exactly 1 in 30 in Medford? No, of course, that's an average. But can you find out a little more about what it is? It's probably going to be a bigger number than you want it to be. That having been said, what I actually came up here to say is that I am in favor of, obviously, doing everything possible to address the opioid epidemic, it's a huge deal, but I would like, so I am not speaking out against this bill, what I am speaking out in favor of is going to some of the other folks that it impacts directly. Kids with disabilities who have chronic pain are not going to be getting up in front of you and talking to you about their experiences. They don't vote. They're not telling you what they experience. But I think that different people have, particularly people with chronic pain, have different drugs that they respond to. Not all drugs are exactly the same or work on every person. If you're talking about a person with chronic pain, they may be at increased risk for suicide. They may, they certainly are at increased risk for lower quality of life. What I am concerned about is that there are children out there who have disabilities and chronic conditions or even acute conditions that are in extreme pain and they need all the tools available possible to be able to function, to be able to get an education. to be able to have the best possible quality of life. And like I said, those kids are not necessarily going to be up here talking about their lives. What I ask that you do before you go all out on this bill, which may be a decent bill, is that you talk to the disability community. Because the people that wind up being impacted in a lot of ways that aren't always looked at by these bills that talk about you know, what you can do, like who can prescribe, like how many opioids can be prescribed and such. The people who are in chronic pain suddenly have a much harder time getting treatment to keep their pain under control. And that makes it difficult for folks to, in the case of adults, to hold down jobs, to have decent quality of life, or to control other major health issues. My request is that you talk to the disability community, that you talk to, say, the Federation for Children with Special Needs, that you talk to parents of kids with chronic pain due to some sort of disability or health condition, that you talk to maybe kids going through cancer treatment, that sort of thing. Because while I am 100% in favor of addressing the opioid epidemic, I'm really scared when it happens on the backs of my community. That really freaks me out a lot. And I know people who are having a harder time controlling the pain that they deal with every single day. because of some of the things that are being done with the best possible intentions. So I do ask that while you are researching this bill, which is done with the best possible intentions and hopefully will do really awesome things, that you talk to some of the people who are being impacted by it as unintentionally, like as collateral. I don't want my people to be collateral damage here. So thank you very much. I appreciate that.
[SPEAKER_09]: Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Hi, please state your name and address for the record.
[Michael Ruggiero]: My name is Michael Ruggiero. I live on 18 Pembroke Street. I wanted to speak in favor of this measure. Since 2012, the number of heroin-related deaths in this country have gone up three times. It's a three-fold increase. Massachusetts has a pretty serious heroin problem, and unfortunately, Medford's problem has a 20% higher incident rate of heroin use and abuse than Massachusetts, which is a frightening statistic. I think it's excellent that we're beginning to get some more attention on this. Oxycontin works on the same pathway as heroin. So what happens is people get started on Oxy via a back injury or knee injury. something like that, and then before you know it, they find themselves cut off from their pain medication that they are now addicted to. I've seen it as a teacher, and my wife, who is a rehabilitation doctor, she sees it all the time, people having injuries as a result of OxyContin. So I think it's excellent work, and please keep it up. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record. Welcome.
[jCO6jvvXtn0_SPEAKER_03]: Nick Tomazuk, 29, Garfield Ave. We're talking about Oxycontin. Oxycontin, you know, instead of beating the people that are taking it, you have to put a stronger law for the dealers. Because Oxycontin can't be a safe drug because nowadays there's OC on the pills and there's OP on the pills. OP is a time release. OC is what they're crushing the snort. So the thing of it is, if a kid needs a prescription for Oxycontin, he should be able to get it by the time of release. So he doesn't get high. But we have to make stronger laws for the dealers, because they're peddling the stuff that they snort. If you look at these kids' prescriptions, I'll bet you 10 to 1 that they're at the time of release. Oxycontin, not the straight deal like these drug dealers get. They're bringing it in from Mexico, Canada, and everywhere else. How many people have been busted with a ton of Oxycontin? It's always been the old seed, not the OP. So you have to get after the drug dealers. You have to pass stronger laws. Put them suckers away for life. Don't put them in there where you can sit and watch TV all day long. But the thing of it is, we have to stiffen up our laws, not beat the people that have chronic pain. And then again, it's these parents have to watch. When they get prescriptions for OxyContin, they don't leave it laying around because it'll start to disappear. Make them responsible for it. You know, we can pass all the laws we want, you know, as far as not prescribing this, not prescribing that. These doctors are prescribing it. They've been to school for eight years. So we're going to tell them that, well, you don't know what the hell you're talking about now. Get after these drug dealers. Give them a good boot in the behindy. Pain is no fun. It's not fun. Thank you. Thank you.
[Paul Camuso]: Councilor Camuso. Thank you, Mr. President. If I may, if Councilor Knight and the President would allow me just to give a brief update of the Middlesex District Attorney Opiate Task Force that I was appointed to. Just real quick. The task force is really getting into this epidemic. Just to give a quick background, it's leaders that Middlesex District Attorney Marion Ryan has put together of It's law enforcement, health care providers, doctors, nurses. The two lead hospitals are Hallmark Health and the Leahy Clinic's conglomerate out of Burlington, policy makers and elected officials. One of the key doctors that brings a lot of the science and the statistics to it is Dr. O'Connor out of Middlesex Recovery. He has quite a very, very interesting story. And he's bringing the science behind addiction so that people can understand it. One of the big pieces is the task force is working on the stigma, the stigma that people that are addicted to drugs are given. And unfortunately, it's easy to forget that they're human beings that are dealing with issues. And that's being worked on. Two big things that I found very interesting, dentists, dentist officers and What's the other one that's back here, where they do the root canals?
[Unidentified]: Oral surgeons.
