[Adam Hurtubise]: Test one, two.
[Bears]: Sixth regular meeting, Medford City Council, March 25th, 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Present. Councilor Lazzaro. Present. Councilor Leming.
[Leming]: Present.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Present. Councilor Tseng.
[Bears]: Present. President Bears. Present. Seven present, none absent. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records 25-046 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved, in recognition of the 50th wedding anniversary of Richard and Cheryl Montecalvo, the warmest congratulations and best wishes on this joyous occasion are offered. For 50 years, Richard and Cheryl have shared a remarkable journey of love, commitment and devotion, serving as an inspiration to family. friends and your community. Your partnership is a testament to the strength of love, the power of unity, and the beauty of a lifelong commitment. In recognition of this momentous occasion, the City of Medford proudly honors this milestone, celebrating the cherished memories you've created and the legacy of love you continue to build. Therefore, be it so resolved, on behalf of the Medford City Council, I extend heartfelt appreciation and best wishes for continued happiness, health, and love in the years ahead. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to, uh, I've known the Monte Cavo family for a long time and, um, And when you hear the news of such a wonderful anniversary of 50 years of marriage, I think it's something we should celebrate. They've been lifelong Method residents that have been a huge part of our community. And I felt that it would be fitting that we recognize them tonight. So thank you and happy anniversary.
[Bears]: Thank you, councilor Scarpelli. We're gonna have to wait for the clerk here for a minute. Anyone else want to comment on this item?
[Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. All right. I want to wish a happy anniversary to the Monte Calvos as well. In difficult times, it's always nice to see an example of love in the world and an example of brightness to bring joy to us here at City Hall too. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk. Please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's Callahan. Vice President Collins.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councils are Council Leming.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's a scarpelli counter saying President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes, I mean affirmative, negative, the motion passes their motion to take papers and inspection. I motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Council Kelly and Vice President Collins. Yes. Council is our council living.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Bears]: I'll just go Pelley counter saying, President Bears, yes, affirmative, then the negative emotion. 25049 offered under suspension by Councilor Scarpelli in memory of William Billy Oganeski. Whereas the Medford City Council is deeply saddened by the passing of William M. Billy Oganeski, a lifelong resident of Medford and devoted public servant who passed away on March 15th, 2025 at the age of 73. And whereas Billy was a beloved husband of 51 years to Paula, a loving father to Tiffany Marino and her husband, Tori, and to Gerald and his wife, Danielle, a proud and devoted papa to Devin, Jerrica, Isabel, Tori and Nathan. and a caring brother, uncle, and friend to many. And, whereas, Billy honorably served the city of Medford at Oak Grove Cemetery for 50 years, during which time he became a familiar kind presence to many residents, forming lasting friendships and embracing the natural beauty and wildlife around him. And, whereas, Billy found joy in the simple pleasures of life, spending time with family, tending to his garden, enjoying a good breakfast at Polar Bear Restaurant, sharing laughter, cheering on Boston sports teams, and spreading warmth and kindness to those around him. And whereas Billy will be remembered for the most for the love he had for his grandchildren, whom he supported wholeheartedly in their endeavors, often with a smile, a kind word, and a shared chocolate chip cookie. And whereas the passing of Billy Oganoski is a profound loss to his family, friends, colleagues, and the entire Medford community, now therefore be it resolved that the Medford City Council sends its deepest condolences to the Oganoski family and honors the life and legacy of William M. Billy Oganoski for his dedication, service, and unwavering commitment to the community he loved.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Council President. Billy Organowski, when we talk about a marriage for 51 years, but you look at what he gave our community, 50 years of service working for the city of Medford. I know Paula, Tiffany, and Jerry, this was a shock, a very unexpected passing. Hardworking man, worked up until the day he passed. So I think that our community lost a very good man and hardworking individual that did his job every single day and left a mark with so many people that he encountered. send the family of the Ogonowski family condolences and that we thank Billy for his services and he should never be forgotten. So thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. And did we have a further amendment to dedicate the cemetery way and his name?
[Scarpelli]: It would be. It would be nice to ask the mayor of the process of, um, that 51 years never had another job. One interview he's ever had for a full time job, and he drove. He made that ride for 51 years, and, uh, I think would be fitting, uh, for his service that we find some sort of, um, respectful honor, and especially in that area. And if we can ask the mayor and if that could be possible, I appreciate that. Council President apologize.
[Bears]: No, thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I just wanted to make sure that was heard. Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, for introducing this under suspension. It's always difficult when someone who has dedicated so many years, 50 years, to our city as a public servant passes away. It's even more difficult when it comes as a shock. I want to extend my deep condolences to Billy Oganoski's family and add my voice to the course of support to dedicate the cemetery way in his honor. I think it's a very fitting tribute to his life of service and his work for our city.
[Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Yes. Councils are Council let me. Yes.
[Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President Bears, yes seven affirmative none of the negative the motion passes to 5048 offered under suspension by Vice President Collins be resolved at the city council meet on April 8 and committee of the whole to go over parking department related matters. One the use of surveillance technology pursuant to the community control over public surveillance ordinance to. updates on the Green Line Extension parking program, three parking ordinance updates, section 78-173, municipal employee and municipal business parking. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you president bears some of these topics have been discussed before this council before I've been going back and forth with the chief of staff and our parking director to try to find a date for the entire council to meet in committee of the whole about these topics with our parking director. We landed on this date for the topic specifically the ordinance change. that hadn't been brought up and assigned a paper number before. I wanted to make sure that councilors had advanced notice about the matter and that we could all gather in committee of the whole to begin the discussion about the parking department's use of technology, as well as a general update about the GLX program and other parking-related updates before our next regular meeting. Thank you. Any motion for approval?
[Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate Councilor Collins bringing this forward. I know we talked before the meeting. I had a resolution similar in similar fashion to have a meeting with the traffic, the new traffic commissioner, and discuss a few other important topics like the South Method G parking, get an update on that situation, the policies and procedures of appealing a ticket and understanding the nuances for some community questions that members that have gone through a very difficult time with that. So if we could simultaneously move those meetings together to hear both resolutions if we can, Mr. President, thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins, does that sound good?
[Collins]: Yes, absolutely.
[Bears]: All right, great. On the motion of Councilor Collins, Vice President Collins to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Council Kelly and Vice President Collins. Yes. Councils are Councilor Leming.