[Paul Camuso]: Oral surgeons, yeah, and endodontists are a major area where people get these pills. Second thing that I would never even think of, the Middlesex DA's office is working with the realtors in the area. You have open houses on Sundays. People come through the house looking at the house, oh, beautiful home. They go into the bathroom, they open up the medicine cabinet, Oxycontin sitting there. These are things that you'd never think about. So the education piece is getting out there. Hallmark Health has been a leader. They're doing a study right now on back pain. Anyone that goes into the emergency room with back pain, the most that they can be prescribed is 72 hours worth of pain medication. And then it's up to them to go to their primary care and actually get good follow up on the source of their pain and everything else. What else? Middlesex district attorney is working with the legislature. Representative Donato is on this as well. With Senator Lewis out of Winchester. Middlesex DA has a bill right now to limit to 72 hours supply. It's a bill that's going to be heard this legislative session, 72 hours supply of opiate pain medication out of the emergency rooms, once again, until you see your specialist. So it's real good. Just this last meeting, addicts that are in recovery were brought in and talked about it. And it was young mothers. Young mothers, you would never in a million years think that these people were addicted to heroin or other opiates. And it's just amazing hearing their stories. And it's educating the people in that room that can make a change. I want to thank Councilor Knight for bringing this up. If anyone else has any specific questions regarding that task force, please feel free to ask me and at least we'll put you in touch with someone that can answer other specific questions. But the Middlesex DA, Marion Ryan, really is taking a leadership role on this in the county. It's the second of two task force. The other one is in Northern Middlesex County, which is Lowell and Bill Ricker and up near that area. But this is something that I'm honored to serve on because working collectively, if we can work collectively as elected officials in this room and with the DA's office, with Representative Donato and Senator Jalen and the other representatives, and get the right data into the hands of the people that can make a difference up on Beacon Hill. Governor Baker just came out with his bill. Very impressive, some of the stuff in his bill. So this is something, and it's nonpartisan, because addiction does not discriminate. There's no Democrat next to an addict. There's no Republican next to an addict. It doesn't discriminate. So it's a work in progress, but one day at a time, hopefully you can get people the data to make these decisions and the laws change that need to be changed. But we're doing what we can on the ground floor. And I want to thank my council colleagues. Because this is one issue, one issue that we stood tall on, each and every member of this Medford City Council. We hit it head on collectively. We sent a strong message to the mayor that it's something that's going on in our community and we all work together. And we all should be proud of that. So basically, that's it, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much, Constable Rousseau. And Councilor Knight, did you need to?
[Adam Knight]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just in closing, I have here before me a paper written by Nora Vaklau, a medical doctor who appeared before the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, Mr. President. She's also associated with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and that's an affiliate of the National Institutes of Health. And what she says is, based on her studies, is that prescription opioids are one of the three main broad categories of medication that present abuse liability. and there are several factors that contribute to this. They include drastic increases in the number of prescriptions written and dispensed, the greater social acceptability for using medications for different purposes, and aggressive marketing by pharmaceutical companies, Mr. President. These factors together have helped create a broad environmental availability of prescription medications and, in general, opioids in particular. You know, the most alarming result that I saw here was in 2012, over 5% of the United States population aged 12 years or older have used opioid pain relievers non-medically. Children as young as 12 years old, fifth and sixth graders, Mr. President. So I think that although I understand the corollary in between those that are using the drug in its appropriate form, we're seeing a lot of diversion. We must recognize and consider, as Dr. Vauclau said, the impact of opioid abuse on health and mortality, but also preserve the fundamental role played by prescription opioid pain relievers in healing and reducing human suffering. So we need to strike the right balance, Mr. President. And quite frankly, I don't see how prescribing oxycontin to children 11, 12, and 13 years old is sending the right message to anybody, Mr. President. So I thank my council colleagues for entertaining me this evening. I usually don't go on this long, and I do certainly appreciate all your support. And I hope that you join with me in voting in the affirmative for this resolution, Mr. President, because I do feel as though it will make a difference. I don't think Councilor Camuso could have been more right. It's about one. If we can save one life, then we've done a good thing and we're doing our job. This is a discussion that we need to keep on the forefront. And I think that we're doing a good job as a council working together to ensure that Medford is a place where people that are suffering from addiction and seeking treatment services have resources. And I think this is just another step in helping combat. the opiate crisis here in Medford and Massachusetts and in the region. So, Mr. President, thank you very much and thank you to my colleagues. I'd move for approval on the paper.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Motion approved by Councilor Knight. Sir, did you want to speak on this matter, please? Please state your name and address for the record. Welcome.
[uOl8IpBqQPs_SPEAKER_20]: Good evening. My name is Ronald Paone. I live on Winthrop Street in Medford and I was sitting at home when I was watching this and this discussion is very, very pertinent to this. It really is. And I'm really adamant about this situation. Came to the council a few weeks ago about a situation. I don't know if you ever heard the term gateway, but what we were talking about, what you people are talking about tonight is a gateway. It's a gateway to the next level. A gentleman touched on it. We have a heroin problem in this city. And it's not the only problem. And this is just one of those things that I feel very strongly about. And I agree, statistically, yeah, one in 30. Listen, I've been in recovery for almost 28 years, and I'll break my hand any day. I really don't care. What I'm trying to say here is this. Before I came into recovery, I was actively addicted to certain things. And basically, they didn't give that 1 to 30 statistic. It was a lot less than that. It's increasingly getting worse because it's easy to get your hands on it. Somebody touched on the dealers. Somebody touched on the kids. A lot easier. to get an opiate and a sex pack. I'm a little nervous when I speak in public. I'm not really a big public speaker. But one of the problems with this whole thing is that, yeah, do not take away from the American Disabilities Act. I'm disabled myself, not in a term, but mentally, from all the drugs that I did over the years. This is something that's an effect. It's unreversible. It's a daily day that I got to just function. So basically what I'm trying to say is like if this law gets passed, yeah, there's some good points and some bad points, but it just, it's really hard for me to see, um, not to see us moving forward with this because like, listen, we got a drug problem in the city and it's bad and it's in my face 24 seven and I'm watching it. And some of it is, yes, opioid use. And then the other is the street drugs that are going on, you know? And it's in my family. And it's very difficult for me to watch this, you know? So if this is going to help to, like, maybe put a little Band-Aid on this situation personally, I say, please, go for it. If it's not going to help, then you guys are going to go in the other direction. I just don't see how He cannot vote yes for this. And again, taking into consideration with the American Disabilities Act, I understand. Like if I had cancer, I would hope, and I was a young kid, I would hope that if I was in enough pain that I could be able to get something like that. But again, I'm not in that situation. So yeah, it's a tough shot all around. That's all I want to say.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Sean, thank you very much for your testimony on this important matter. So on the motion for approval by Councilor Knight, As seconded by Councilor Camuso, if I could just add from the chair, thank you, Councilor, for this. I just came back last week from a national convention of American Funeral Directors Association. And if there's one thing that all my colleagues were talking about is just this, and that we've all grown weary and sad and tired. week after week of having to walk families to graves to bury their children from this sickness. So thank you for this measure. So on the motion for approval by Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Move for a call of the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'm sorry? Roll call. Roll call vote, please. Roll call vote. Mr. Mr. Mr. Clerk, please.
[SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Camuccio? Yes. Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Vice-President Lungo-Koehn? Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Marks? Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Penta? Yes. President Dello Russo? Yes. With a vote of seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the measure passes. Thank you. Petitions, presentations, and similar matters. 15-721, petition by Robert Cappucci Jr., 71 Evans Street, Medford, Mass., to speak to the council on the Community Preservation Act. Good evening, sir. Please state your name and address for the record. Welcome.
[Robert Cappucci]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm Robert Cappucci of 71 Evans Street. And I just want to speak more. I know this was brought up a couple weeks ago, and a group came in and addressed the pros. And I even spoke up a little bit that night. But there's just — as a taxpayer, there's just some more concerns. And I'm not here to argue for or against passing this measure, to just discuss it a little more after having spoken to some fellow residents. and taxpayers. The fruits of the CPA, the Community Preservation Act, and what it wishes to achieve, I don't see anybody being against that. Infrastructure repairs, building repairs, as we see here, the police department that should probably be condemned, fire station repairs, street and roads, cleaner, more open space environments, we are all for that. But there are just some concerns that have come up, wondering if, and I'm not arguing for or against it, just wondering if the CPA is the right way to go, and the voters will decide that next Tuesday. But just looking into it, the card that came out yesterday, the mailer, I don't know if you received it, One of the things that it says, which is just a general statement, that the state will match it. It didn't give any percentage on what it would match. At first we heard 100%, then 30%. I think the last official report from the state of Massachusetts says it's only going to match 18%. The proponents for this argued a couple weeks ago It's going to be a small increase to property taxes, $54. Depending on your land value, for some people that's upwards of a 40% increase. When it gets to the business side of it, when I was looking this up earlier tonight, a place called Redstone and Stoneham, just for an example, the land, because this 100K cap which is a little bit insignificant if you're in a higher tax rate, like Redstone is, like perhaps our Super Stop and Shop is, or the Meadow Glen Mall, or other industrial parks here in Medford. The Redstone, for example, was assessed at something like $34,200,000. Their tax increase was significant. It was $5,700. And that gets passed on to the consumer. just for people to understand what we might be getting into here and locked into it for five years. There are also alternatives to this that people have been discussing that might be a better way to go. In discussing this earlier today with a proponent for the CPA, I made some suggestions as what might be an alternate route, and the person said it was a Band-Aid that doesn't provide a steady funding stream. To me, what a lot of the people in Medford are saying is we have seen A property tax increase every year for 28 years, excise taxes, sales taxes that have gone up, income taxes, meals taxes, death taxes, taxes for businesses, and everything else. For a proponent to tell me that we need a steady funding stream, I say it already exists. We have. a surplus between two different accounts are in Medford of almost $15 million. We're talking about a steady stream that's about 10 miles wide, 20 miles deep, and longer than the Mississippi River. We have the funds to do what the CPA is asking to do. In my humble opinion, and just as an observance, what Medford could be doing as an alternative is, a few weeks ago, I went around Medford and I took a few pictures There's, from the end of Salem Street near the Fellsway, all the way up to Forest Street, there's over 20 storefronts closed down, some of them boarded up. A tax cut incentive to bring businesses in here would be the route to go. A property tax, either neutrality or cut, would be the way to go. We attract more people to move to Medford, Mr. President, and more businesses to come into Medford. What are one of the other proposals by the CPA? Affordable housing? Let's get people jobs. Let's attract businesses and people to move here by offering tax-cutting incentives. With that added business growth and business venture and people working at a lot of these empty storefronts, they can afford on their own without having to rely on government and higher tax incentives. to be able to afford their own houses with personal responsibility and self-dignity of doing it for themselves. I would just very much like to urge our city council and everybody watching, make your own decision, either for or against it, next Tuesday on voting on ballot question one. And other cities and towns have accepted it, about 154, I think it is, in Massachusetts. And there are pros and cons to it. And some towns have already started, at least one, I think it's the town of Northampton, have started to try to repeal it after passing it. And that would come from city council initiative, should it pass next Tuesday. And if it don't, then it's not a concern. They call this state, Taxachusetts, for a reason. And to continually raise our taxes, to argue for infrastructure repairs when we're already paying taxes ad infinitum, and we're not getting those necessary repairs now. I mean, we've driven through Medford. We know the conditions of the streets, the roads, the parks. Another thing, open spaces. We have Hormel Park. We have part of the sheepfold. We have, what, 26 parks in Medford? We already have a lot of open spaces. We already have a lot of money to make these infrastructure repairs. Just those surpluses alone, I mean, I understand that some of the surpluses can't be touched, but maybe a new ballot initiative to maybe change that law could happen to appropriate the funds that we need. In closing, I would just like to say, Thank you very much for the time. I'm not arguing either for or against us, just bringing up some ideas for people to ponder, for you good people to ponder as well, because you'll be voting next Tuesday, too. I thank you for your time, and good luck to you all. Good night. Thank you, Mr. Capucci.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Ma'am, please state your name and address for the record.
[Jeanne Martin]: Gene Martin, 10 Cumming Street. Thank you very much. And first of all, I'd like to thank Rachel for all of her comments, and I hope that she keeps coming to these meetings. because she had some great insights. So thank you very much, Rachel. But anyway, I'm against this bill or whatever it is, this initiative. And the reason for that is because these are nice things to have. And you don't need money, hard cash money, for a lot of these projects. You can harness the people of the city to do a lot of these cleanups. And you can get the guys to volunteer on the weekend to do these things. And yes, you need some money for the equipment to clean up weeded areas or whatever. But you know what you need hard cash for? A police station. I know, I know, I know. It's police station, police station, police station. Well, what about the library? What about the $15,000 for the library bathrooms? We have infrastructure problems that we need to raise our taxes for and that are going to be forced on us regardless. This is an override. This is a prop two and a half override. It's just a different way of doing it. And we already have hidden taxes. Just to let you know, we have the hidden tax through the community access monies, whatever peg monies you want to call them. We have the hidden tax monies in the police department where we get a 15% kickback for every detail hour, we have these hidden monies. We're already taxed. We're already taxed. We need to sit down. We need to harness the energy of the city for all of these extra projects. And I know, I know, I'm so, I know, you get tired of hearing me say the same thing, and I get tired of saying it, to be honest with you. But we need a new police station. We need hard cash for that. You can't use volunteer work to put in a foundation for the police department. You can't do it. You have to buy a bigger lot, and that needs hard cash, because we're one-third. The police station is on a footing that is one-third smaller than it's supposed to be. And until we get that, you're going to have to get sick and tired of hearing me, because I'm just going to have to say it over and over until it gets done. But I appreciate your patience. I appreciate the council's patience. And also, the people behind the rail can afford the $56 increase, but a lot of people can't. So if we're going to have a tax override, a two-and-a-half tax override, which is what this is, then let's make it count for something like the library, the Chevalier, which I went to the Bee Gees. It was fantastic. And I want to see a $50,000 banner in front of the place. What do you call that? The banner? The marquee. I want to see the $50,000 marquee in the front of it. I do. I'm not against these things. But this is a two-and-a-half override. Anybody that has common sense knows that. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record. Good evening, Mr. President.
[Sorrell]: My name is John Sterola, 20 Metcalf Street. I want to thank you for permitting me to speak here tonight. And I want to say definitely that I do have a position on this, and I can't say it plainly enough. I urge all the people of Medford to vote no on question one, because this is really a boondoggle. We have a report here. I don't think any of you Councilors are aware of this, but I wish you would if you are. But the report says here that the Massachusetts Community Preservation Act.
[Unidentified]: Section 22, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilors and folks, section 22 can no longer be debated. Sure. Please. The motion is, uh, section 22 has been invoked that ends debate on the matter.
[Sorrell]: We're
[Fred Dello Russo]: Section 22.
[Adam Knight]: Exactly. So the paper's out of order. It can't be brought back full for 90 days pursuant to our city council rules that we adopted.
[Sqp6S0Yyr0A_SPEAKER_04]: I withdraw. I withdraw section 22, Mr. President.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor has withdrawn the motion.
[Sorrell]: Uh, well, anyway, uh, this is a report and it says that the CPA community preservation, by the way, we're all for community preservation, but I'm definitely against the way the act carries it out. There are a number of things going. The report says here that the community preservation act has resulted in the transfer of tens of millions of dollars from residents of the state's poor cities and towns to its wealthiest communities, according to a new study published by Harvard University Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston. Now, are you aware of that, that tens of millions of dollars have been transferred from the poorest cities and towns to the wealthiest? Was any council here aware of that? I guess not.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Sorrell]: Oh, you did know that.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Doctor, you can address your remarks to the chair, please.
[Sorrell]: I beg your pardon, sir?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Please address your remarks to the chair.
[Sorrell]: OK, to the chair. OK, then it goes on to say here that between 2001 and 2006, residents of Boston paid $11 million in fees that fund state matching grants to the CPA program. But the city did not receive any money from the program. Now, this business of saying matching is really a half truth. The word matching really means to equal. And the state contribution does not equal what the cities and towns are paying, and that's what's gonna happen to Medford. We are not gonna get an equal amount as to what we're contributing. And it goes on to say, similarly, while residents of both Springfield and Worcester likely generated more than $3 million in CPA fees, by the way, the fees come from transactions on real estate, and they're constant for everybody. But you might make that contribution, a city and town like Medford, but not get any money back at all. And so poor cities like Brockton, Lowell, and Lynn are estimated to have generated more than $2 million in fees. None of those communities received any of the state funds. So here's what we're doing. That's why I urge the people of Medford to vote no on question two, because you're going to contribute money. Your taxes are going to be increased. This is a tax on a tax. In contrast, now let's give you a contrast of a rich city like Cambridge. which generated an estimated $1.6 million in fees, it has received more than $27 million from the Commonwealth. Now, here's a city that gave only $1 million and got $27 million. Where is the matching in that? Where is the equity in that? There is none. So that is the point I want to bring up. Now, at the great debate, the proponents for The Community Preservation Act distributed these flyers. And the flyers distributed by the proponents of Chevalier on that night, that was the night of the mayor's debate. And the flyer is filled with half-truths. Now, we