[Bears]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Bears]: Councilor Tseng, President Bears. Yes. The records of the meeting of March 11th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Scarpelli and the records of the joint session of March 19th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Tseng. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Tseng and then maybe we can have a motion to join and approve to cut down on one roll call.
[Scarpelli]: I wasn't here for the meeting, but follow the meeting when I got back. It seems like everything is in order. So move approval and I also motion to join.
[Tseng]: Thank you, Mr. President, great Councilor Tseng, I find everything in order and move to a second Councilor's ability.
[Bears]: Great. On the motion to join and approved by Councilors Scarpelli seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's a Calhoun. Vice President Collins.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councils are Council lemon.
[Bears]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng?
[Bears]: President Bears? Yes. I have affirmative, none the negative motion passes. Maybe we could do the same here for reports of committees. 25-037 offered by President Bears, Committee of the Whole, March 11th, 2025. 24-033 offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permanent Committee, March 12th, 2025. And 25-039 offered by President Bears, Committee of the Whole, March 18th, 2025. um for 037 that was the meeting with uh walk medford and the medford bicycle advisory commission to discuss safety improvements and the budget recommendations of the bike commission anything more on that motion to join the reports and great do you have anything more it was your kind of meeting do you have anything uh no it's um it's in the report uh in the
[Lazzaro]: meeting that outlined the priorities of the bike commission. And a lot of that is covered in our budget priorities.
[Bears]: Great. And we're going to try to have a further meeting on enforcement. Great. On the motion of Council Zahra to join and approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan, I'll go to Vice President Collins for the Planning and Permitting Committee report.
[Collins]: Thank you, president bears at this meeting, we reviewed a draft framework for updating the city is accessory dwelling units ordinance and we took a very first look at a zoning proposal for Medford square. Both of these topics will be met about again, including at the planning and permitting committee tomorrow night at 6 PM on zoom. Thank you motion to approve.
[Bears]: Thank you, and on 25 or three nine committee of the whole March 18 2024 and 2025 sorry. This was when we discussed budget recommendations, and we can see the combined budget recommendations and other budget documents in the agenda tonight. On the motion of Council is our to join and approve seconded by Councilor Callahan Mr. Clark, please call it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's Kelly and Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Bears?
[Bears]: Yes. I have affirmative, no negative, the motion passes. Hearings 25-032, proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance, 10 and 20 Revere Beach Parkway. The Community Development Board held a public hearing on this Wednesday, March 19th, relative to a petition by Nutter, McLennan, and Fish representing trends of real estate to amend the text of the Wellington Station Multifamily Overlay District. to amend the table of dimensional standards in section E, to add a footnote regarding front yard setbacks that coincide with restrictions for public agency buildings, to change the incentive bonus from certified to certifiable for LEED status, and to amend the definition section to add clarifying text to the definition of building coverage. to make it clear that it doesn't include building overhangs. A subsequent public hearing will be held on the same matter by the Medford City Council on March 25th, 2025 at 7 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom. A link to the public hearing will be posted no later than March 21st, 2025. Signed, Adam Herdeby, City Clerk. We did get a memo back from Community Development Board. They have recommended Approval, but they did unanimously 60 recommended approval of the zoning amendment with the following recommended revision to the definition of building coverage to be incorporated. And that reads as follows, building coverage, the maximum area of the lot that can be attributed to the footprint of the building's principle and accessory on that lot. Building coverage does not include surface parking. Building coverage also does not include any portion of the building above the ground floor that overhangs such ground floor. If the overhang does not exceed 10% of the footprint of the ground floor of the building, then the overhang is not part of the calculation of the building coverage. Overhangs greater than 10% are counted as part of the building coverage. And with that, I will open the public hearing to comments for, against, or in any other way on this project. And I noticed we have counsel from Nutter, McLennan, and Fish here, if you'd like to share anything and speak in favor, I'm assuming, of the project.
[Valerie Moore]: Yes, thank you very much and thank you all for your time and considering the proposed amendment. I'm Valerie more of Narva Clinton and fish 155 support Boulevard in Boston for the record. We worked with the Community Development Board to propose a slight modification to the language as President Bears read to further clarify the limits on building overhangs. And with that, we are in agreement with the proposed language that's set forth in the report. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about the proposed language.
[Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any questions? Seeing none, I know we've already heard from you once here, so thank you. I'll open it up again to anyone else who'd like to speak. As part of this public hearing in favor in opposition or otherwise you can come to the podium, or raise your hand on zoom and I will recognize you. All right, seeing none of the coin the public hearing closed. On the motion to approve by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Tseng. With the recommendations of the Community Development Board. Yep.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Mr. Clerk. Just right. Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins?
[Leming]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[Leming]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes.