are seeking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Now, when you present a half-truth to the people, this is not giving them the truth at all. The CPA, it says, imposes a 1.5% surtax after a $100,000 exemption on home assessment. Now, that $100,000 exemption is just a come on to tell the people, hey, we're giving you something before we take the money from you. But actually, the 1.5%, and why did they select 1.5%? They could select anywhere from less than 1% to 3%. But that 1.5% could be only 1% if there were no exemption. So you could have no exemption at all, and we pay less. Instead of paying, say, $56 on average, we're paying only $46. The state's contribution to a match, therefore, is less than half true, because the state, in the year 2014, contributed only 31% of the match. So they don't match at all. Then it says the money is dedicated to parks, et cetera, and does not go into the general budget. Now, we all know that money is fungible, which means that it's exchangeable. And that's what happens to our money in the budget. I mean, we have money which is really dedicated to the parks and to affordable housing, et cetera. But that money can be replaced by money from the budget And the money from the, from the contribution will go into the budget. It is exchangeable. So even that's a half truth. So we have a budget already spending on those needs. I mean, I don't know whether or not you remember as so, but when we presented the budget, there was money allocated already for these four topics. So Then it goes on to say that the tax can be canceled in five years. That's true. Half of it is true. But the other half is that in order to reverse it, you have to do the reverse of the way it was put on the ballot. And that is that you need 1,700 signatures again to put it on the ballot. And though 1.5% is the same, The total amount paid, by the way, each year will not be the same. It will not be $56. It will increase with the tax levy. As the tax levy goes up, 1.5% of a higher tax levy is more than $56. It will go from $56 to $60, from $60 to $65, $65 to $70. So that at the end of the five years, it will no longer be $56. So there's another half-truth. They're not telling you the whole truth in that respect. And now they all go on to say that CPA has been adopted by 158 communities, but 158 communities is not even half of the 351 communities. And that is after 15 years when it was enacted. So that more than half of the communities are not enacting it. And they have good reason not to, because money will be transferred from their taxpayers and given to richer cities and towns. So they also says there are nine members on the City Community Preservation Committee. This is our city committee. And five of those, by the way, will be selected by the mayor. So once again, the people who are paying the taxes have no say in how the money is distributed. And four others are appointed by city ordinance, but approved by the city council. So the citizens do not determine where and how much money will be spent. The council must get final approval. So, the project is still controlled by the political... You have one more minute to speak, Doctor. I beg your pardon?
[Fred Dello Russo]: You have one more minute to speak.
[Sorrell]: I'll end before that time. So, the project is still controlled by the political process. It's not controlled by the people. The taxes are paid by the people, but they have no say in how this is passed on to open spaces, to parks, to affordable housing, et cetera. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Hi, please state your name and address for the record.
[Bruce Kulik]: Good evening, I'm Bruce Kulik, 168 Grove Street. And initially we were told that we would not be able to campaign here for or against, but that seems to have been violated by many. Obviously, I am for the CPA. I'm one of the people who have helped to gather the signatures to get it onto the ballot, and I feel very passionately about it. Additionally, there have been a number of innuendos that really are not accurate, the biggest being the one talking about money being transferred. Well, if you have a problem with the money being transferred from poorer communities to the richer communities, that should be taken up at the state level, because it was set up to provide a general fund in which cities and towns that passed the CPA would actually receive these funds. So those communities that aren't receiving any of these funds are communities that have not passed the CPA. So for us to receive money from this general fund in the state, and this is extra money that comes into Medford. This is not money that is on your tax bill. This is money that we have already paid, and we're just sending it away because we don't have the CPA here. That's very important. So the CPA is something that if we pass, we do get the matching funds. The previous speaker was correct. In 2014, I'm sorry. Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Do I have the floor or does Mr. Pranta have the floor?
[Robert Penta]: Point of information. I'm sorry. When you talked about matching funds being matching, can you explain?
[Bruce Kulik]: I'm speaking to that right now. Speaking to that concern right now. You're going to talk about the percentages? I'm speaking to that exactly right now.
[Robert Penta]: The percentage.
[Bruce Kulik]: Exactly. What I was saying is that in 2014, the state match was 31%. In 2013, it was 52%. We don't know exactly what that amount is. That's absolutely true. In future years, the percentage could be less. I did recently read, however, in the Boston Globe that there is a move afoot to provide additional funding into the CPA at the state level. I think that's a great idea. I don't know whether that's going to happen. But nonetheless, what will happen is we will not get any of that money if we do not have the CPA.
[Robert Penta]: It was disclosed at the meeting that we had, and I don't know if you were there or not, at a Committee of the Whole meeting this year, and the state has already acknowledged it's 18%. It went from 31% down to 18%. And that's providing that they can balance the budget for this year. So it's 18% coming back. And the city will be paying, the taxpayers will be paying, if they vote for this, 1.5% on that. So it's not a complete match. You're only going to get 18% back. That's what needs to be clarified.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you for that point of information, Councilor Penta.
[Bruce Kulik]: You may continue, sir. Certainly. So if I'm making an investment of some sort and my stockbroker tells me that I'm going to get 18 percent on that investment, I don't know about you, but I'm going to make that investment. Eighteen percent. You don't get that kind of return on anything now.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Can we allow the man to speak, Councilor?
[Robert Penta]: I understand that, but the fact of the matter is, I think it needs to be understood and clarified. We're not investing stocks here. You're talking about taxpayers' money, and this is not a complete match with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
[Bruce Kulik]: You know, it doesn't matter whether it's taxpayers' money or whether it's your own investment. If you look at the arithmetic, you're putting a certain amount of money out there, and you're getting an 18% return on it. I mean, that seems to me like that's the kind of thing exactly that we ought to be doing and embracing to see how we can get more money here. You know, there's other factors here that need to be clarified, because in addition to claiming that this is against the communities that are not so wealthy, it's because these other communities have had the wherewithal to pass the Community Preservation Act. That's why they're reaping the benefits more quickly than we are. So a couple items that really need to be pointed out here, and let me just look at my notes to say. There was a mention about infrastructure and it was implied that the infrastructure would go to things like fixing potholes or streets or that sort of thing. But in fact, there's a strong limit to what the CPA funds will permit. We have historic preservation and kind of ironic how one of the concerns was the bathrooms at the library. It's my recollection that that building is a historic building. Now, you might not think of it as historic because it doesn't have fantastic architecture, but, you know, it's an artifact of the 60s or whenever it was built. That is a historic building. That could be restored. That could include making those bathrooms fully accessible. It could include many things in that regard. So it's kind of ironic that people are saying, well, maybe we should put the money towards that. Well, here is an avenue that will put the money towards that. Similarly, the police station, maybe that's not quite so historic. And probably, in order to get that built, it would need to be raised and rebuilt. I think that ought to be done. I think that our police station currently is a disgrace. But if we put money towards that, then we're not going to have any money to go to the items that are earmarked by the CPA. So other people were saying we have alternatives, a tax cut. Well, that'll sure give us the money that we need. And jobs? Yeah, I think it'd be great if we can encourage people to have jobs. the earmark on the money has to go to the items that are on the CPA. Additionally, there was a comment made that If your property is worth a lot of money, you're going to end up paying a lot more. Well, yeah, that makes a lot of sense. That's generally how property taxes work. If you're making a lot more money, if your property is worth a lot more money, then people are going to have to pay more money on the commercial end. But the biggest impact people are concerned about is residences. And there's a couple things that I do want to point out here. We have, for example, In addition to the $100,000 initial exemption from your property, there are exemptions for low income and for low and moderate income seniors. Now, I took a look at the numbers that are low income and low and moderate income for seniors, and I was kind of shocked by that. You know, these are not numbers that if you were in the middle of Kansas, people would say are low or low and moderate income. We're looking here. For example, if you've got a household size of one, and you're a senior, which incidentally is 60 plus. I'm not gonna figure out who is 60 plus behind the rail here. I will be shortly, but not yet. In any event, 68,950, that's almost $69,000 a year. And that's income. That does not include net worth. That does not include your investments. $69,000 for a household size of one for a senior. If you happen to have a household size of two, that's $78,800, nearly $79,000. So you can apply then to have an abatement, significant abatement, on the CPA for that matter. So I think we can say pretty easily that If you're a senior and you have low or moderate income, you're not going to be paying, and it's not going to be costing you anything with regard to the CPA. Similarly, the low income maximum, well, those numbers are lower, of course, but there's still $55,000 for a household of one, $55,000. So that's considered to be the low income maximum if you're making underneath that. So we do these numbers, and we came up with some averages of what people will be paying. And I'll recite them again, because I think these are accurate. For the first year, and you're right, as your property taxes go up, the amount's going to go up. You're going to be paying that. Costs are going up. I think most people think that's only reasonable, that as costs go up, you should expect to be paying more taxes as a result. So if your assessed value is $300,000 on your property, you're going to have an approximate income of $35. So I don't know, what is that? Three cases of beer, a couple bottles of decent wine, go out to dinner at McDonald's. $400,000, $53 a year. And of course, it is going to go up. The more your property is worth, the more you're going to end up having to pay. I did have just a few other points here regarding it. We had a talk about the excise tax, the other taxes, the so-called tax excuse that's not being used for any of these facilities. And that's partly because they've not been earmarked to it. You know, we have, I think the one area that we probably do a decent job of here in the city, we do have open space with recreation. City council has earmarked money for that. But there's other areas that we could really use the money. And I know you guys have trouble coming up with the money, figuring out where it is, approving the budgets, et cetera, to do that. Things like- Mr. Citizen, you have one more moment. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Things like paths along the Mystic River. That's something which is developing a lot of momentum right now and could be funded through this. Things like the Royal House. Some of the churches around here, I've been told, need new roofs. Those are probably historic buildings, and those are the kinds of things they could apply. And then to bring it back again, once the committees, which consist of five people that are not directly appointed by the mayor, they are mandated to be with particular commissions that the city already has, and then the other four, optionally, can be selected by ordinance. that you folks will be presenting. You'll be coming up with the ordinance that has who is on that committee. That committee only makes recommendations that then need to come back to the city council, just like any other appropriation does. So the mechanism is really the same. It's a way of funding specific things. And it's something which I think the city of Medford should really consider and vote yes on. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record again.
[Jeanne Martin]: Jean Martin, 10 Cumming Street. I'll try to make it quick. If this is a value of the city, then let's do a whole two and a half override for it. Instead of having a special fund that we have less control over, put it in the general fund and have a committee or a party that advocates for this. And if it makes it, it makes it. If it doesn't, it doesn't. But just put it in the general fund so that it's all above board. And I'm not saying it's not above board. That sounded incorrect. That sounded bad. But it's a specific issue. And it's a smaller group of people. And I just say, do a 2 and 1 half override. If it's that popular and the whole community wants it, then it'll get done under a 2 and 1 half override. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Chief. Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Joe Viglione]: Good evening. Joe Villione. 59 Garfield Avenue. Medford, Massachusetts. Thank you, City Council. I met the people from the CPA outside a couple of weeks ago. They were very nice. But an election means you, the voter, get to evaluate what's on the ballot. And I don't want to be told what to do. I want to evaluate it. In a perfect world where people get data without having to file public records requests, we would know where the water and sewer money goes. public access money goes, where the free money account, where the money is, and the general fund. I just don't think, given the past history, we should have another tax thrown at us, because it sounds great, CPA sounds wonderful, but I don't even know where my access money is. And so I just don't want to throw more money to the wind. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Good evening.