[Bears]: President Bears? Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative, the motion passes. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers. 25045, Appeal of a Signed Permit Refusal, 42 Fulbright Street. We have here from the Law Office of Kathleen A. Desmond, LLC. Dear Clerk Hurtubise's, if enclosed for filing, please find the following documents. One, Notice of Appeal of Signed Permit Refusal, number S2400053. memorandum in support of appeal of denial of signed permit S-24-00-053 with supporting exhibits and table of cases and statutes, and three existing site plan. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kathleen A. Desmond, and this is regarding AIM Realty Medford LLC, 42 Fulbright Street, Medford, 02155, and the appeal of signed denial S-24-00-053. And I will recognize the petitioner. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Good evening Councilor Bayer, City Councilors, Kathleen A. Desmond, 335 Main Street Stoneham, lower office of Kathleen A. Desmond. I'm here this evening on behalf of in Realty Medford LLC and Scrub-A-Dub Auto Wash Centers. I did provide you, I know that the package is at home, but really there's 10 pages that deal with the issues themselves and then the remainder exhibits. We had, we had dealt with some of the issues previously with the former building commissioner as to use in special permit whether it was a pre existing non conforming use or a special permit use. So I wanted you to have that. that submission that we had submitted to the building commissioner at the time, and that's probably about half of what you have before you. There's essentially two issues in this regard. The first is relative to notice of the denial and the sufficiency of the denial that was issued by the building department. And the second issue is the more substantive issue that deals with whether or not this was an abandoned use. The commissioner had determined, I believe, based on what we have, although the site isn't specific, that because the car wash had been out of use for two years, he determined it to be out of use for two years, that the sign which was a nonconforming structure associated with the use, was also abandoned. We had gone through a lot of this. And just by way of background, 42 Fulbright Street is a 12,716 square foot parcel of land. It sits at the end of Fulbright Street, adjacent to Route 93. It's a very small strip of land. The double-sided pylon sign sits on the southeasterly portion of the lot and is approximately 31.9 feet in height. and 100 square feet in the sign face itself. It's a 10 by 10 sign. The existing sign is readily visible from Route 93 and somewhat visible from Mystic Avenue. But honestly, with all the construction and the work that is going on in the buildings that are anticipated, in that specific area, the sign is not visible, and if it were reduced in size, it's unclear whether you could even see the sign from Mystic Avenue. You would be able to see it from 93, which would show the location, but it would be smaller, and the roofing of Scrub-a-Dub may also be in the way based on where the sign is situated. The application, as I said, to reface, and that's all that was intended in this case. So there was no intent to change the structure of the sign at all. It was simply to take out the plastic panels which are in the existing sign and replace the Minuteman Minuteman sign with the scrub-a-dub sign, which I provided in your materials, the Barron Chevrolet case, which indicates that even if this were a non-conforming pre-existing structure, that this is not a change or an alteration to that structure. It's simply refacing the sign, the identification of the language within the sign panel. such as if you had a Dunkin' Donuts and it was changed to a Starbucks, it's only changing the interfacing of the sign. There were two separate issues outlined in the memorandum that I filed with council as to abandonment. The first being that this car was granted a special permit in 1966. And there were no conditions associated with that permit that would limit the duration. of the special permit. And so the two-year abandonment rule with respect to a pre-existing non-conforming structure would not apply. And I put two cases in there. The Cumberland Farms case, which distinguishes between a special permit and a non-conforming use. And then the Labisser Building Corp case, which I think is very much on point because that was a condominium development where they initiated the first phase of the condominium within the two years required under Chapter 48, Section 9. But then there was a 17-year lapse in time When that first phase of the development was initiated to when they continued development, and the court indicated in that case that we have a special permit with no conditions, as long as they satisfy the chapter 48 section nine, two year requirement of beginning. construction or taking some activity on the special permit within two years of it first being granted, that the 17-year lapse has no impact whatsoever. And that's not what we're talking about here. This is a case where, and we didn't have the affidavit of Peter Silk at the time we submitted to building because it was Christmas time. They didn't have any ability to get ahold of him. He did eventually return their call and I produced an affidavit to the council, which shows that it had been operational up until December 31 of 2021. It goes through his affidavit goes through the fact that there was a fire in 2018 late in 2018, which closed the premises for a while. At that point, they brought it back up and they were operating and then I think people sometimes forget or want to put it out of their minds that there was a thing called COVID, which happened in 2020, which might explain why there wasn't any activity from from a late 2019 to 2020, the summer of 2020, because many car washes were shut down. And in his affidavit, he indicates that he complied with the city of Medford's requirements that he remained in a shutdown. He did open up again after that per his affidavit and continued business. It was less than what it had been pre-COVID, but I think that happened to a lot of businesses. And he ceased operations of the, of the car wash itself on December 31st, except for washing, you know, friends' cars and whatnot. But at that time, and his affidavit indicates that, and I've provided you with a copy of the listing agreement, he listed the property for sale in March of 2022. And in that listing also included the sign and the, the building itself and I believe that was provided to the, to the building department the listing itself is evidence that there was some continuation. And then my clients purchased the property in September of 22, and they, they filed after that permits in order to renovate the project, and we had worked with the prior building commissioner from I think October of 2022, we eventually we had gone through all these issues again with whether this was a special permit or a pre-existing non-conforming use. And you know they can't be both because it's either allowed by special permit or it's something that's not allowed by the ordinance or the statute at all. So And then I provided to you as well the case of, let me just find the case, Stone J. Fitch, which is in your materials, which deals with abandonment and non-use. And that case clearly indicates that the definition of abandonment and non-use is, let me get that, generally non-use, of a non-conforming structure requires both vacancy and the lack of any attempt to rent, sell, or maintain the structure. So in this case, it's clearly a continuum. He operated the business until December 31st. March, he put that, March of the following year, March 22, he put the building up for sale. And also, and the sign was part of that listing. The sale went through on September of 2022. And from that point, my client undertook the permitting process to renovate that building and put it back into a car wash. So although I don't believe that this is a pre-existing use and that that whole analysis does not apply because it was a special permit and the use does not lapse, I think that even if you looked at it as a pre-existing non-conforming use, that this hasn't been abandoned. And certainly there hasn't been two years between the time of, there isn't actually any span of time which it wasn't in use. The building inspector determined that he couldn't find anything that would indicate that the use extended beyond 2019. But we did have at that time Yelp reviews which I provided to the building department, and I also provided fiscal year 2022 records of not only real estate taxes but also personal property taxes that were paid by the business, which would indicate that there was equipment that was in there which was being utilized. As I said, we didn't have the affidavit of Peter Silk at that point because we hadn't been able to make contact with him, but we did make contact with him and he provided the affidavit. I think after I also received notice that there was a contract in fact with the Medford Police Department to wash cars that extended beyond 2019. So, you know, this isn't a situation where there's an abandoned use and, and, you know, my client simply just wants to change the facing of the sign to change the name from minute man car wash to scrub a job. With regard to the second issue and and notice, I detailed it in my memorandum but essentially, the ordinance requires 6.2 point six requires that there be specific provisions, which are denied, and and that that you have notices to what is actually being denied. And none of the information that we received gave a specific denial with specific sections. And in fact, it varied somewhat from the January 8th when it was clear that this was a denial because there are emails within which indicate that there hadn't been a formal denial. January 8th, they received an email that it had been denied. But again, there were different sections cited in that as opposed to what, what was received from community development and there was no formal denial issue by the building department on this. And the only denial that I have is that January 8 where it was clear. that we weren't trying to converse in terms of what what we had in terms of evidence that in fact this was a continuing operation but that it was denied. So, that's the second argument that the denial doesn't meet the requirements of the ordinance. And, you know, I appealed on January 8 because it was clear at that point that it was a denial from the building department. So that is, in essence, what our case is. When we went through the Zoning Board of Appeals case, there was never, at that point, an issue discussed as to abandonment. The issue at that point was, is this a sleepy car wash going to a more more active car wash, and does that require some modification of a special permit? And that's where we got into the discussion with the prior building commissioner, Bill Forde, and that memo you have to him. And the sign was always included within our plans.