[jCO6jvvXtn0_SPEAKER_03]: Please state your name and address for the record. Name is Nick Tomazook, 29 Garfield Avenue. It seems like we're talking about tax and tax and tax. Does anybody stop and realize that these, we have a lot of old folks in the city that can't afford even a 1% tax increase. They don't get a cost of living increase every year. They're on Social Security. It's a fixed income. What are they going to eat? Dog food? Cat food? Is that what the government's pushing for them to do? These people can't afford a tax increase. It's a fixed income. They don't get a raise every year. Are we beating them until we drive them out of their homes? Is that what we're doing? We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. Raising the taxes. Senior citizens shouldn't have to pay taxes. They're the ones that made this country what it is. They fought in the wars. They busted their hump building the railroads and everything else, and now we're taxing them out of their homes. They're eating substandard food because they can't afford good food. And we're going to hit them with another tax. How far can we push you until we push you out of your house? You can't afford it. A lot of them are going to make a decision, either pay their taxes or pay for that prescription at the drugstore. It seems like these pharmaceutical companies are killing them. Pills and everything else is going up by 400%. Where's our government to stop this price gouging? Instead, we're talking about taxes. We're going to drive them right out of their homes. They're going to be homeless, like the rest of them in Boston when they closed Long Island. They took all those Vietnam vets and threw them out, and they were out there in the streets. Thank you for your service. Here you go. Go live in the street. Panhandle. That's where all these old people are going to end up. We've got to stop this. We've got to start looking out for your senior citizens that built this country. Thank you. Thank you very much.
[Sorrell]: Doctor? Thank you, Mr. President. I merely want to clarify what the former speaker said about commissions and said they were not appointed by the mayor. But all of our commissions, you can correct me if I'm not speaking correctly myself, All of our commissions have been appointed by the mayor.
[Bruce Kulik]: Bruce Kulik, 168 Grove Street. And to the gentleman who just spoke, I did say that the appointments were not directly by the mayor. The commissions themselves vote amongst their members. And I do believe that the members would have been appointed by the mayor, but it is not a direct appointment to the CPA commission. Additionally, I need to reiterate here. Please do. I pointed out that there are exemptions for the CPA to precisely address the gentleman who was concerned about our seniors and veterans and so forth being thrown out on the street. Well, that's not what's going to happen as a result of passing the CPA. Once again, if the household size is one, a senior who is 60 or older who is making under 68, 950 can file for an exemption. So they do have to take a little bit of action, they need to file for the exemption. But that's not a low income person who is living on Social Security alone who is then going to have to pay this additional 1.5 surtax. And the number goes up, as I said, with a household size of four, you're up to almost $100,000. That's 98,500. And frankly, I don't consider 98,500 to be really much of a low income. I don't know about you folks, but maybe I'm living in a different world. So I just wanted to clarify those and reiterate those numbers so that people knew that this was not going to throw seniors out into the street as a result. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much. Hi, please state your name and address again for the record.
[Robert Cappucci]: Robert Capucci, 71 Evans Street. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be very brief. These tax increases from the CPA, and again, it's up to the people to decide on it one way or the other, but these tax increases are going to result in the very people that Mr. Kulicka talking about having to pay higher for goods and services. not rocket science. At least one of the Councilors behind here, two own their own businesses. As costs go up in one area, they have to be made up in another area. So a local of shop XYZ, who owns a $30 million property, is now paying $5,700 more. The very people that this is designed to help, it's going to hurt. It's going to hurt. because they're going to now be paying more for goods and services, or the four or five people that work in the back have now become three or four and jobs are going to be lost. That's why I advocated tax cuts as an incentive to bring businesses in here and create jobs and to bring price of goods down, because when there's more businesses, there's more competition, and competition brings down prices for the very people the gentleman from Garfield Abbey was talking about that are suffering, the fixed-income people. We really need to consider this one way or the other. But again, it's up to the people on Election Day next Tuesday, one week to go. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record. You're the husband of the teacher of the year.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Yes. I didn't want to speak for her. She has a master's degree. I don't. Maybe someday she can come up and get some sort of certificate. That was a very kind of you. Councilor Penton. No one expected that. We didn't know. Thank you, sir. Um, Andrew Paul Castagnetti, 23 Cushing street, Medford, Massachusetts. First off, I'd like to say, I'm sure Mr. Starrella appreciates his right to speak under the First Amendment. Thank you very much. I'll make this very brief, less than two and a half minutes. Mr. Camuso, can you hang around? Should I wait? I guess he can't wait. I got a vote for Nixon myself, but I waited. I don't want to sound like a Republican, but what, another real estate tax? This CPA, the 1.5% solution, the real estate tax, sounds like, And if it looks like a tax, smells like a tax, then it must be another tax. In effect, this is an override of Proposition 2 1⁄2. This is still to do with real estate taxes. I've been trying for years to get our Method homeowners a $400 a year on average real estate tax savings unsuccessfully through the Massachusetts law titled owner-occupied real estate tax exemption, as they do in Malden, Everett, and Somerville. As a matter of fact, I even wrote a letter in the method transcript published on October 15, 2015, asking for all politicians to respond in writing to the method transcript asking whether They are for or against this 20% real estate tax exemption. Thus far, as we speak tonight, October 27th, the only response was verbal from Councilor Penta and we thank him. Also, my question, this question was titled when I submitted it to the the debate committee, October, the day before the deadline, mind you. And it was titled, Please Answer My Question. It should have been asked after great debate, but it was not. Maybe we'll get all the 18 replies in this Thursday's method transcript, hopefully before the next election and a week from tonight. Thank you. What else can I say? Maybe you would like to take this opportunity to communicate your responses now. Thank you. If you would like, Councilor Dello Russo or any other Councilor.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Lungo-Koehn to receive and place on file. All those in favor.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you for your silence.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. All those opposed. Under suspension offered by Councilors Camuso and Penta, be it resolved that the name of Frederick Lasky be sent to the upcoming committee of the whole for consideration of the city council appointment to the garden commission. Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, as we're all aware, About a month, month and a half ago, I think it was, the city council, upon the recommendation of the mayor, enacted an ordinance to establish a new garden commission here in the city of Medford. As I did support that, and then it became law, and at this point the mayor has appointed his two individuals to become members or commissioners of the garden commission. Upon him appointing his people, Amanda Bowen, very, very active in the gardening club, reached out to city councilors. And at this point, we have a committee of the whole in the upcoming weeks, I'm assuming? Yes. With that being said, I would like to bring the name of Frederick Lasky forward with Councilor Penta for the commissioner that is appointed by the Medford City Council. Mr. Lasky has done an outstanding job down at Riverbend Park. Many a Saturday mornings when I'm down there for either soccer or T-ball with my son, we see Mr. Lasky in the garden. He does a great job. I approached Mr. Lasky and asked him if he'd be interested. I just think he'd be a wonderful addition. We all know his commitment to this community. You're not going to find anyone, uh, that's more well respected than, um, direct Alaska. So, uh, I would like to respectfully put his name, uh, before the subcommittee, um, sorry, before the committee of the whole for the city council appointment on the motion of council.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So to move that name to the committee of the whole to consideration, I hope you'll, uh, and join on Mr. Lasky that he should, according to custom, send to the Committee of the Whole a copy of his curriculum detail. Thank you very much on that motion. All those in favor? All those opposed? Carries. 15-723 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council have the DPW replace the sign for Michael Mobilia that has been weathered over the years. Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Over the weekend, we were down on the Fells Way for the O'Brien brothers' dedication. While we were down there, it was brought to my attention that Michael Mobilio's sign, which had been there for some time, has all faded and weathered. If we could ask the DPW to replace that sign in memory of Michael, I would appreciate it. On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, all those in favor?
[Fred Dello Russo]: All those opposed? The motion carries. Papers in the hand of the clerk. To take papers off of by Councilor Marks. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. This is offered by Councilor Camuso. Be it resolved that the Medford Community, the Medford City Council congratulate Councilor Caraviello for being inducted as the president of the Medford Kiwanis. President Caraviello is the first president of that organization to serve a second term. Councilor Camuso.
[Paul Camuso]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to congratulate the distinguished gentleman to my right. Thank you. Councilor Caraviello, this is the first time in the Medford-Kiwanis history that the same gentleman or lady was elected president for two times. So I want to congratulate you. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: And I also celebrated my 20th year at Kiwanis.
[SPEAKER_15]: And it's our 90th birthday. And as the council just stated, 20 years of the Kiwanis, it's your 90th birthday? It's the Kiwanis' 90th birthday this year also. Yes, it's the Kiwanis' 90th birthday. Happy birthday Medford Kiwanis and congratulations President Carafiello.
[Paul Camuso]: And last but not least, I want to thank him and his committee for putting on a great Taste of Italy. Because as I stayed home with my son that evening, my wife had a fabulous time at the Taste of Italy. Yes. With Adam and you and the rest of them, the rest of the councilors. Yep.
[Michael Marks]: So thank you. So like to congratulate my colleague for being a two time. That's it. Maybe that, maybe that did come out right. Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Congratulations. Motion for approval. All those in favor, all those opposed. Motion carries. Um, also offered by councilor Camuso. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council send its sincere condolences to the family of Albert C. Webb, who passed away recently. Mr. Webb is the father of Chris Webb and his wife, Sherry Cutler Webb. If we could stand for a moment of silence, please. Finally, offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the City Solicitor provide an opinion as to whether the City has adopted Mass General Law, Chapter 60A, Section 9. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. This piece of legislation, Chapter 60A, Section 9, is relative to excise tax for National Guardsmen who are deployed out of state. And it provides a waiver to National Guardsmen whose vehicle sits in their driveway as they're overseas or out of state defending our country, Mr. President. So I think it would make sense for us to take a look into this issue. If the city hasn't adopted it and the solicitor comes back with that opinion, I will be moving for the council to support that initiative. I think it makes sense for us to provide servicemen and women who are deployed overseas defending our freedoms and liberties a tax incentive with their cassettes in their driveway, not driving up and down our roads, Mr. President. So I bring forward this resolution to get an opinion from the solicitor, and if we haven't adopted it at a later date, we can bring this matter up.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. I'll motion with Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Councilor Penter, I'm sorry. And Camuso wants to talk too.
[Paul Camuso]: Not on this particular. I do support this wholeheartedly. Very good.
[Robert Penta]: Councilman Penta? I think you need to explain National Guardsmen because we have all kinds of branches of the service. These people that are in reserves, these active duty people or what? They would be reservists that are deployed.
[Adam Knight]: Say it again? Reservists that are deployed.
[Paul Camuso]: Isn't the National Guard all reservists? Excuse me? The National Guard. Active duty is not the National Guard. That would be the Army, Marines, the Air Force.
[Fred Dello Russo]: on the motion of approval. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Carries. Excellent.
[Paul Camuso]: The records of the- Mr. President- Councilor Tommaso. If I may, I'd just like to say a few words before we close this evening. I want to wish everyone well next week as I'm sitting at home, watching TV, enjoying my next Tuesday evening. This has been a great election year. This, and I'm not gonna make it political at all, I'd just like to say a few words. This has been a fun election year. You look at it, there hasn't been an election for mayor in this community for 28 years. When Marilyn Perica and Michael McGlynn went head to head in an election. Next Tuesday, you have three races, and everyone should get out and vote, because it's your school committee, it's your city council, and it's your mayor. This is unprecedented here in the city of Medford for 28 years. And there are two candidates for the chief executive position in this community. And I want to wish them two, as well as everyone else that's named, appears on the ballot next week, well in their endeavors. And I'm not going to miss it that much. So best of luck to all of you and the people at home that are on the ballot as well.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, counsel. Very good. And we'll have. The records of the October 20th, 2015 meeting were passed to Councilor Marks. Councilor Marks, how would you find those records, please?
[Michael Marks]: Review the records, Mr. President, and I pay to be in order to move approval.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval by Councilor Marks. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. On the motion for adjournment by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? All those opposed? Meeting adjourned.
|
total time: 11.16 minutes total words: 1005  |
total time: 2.9 minutes total words: 280  |
total time: 21.84 minutes total words: 1006  |
total time: 5.2 minutes total words: 435  |
|
total time: 7.79 minutes total words: 759  |
total time: 5.0 minutes total words: 471  |
total time: 11.83 minutes total words: 792  |
total time: 1.08 minutes total words: 98  |
|
total time: 9.07 minutes total words: 306  |
|||