[Bears]: Thank you, Kathy. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli, then I have a couple of questions of other Councilors. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli, other Councilors, then I have a couple of questions. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Ms. Desmond for being here tonight. You make a compelling case, but unfortunately, like I told you, I've reached out to the building department and I'm trying to get some legal support. Unfortunately, this Council, none of us have a legal background yet. Unless Justin can hurry up and get over with it. But that school's very difficult. Can I scare him straight? Yeah, so I think that ultimately, you know, tabling this motion until we get some legal contact from the mayor's legal teams to assist us with any questions we have, because right now, I'd have to support building departments as the professionals in this entity, but I don't want to rule on something without the proper knowledge or understanding. So my recommendation that we table this, Mr. President, until we have legal legal response. Um, what Mrs. with Miss Desmond has, uh, shared with us. So thank you.
[Bears]: Got it. Um, any further discussion second on the motion? Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Thanks. Um, I'm gonna say something somewhat similar. Um, This is not our specialty. We have a building department that it is their specialty. I don't quite understand why this has come to us. It seems like at a minimum, like, I don't know if this is the proper process that like, at some point, if we are the appeal authority, we are the final authority. Great. I think having, you know, the someone from the building department here would be incredibly helpful to understand the final issue. You know, I have not read any word in this large town. So On the face of it, I mean, you just want to change the sign. It seems pretty reasonable. But again, this is not our specialty. We are not the people who normally do this. So I would at least want to have at least a little someone from the building department chime in to understand why have they not approved this. So thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. I just had a couple questions. One, I know that the sales now about two and a half, three years. Have they done any construction at the site.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So what's happened is they had issues with national grid and lines had to be moved in order to do that we didn't finish the permitting process probably until I want to say, July or September of 2023, and then they had some issues they did their permitting. submitted for a building permit they have a building permit, but they're delayed and actually I think they're just starting demolition today because National Grid had to move some poles and order them for them to bring in the equipment that they needed to do when they had to do a design of the of the project before that so it was an extended period of time, Matt. Matt is on, Matt Paisner is on Zoom, and he can probably better explain to you what the delays have been in moving forward.
[Bears]: I'll ask you to unmute. If you could just give us your name and address for the record, please.
[Matthew Paisner]: Matthew Paisner, 17 Commerce Ave, Newton, Massachusetts. It's my home address, Scrub-A-Dub headquarters, 172 Worcester Street, Natick, Massachusetts. Obviously this property is to Fulbright Street, Medford, Massachusetts. Not sure which address you needed, sorry.
[Bears]: And any of those was fine.
[Matthew Paisner]: Thank you. I'm a third generation family business owner in Scrub-A-Dub. As Kathy alluded to, we acquired this property shortly after the Silk family listed it for sale. Peter Silk is a fourth generation car washer. He closed the business and listed it for sale a couple months later and we bought it. I went through a very lengthy permitting process with the former Building Commissioner Forte. Our plan was initially to demolish the entire structure and we were not allowed to do that, so we had to work through plans to remodel the existing structure. We invested over $3 million to buy a 12,000 square foot parcel, partly due to the iconic pylon sign, which is a landmark off the highway. Our vision is simply to renovate and restore the car wash to its former glory and give the city a beautiful car wash like it deserves. So after we were approved with the zoning board and all of our plans did include a copy of the existing pylon sign, which I can share, just showing that we were changing the face from Minuteman Car Wash to Scrub-a-Dub Car Wash. In fact, there's bold annotations on all the site plans reviewed by the former building commissioner and the zoning board that says protect existing pylon sign in its current format. Simply replace the plastic panel inside that says Minuteman to Scrub-a-Dub. We went to go for our building permit and we were bringing in contractors and the subcontractors were not able to bring in certain equipment needed for demolition due to power lines that were too close to the building. It took us over a year and close to $100,000 with National Grid to get them to move those power lines and adjust some poles. We've just installed construction fencing this week. and we're looking to start our demolition and construction as soon as possible. It was a major surprise to our family when we submitted our sign permit package and we were given notice that all of a sudden the pylon sign was being viewed as abandoned. The sign was in fact even left on from the time that Peter Silk closed the business to the time that we acquired it and we continued to leave it on. And so this was a huge surprise. And then as Kathy alluded to, we were never given any formal denial letter or notice. Kathy did represent us with the Zoning Board of Appeals. So we engaged her again on this matter to say, hey, we know there's a new building commissioner. We're not sure if there's a misunderstanding or what's going on here. But we spent a lot of money on this property and planned on keeping the existing sign in place. So.
[Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate that context. It looks like there's some improvements to the private way as part of the site plan as well.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well it's, there's improvements to the, how it, it works in terms of traffic and whatnot I don't recall. Yeah, right and the parking is not because you can park on the private way so we had, we had an extended discussion during that whole site plan about the whole use and and the parking and all of that that came into this. And I know, you know, I don't have a note specific, but I know that there was a question at one point as to what was happening with the sign, and it was only that we were, you know, taking the plastic out and putting new plastic in, which under the Barron Chevrolet case is not even a change of structure or anything that would extend to an alteration.
[Bears]: Yeah. Okay. Any further questions by members of the Council? It was the motion of Councilors. I mean, my two senses. We could, and no offense Kathy, we could pay lawyers more money to talk about the sign more, but I don't think we're really going to get. It seems to me that we're just changing out the name of the car wash on a sign. And so my, my perspective is that I don't have a problem with that. But we do have a motion by Councilor Scarpelli to table pending for the legal review. Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: I guess my first question is, if this waits a week or two is that gonna be horrible like is there some is there some great urgency.
[Kathleen Desmond]: No, I don't have any issue with what the city council decides to do. I don't think I raised that as an issue, no. Great, awesome.
[Bears]: Yeah, I'm just saying we could go to KP Law and we could pay them to give us an answer, but that's just my perspective. Okay. The motion by Councilor Scavaglia was to table, I think it was for legal review by the legal, the mayor's legal team, which is KP. Do we wanna adjust that? Do we wanna include the first, just get something from the building department? Sorry, let me just unmute you, George.
[Scarpelli]: That's my confusion, building department ruled on it. That's in their brief. So I'm not saying that I don't agree with, I don't agree or disagree with them, Unfortunately, we don't have a city solicitor, and unfortunately, we do have to pay an outside legal team to answer some of our questions. If my fellow Councilors would move on that, that's their purview, but I really think that it's still strong that we need legal, not that I don't trust or respect you, Ms. Desmond. I work for the city of Medford and that's great. Department works for us for the city. So I think it's important that we do get a legal response. Um, we've spent a lot of money on frivolous, uh, law questions for many, many years here. And, uh, I, I feel council president bears his philosophy on, um, giving KP law any more money than we don't have to. I think that it leaves us with, without a city solicitor, it leaves us with the only option, which is to have our legal team to make sure that what was provided with our building department and what you provided us gives us a better understanding so we can make the proper decision. So, like I said, if it's two weeks, we wait for our next city council meeting. Hopefully we have an answer and we move on this as quickly as possible. scrub-a-dub can start working. So I know Councilor Beza's car is filthy and he's been waiting for it to open.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I can't wait to go through either.
[Scarpelli]: So I understand his frustration. So thank you.
[Leming]: Councilor Leming. I was just gonna say that I would side with Councilor Scarpelli on this one. I think that there is, it would be appropriate to get some legal review from the city side on this. I didn't hear if his motion had a second or not, because on Zoom, I don't hear anybody unless they turn their microphone on, but if there hasn't been a second, I'd like to second that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: What did we just say?
[Bears]: Oh, all right. I'll go to Councilor Saint and Councilor Callahan.
[Tseng]: Um, um, I would support going to the building departments first seeing if they have an opinion on this for their ruling, their opinion is in here.
[Bears]: It's just that it doesn't meet the current size of the sign ordinance.
[Tseng]: Yeah, I mean, I don't know if they have something more about it, because I think that there is compelling enough case law to challenge that. So, okay. Yeah, I mean,
[Callahan]: for clarifying that we are in fact the appropriate body for this to come to after the building department. Given that, I would actually prefer rather than paying the, I don't think we need to pay a legal team. I think that we want to honestly hear from the building department and whether they show up here or whether, you know, at the thing so we can ask them questions or whether, you know, we can have an understanding. Like, I read it and it's like, they just want to change what's on the side. Like, it seems like a no-brainer and I just want to understand from the building department, like, why is it that They can't like I've read the legalese, but like I would love to have the building department chime in.
[Bears]: I don't think we need the law offices particularly but I'm going to go to Kathy in just a second but I've talked to Scott not about this specifically but. I think he's saying because they're saying that it's an expired special permit and not a pre-existing non-conforming use, that because it is a sign that is bigger than the signs allowed by the sign ordinance, he's required to deny it. That's how I'm reading what is presented here.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And ultimately, that's a legal issue. I don't know where the expired special permit comes from. And I've provided cases which indicate that, in fact, you have a 17 year span before a a development, as long as you meet the section nine, you start action within two years of approval of the special permit. If there's no conditions and I think that's every special permit has conditions now, but in 1966, there were no conditions on that special permit as to duration or activity or anything, and because that is the case and that's the best for case that if there's no conditions, then there's no conditions on the special permit. So it's our position isn't it's a legal position that it's not expired.
[Bears]: But yeah, I think either we can just go forward or we have to go to the legal, I think that's kind of where we're at. So we have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli. to table this and request legal review of the petition, seconded by Councilor Leming, and I will go to Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Since you've had more conversations about this, just to that one point, just what you said before, I think I would feel comfortable voting on it tonight because I think this is, you know, it's just a sign that's already there. All they want is this permit. And I don't think this changes the manner, the purpose, or the effect of the sign. And that's my stance on it, rather than pay lawyers to discuss this even more and to end up in a very similar place in two weeks. So that's my view on it. But I understand. Um, the desire to table and, um, I think just just to save us money, I'll vote no on tabling and yes on the question if it gets that.
[SPEAKER_04]: All right.
[Bears]: We have the motion and second of Councilor Scarapelli and Councilor Leming to table and refer to legal for review of the petition. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro? Councilor Leming?
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Councilor Tseng? No. President Bears?
[Bears]: No. Four in the affirmative, three in the negative. The motion passes and is tabled pending your review.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you for your patience tonight. Thank you. And you only have to read the first 10 pages and then look at what you want.
[Bears]: 25-040 offered by Vice President Collins resolution in support of the full time lecturers at Tufts University and their fight for a fair contract. Let me get the actual language here. Whereas the 125 full-time lecturers in the School of Arts and Sciences at Tufts have been unionized with SEIU 509 since 2016 and have been bargaining for their third contract since April 2024, seeking a fair contract that allows for both livable salaries and manageable workloads. Whereas FTLs at Tufts create and teach classes, grade exams, advise and mentor students, and perform essential services that keep Tufts running, including, in the case of many FTLs, coordinating academic programs, directing graduate admissions and degrees, and supporting extra and co-curricular activities. And whereas Tufts University prides itself on the high-quality educational experience provided to students, and valuing a quality educational experience means investing in teachers, And whereas lectures working conditions are students learning environments, and whereas the cost of living has increased 21% since 2020, while the average FTL salary has increased only 13.1%, and salaries for FTLs at Tufts ranked 12th out of 13 university among its institutional peers in the integrated post-secondary education data system IPEDS, and Whereas from 2019 to 2023, undergraduate enrollment in the School of Arts and Sciences grew by 12.4%, while full-time faculty growth was only 6.4%, leading to FTLs increasingly being overworked. And whereas Tufts promises a student-faculty ratio of 9 to 1 and an average class size of approximately 20, while in reality, many entry-level courses taught by FTLs have enrollments between 100 and 400 students, in which FTLs often serve as informal and formal advisors. and whereas Tufts University charges undergraduates the highest college tuition in Massachusetts and the fifth highest in the country and reported a $34 million surplus in the School of Arts and Sciences in academic year 2023-2024, and whereas Tufts leadership has continued to offer bargaining proposals that prioritize budget austerity over workers' health and livelihoods and has continued to reject proposals to increase salaries and make modest improvements in the direction of a living wage without adding to the burden of already unmanageable workloads. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we support the Tufts University Full-Time Lecturers Union, SEIU 509, and call upon Tufts University to prioritize investing in its teachers because both livable wages and sustainable workloads are essential to workers and to the university more broadly. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you president bears for reading out the full text of the resolution. I'm glad to have collaborated with members of 509 on this resolution and I thank them for bringing their fight for a fair contract to our attention. I was talking about this resolution with some community members before the meeting and over the weekend and they said, you know, why is this a Medford issue? And to that I say, you know, Tufts is a huge employer in our community. So many members of our community are involved with Tufts. In various ways, perhaps they work at Tufts or teach at Tufts. Tufts is a major employer in our community. It has a major footprint in our community. And when it comes to fair employment, fair wages, and the right to collectively bargain, this is a rising tide lifts all boats issue. And with a large, ostensibly non-for-profit that is such an outsized presence and an outsized footprint in our community, I think it's the least that we can do to say we must participate in holding you accountable to treating all workers with fairness, and at the very least, participating in good faith with efforts to collectively bargain. Our relationship with Tufts University and the city of Medford overlaps in many ways. We've spoken at length in these chambers about the payment in lieu of tax agreement that the city of Medford has with Tufts. What we are talking about is a very large, extremely well-endowed, very powerful institution that absolutely has the resources to pay its workers commensurate with their value, to pay them competitively, and to pay them so that they can comfortably live in this community. And so I hope that my fellow councillors will join me tonight in urging them to do just that and to engage in a good faith negotiation process with these essential Tufts University workers. But more importantly, I understand that there are a couple members of the bargaining unit that are attending the city council meeting tonight, and I'm sure that they can speak to their efforts much more eloquently than I could. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Any comments from members of the Council at this time? Councilor Scarpelli. One second. There you go.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Vice President Collins, for bringing this forward. I think that we know the support of this Council supports all of our unions, and bringing this forward is so important, but I would recommend or I would I would request that we amend this resolution. I received a bunch of phone calls today after members of our workforce here in method read this resolution. And if we could amend it to also read that that the City Council support the city administration priorities, municipal unions that have been working without a contract for some over three years. I think that as we're talking with one breath, a city entity that we're going to support and making sure that there's fair wages, which I totally support a thousand percent, but I would also in the same breath, keep our municipal workers that are working without a contract in the forefront along with this resolution. If you could, Mr. President, thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comments by members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. You provide your name and address for the record at the podium, raise your hand on Zoom, and you'll have three minutes.
[Helen McCreery]: All right, thank you so much for considering this resolution. My name is Helen McCreary, 200 College Ave, Medford, 02155. So I'm a full-time lecturer in the biology department at Tufts. This is my third year at that job. I'm here tonight because the status quo at Tufts is simply not working for lecturers. As you know, or as you may know, we've been negotiating for almost a year to gain a livable wage and a reasonable workload. I'm going to talk very briefly about each of those issues, starting with workload. Right now, I am teaching 480 students in one introductory biology course. This is bigger than that course has ever been, in large part because the number of students has been increasing, as you've heard. Last year, I had 430 students. That was also a record. The increase in the number of students and the tuition dollars coming to Tufts has not been matched by an adequate increase in support provided for the learning of those students. So I simply cannot provide the kind of education that I want to, the kind of education that's promised by Tufts, and that Tufts students' tuition ought to pay for when I have that many students in my course. In the fall semester as a whole, the roughly 120 lecturers in the School of Arts and Sciences taught a total of about 10,000 students in their courses. The top notch education that Tufts is known for is delivered largely on our backs. But my colleagues that have a lot much smaller courses are just as overworked. By teaching, they often teach, they generally teach more courses at a time and also by other responsibilities. Our work is not just teaching. Over the next two weeks, I'll be meeting individually, personally with 30 students. My advisees about the courses they're going to take in the fall, that's 30 meetings over the next two weeks on top of all of my other regular meetings, teaching and responsibilities. Written 23 letters of recommendation for students so far this year, have more outstanding that I need to write, more requests coming in. We serve on committees within our departments across the university where we provide all sorts of formal and informal advising and mentorship coordinate programs, etc. So my main point is that we provide us with a ton of valuable labor, and I am talking about monetary value. It's no secret Tufts tuition is high. The all-in cost of attendance for this year is over $92,000. That's a lot more money than I make per year, by the way. So with all these courses and students that lecturers teach, we are bringing in a huge portion of that money. And most Tufts lecturers can't afford to live in Medford or other nearby communities. I live nearby, in fact. My commute is less than 15 minutes. And that proximity has a major benefit for my quality of life and to the quality of education that I can provide. I have more time for my students. I have more time for my family because I'm not commuting over an hour like most of my colleagues. The reason I have that benefit has nothing to do with my paycheck from Tufts. That's because of my partner's paycheck, which is about twice mine. My own paycheck can't even hope to touch the cost of housing, right? So I have one kid in daycare, and with groceries and a credit card bill, my paycheck on a good month maybe covers that, and that's about it. So Tufts faculty should not be required to have a highly paid partner or other independent financial privilege to live in the community in which we teach. We deserve better. So wrapping up here, speaking for myself, it seems like the specific administrators who really control the purse strings at Tufts, who could, if they wanted to, immediately end negotiations by offering us a contract that adequately values our contributions to the university, Those specific administrators don't seem to be interested in this conversation at all. And I don't believe it's because they can't find the money. Last year, the School of Arts and Sciences had a $34 million surplus. In my view, they simply aren't valuing our labor, which again, sustains so much of their mission. So I really thank you for your time. I hope you'll really consider and pass this resolution to help show the administration that they need to pay attention. Thank you very much.
[Bears]: Thank you. One second here. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Penn Loh]: My name is Pan Lo and I work at 503 Boston Ave in Medford. I teach in the Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning at Tufts and have been doing so full time since 2009. Really want to thank all of you for entertaining this resolution, the connections between Tufts and especially my department and Medford are deep. In fact, Vice President Collins was a former student when she was at Tufts, and we send plenty of students out to do work with the Medford planning department and. our students get so much out of being both living here and having this city be a place that they are really learning about what it means to build just and sustainable communities. So I want to thank you all for that. A lot has already been said, but I think for me the bottom line is that we have been increasingly overworked and underpaid. The situation has been going on long enough that we have been getting very frustrated. We are about a third of the full-time teaching faculty in the School of Arts and Sciences, but yet we teach way more students than that. Last fall, we taught over 10,000 students in over 300 courses. On average, every undergrad was taking about one and a half courses from courses taught by full-time lecturers. As Helen mentioned, the university is in a situation where it can pay. It just seems like it has been choosing not to, and that's where the support from our community has been so important. We organized and conducted a two-day strike at the end of January. And what we learned from that is just how much support that we have from both people in our community as students, faculty, alumni, and families, but also our surrounding communities. The community partners from Medford, from Somerville, the support there has been invaluable to us. It's given us hope and inspiration that we can get to a deal that we deserve. You know I'll conclude by just saying that you know it is it is really unconscionable that many of us cannot actually afford to live in a great community like Medford and you know if I hadn't moved and. actually bought a place back in the mid 90s, I wouldn't be close to campus now either. So, you know, so this contract is really important, not just for us as individuals, but for really sustaining the kind of employment and employer that Medford deserves in a Tufts. Last thing I'll say is that while we also support all the other folks who work and are part of unions and really believe in that solidarity, we think that this resolution, having a clean resolution would have a little more impact on our administration. So, you know, with due respect to the idea that Councilor Scarpelli put out there, I do think it's a little cleaner if we keep this just as a resolution that supports the union of Tufts. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment from members of the public in the chamber or on Zoom? Seeing one in the chamber, not seeing any hands on Zoom, so we'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you have three minutes.
[Jennifer Yanko]: Is this on?
[Bears]: You're on.
[Jennifer Yanko]: Okay, Jennifer Yanko, 16 Monument Street. As someone who's worked in academia all my life, I think it's so important. We're put so much value on education. We charge now so much for higher education, that it's very important that we pay and we remunerate those who are teaching our children, we remunerate them well. I think that one of the side effects of this kind of exploitation of scholars for Medford is that, as someone noted, people can't live in the community. And the richness of these intellectuals, these scholars, is lost to us then. And this is something very important. I mean, these people bring so much into the community. And if they're not paid at a level that allows them to live in the community, then that's a loss for the whole community. So I very much support this. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by folks in the chamber or on Zoom? I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Leming]: Well, if there's no other folks from the public looking to speak, I'd just like to add that supporting the full-time lecturers and Tufts is particularly important because I I spent most of my life in academia, last five years in a postdoc. It's a system that really relies on under-compensated labor from folks who have a lot of training. It's the full-time lecturers, the junior academics that run large institutions like Tufts, and it's really the passion for what they do that ends up being exploited by the academic system that keeps these institutions and most of higher education in the country running. We're going through a time right now where the academic system in the U.S. is being particularly strained by the federal government, so it's incredibly important to show these full-time lecturers our full support because it's going to be very important for uh, institutions like Tufts to offer more local support, uh, to, uh, to the junior academics that are in their institution. So I have my, this resolution has my full support and I'd like to thank all the folks, um, in the chambers tonight for coming out to speak.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Seeing no further comment, I'll just throw in my two cents here. One of the most important lessons in political economy I learned is that we're basically living inside of a 75 year scam to disembed the economy from society. It's this idea that the economy exists outside of any context of humanity or community or sociology or anything else. And certainly we're seeing some of the worst effects of that now. And very often when we talk about Tufts University, it feels like they are trying to disembed themselves from our community. I think Tufts University itself is a community issue. When we talk about the dormitory argument or the many other unions who have come before this council to talk about how Tufts is treating them as an institution, or the students who have come before this council who had those same concerns, or the neighbors, the Medford residents who have serious concerns with how Tufts treats their immediate neighbors in the hillside. Students and workers and Medford residents together have very clear alignment and opposition, in my opinion, to how Tufts is choosing to act as an institution. And I can think of nothing more salient to that point than the idea that we are a host community and not a home. And I think whether you're a student or a worker or a neighbor or just someone who lives here in Medford, we would all do better if Tufts administration did better. So that's where I stand. And I'll probably have to make that speech a couple dozen more times in the next few months, depending, we'll see. But it's just how things go. And it's, you hear these same stories. So thank you for the folks who commented. We do have a motion to approve by Vice President Collins. There is an amendment by Councilor Scarpelli. Vice President Collins, do you accept the amendment? We could also do it as a B paper so that we could keep a clean resolution and have Councilor Scarpelli's item as a separate vote. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you for the bears 1st, I apologize if my audio isn't coming through. Well, my Internet is unstable right now. I. I hear the counts are appreciate him bringing that up. Preference would be to. Vote on that as a B paper. I would certainly be in favor since these workers requested that the most persuasive to this employer. I'd like to honor sentiment for our bargaining units here in the city.
[Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. It came in a little funky, but I think we got the picture. You'd prefer a B paper. I'm seeing a nod from Councilor Scarpelli that that's all right. So we'll have two votes. We'll have a B paper, which is to resolve to the mayor to settle the contracts that are outstanding, including some workers who've been without a contract for three years. And when you're ready on that, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. The second on the paper. Councilor Tseng, Yes, this is on the beat.
[Adam Hurtubise]: On the beat paper Council Callahan. Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilors are. Councilor Leming.
[Leming]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Bears]: President Bears yes 70 affirmative no negative the motion passes on the a paper which is the original resolution by Vice President Collins seconded by second by Councilor Callahan, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Council Callahan, Vice President Collins. Vice President calls. Yes. Yes.
[Leming]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Bears]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Bears]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Bears]: Seven or eight in the affirmative. The motion passes, and we can move to the next item. Thank you. 25.041 offered by Councilor Tseng resolution public engagement plan for FYI 26 budget be it resolved that the resident services and public engagement committee design implement a public engagement plan for the upcoming FYI 2026 budget Councilor Tseng. Thank you.
[Tseng]: This resolution is really quite a simple one, it goes back to our fund of one of our fundamental guiding principles that we want City Hall to be more accessible to all that we want to bring City Hall to the people and not force people to come to have to come to City Hall. I think the budget process is a perfect encapsulation of that process. where the budget is a statement of the city's values. It is what runs our city, what makes us tick. And it's really important, I believe, to me, and I believe to the city council, too, that we get as much input as we can and that people feel heard in this process. Over the last few years, we've experimented doing different things with public engagement. Years ago, I put out a survey, too, which I have thoughts about how to how to make better this time around, asking for input from residents about what they would want to see in our city budget and then explaining some of the challenges that we see on the city council with getting what everyone wants. in recent years on the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee. We have been doing more with actively going out into the community to hear from residents. We've been doing more with publishing a newsletter that goes out every month detailing what we do on the City Council. So there are more means by which we can gather feedback now. I know there are Councilors who are very passionate about getting public feedback and engaging more members of the public in our processes as well. So I'm looking forward to a very fruitful discussion on the Resident Services Committee, and I'll motion to send this paper to that committee.
[Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng to refer paper 25-041 to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: I just thank Councilor Teng for bringing this forward and I look forward to discussing it in committee. Thank you.
[Bears]: Any discussion by members of the public either in the chamber or on Zoom? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Second is Councilor Calderon.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins.
[Leming]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. Councilor Leming.
[Leming]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Hsing. Yes. President Paris.
[Bears]: Yes, I'm affirmative then the negative the motion passes. 25-044 offered by Vice President Collins proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance neighborhood and residential, never heard residential and urban residential districts for referral to the Community Development Board. These are the NR and UR proposals referred out of the Planning and Permitting Committee for referral to the Community Development Board for their review and recommendation. And this would amend sections 94-2.1, 94-3.2, 94-4.1, and 94-12 of the zoning ordinance to create these districts. Again, this is just a referral, a legally required referral to the Community Development Board. There is a question and answer session on Thursday in this room on the matter. Community Development Board will hold a public hearing, and then the Council will hold a public hearing where we will hear whatever recommendations were made by the Community Development Board. Vice President Collins, anything you'd like to add?
[Collins]: Thank you, president bears for the overview. I was going to just summarize much in the same way that you did. I thank my colleagues and city planning staff for their collaboration on this draft proposal over 4 meetings in January and February in committee. And I was also going to take the opportunity like you did to promote the public Q and a session that will be this Thursday at 6 PM in the city council chambers. This will be in person. There will be big graphs. It's a great opportunity for people to learn more and ask questions and state their ideas and concerns about the proposal before the Community Development Board public hearings. I also heard from Director Hunt just earlier today that this Q&A will no longer be only in person. There will also be a Zoom option. So just encourage people to take advantage of that opportunity. And with that, I motion for referral to the CDB.
[Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, any further discussions? Any discussion by members of the public? Either in the chamber or on Zoom, you can come to the podium in the chamber or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, I just wanna also thank Vice President Collins, Chair of the Planning and Permitting Committee, No spoilers, but I've heard that the Mass Municipal Association is interested in writing a feature on the zoning updates website page and the engagement process around this. So that has a lot to do with your work, Councilor Collins. So thank you for that.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Bears]: On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: This is to refer to the CD board. Yes. Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng. President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes. 60 affirmative, one of the negatives. The motion passes. I will be brief. If folks have had a chance to review the letter that I wrote up summarizing the decisions that we came up with last week. And if folks have any comments, certainly, or edits, they're much appreciated. But we have first recommendation, maintain level service funding for the Medford public schools and city departments. Two, this is under new ongoing expenditures to increase the funding for the assessing department to implement the residential exemption. Three, increase funding for DPW engineering and facilities departments for improved road and bike safety, tree planting, and capital improvements. Four, fund a therapeutic recreation specialist and office manager in the recreation department and a citywide inclusion specialist. Five, fund a fire department dive team training and equipment. Six, increase funding for the city solicitor position. And then two, one-time expenses. One, or sorry, seven, the nexus studies for inclusionary zoning, linkage fees, and transportation demand management. And eight, planning to update the city's financial software. If folks read that, so that will be sent along along with everyone's individual the recommendations of all the individual Councilors that were submitted by memorandum or by email. What a Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Um, this is something I always look forward to in the city council year when we get have that meeting committee the whole meeting get together and then sent over this letter to the mayor. I believe that we are stronger when we negotiate together, when we work together to fight for the values that we want to see in the budget, to fight for the items that we want to see in the budget together. I thank President Bears for his work on putting together this letter. I think it's very comprehensive. It's very clear. I think it's very well done, so thank you so much.
[Bears]: Thank you. And the letter is addressed to the Mayor with a copy to Chief of Staff Nazarian and Director Dickinson. Any further discussion by members of the Council on our recommendations? Seeing none, is there a motion? Motion to approve and refer to the Mayor by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Is there any discussion by members of the public on the council's budget recommendations for fiscal year 2026? Either the podium or raising your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins?
[Bears]: Looks like Vice President Collins has stepped away.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes.
[Bears]: President Bears? Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Communications from the Mayor. 25-047, offered by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehns, appropriation of free cash and retained earnings. Dear President Bears and city councilors, I respect the request that your honorable body approves the appropriations of one, excuse me, free cash in the amount of $737,927.88 on the following items, $680,927.88 for fire station planning. This covers expenses spent under city council resolution 19-484, which used short-term borrowing to start design work. and $57,000 to fund Vision Government Solutions contract to provide revaluation services for the assessor estate mandated 2026 revaluation. The balance of free cash before this vote is $28,343,997. 2. Retained earnings from the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund in the amount of $1,700,000.00 for a water main replacement project to mitigate lead or unknown services and improve capacity. The balance in retained earnings in the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund before this vote is $12,653,475.00. Finance Director Robert Dickinson and City Engineer Owen Wartella will be available to answer any questions respectfully. Submitted Brianne Alengo Kern-Mayer. Bob Owen.
[SPEAKER_08]: So, is there anything else you'd like to add your own, not really planning for fire stations.
[Bob Dickinson]: Obviously, the debt exclusion did not pass for that. So that project is on hold, but we need to pay off the expenses that were incurred. It seems foolish to simply borrow that or to roll the debt. So we're asking for free cash to be able to be used to pay off the expenses that we have so far. In terms of the revaluation, every five years, the city is required to do a full reval of all the assessed properties. This is a five-year expense. Half of it will be this year. The other half will be next year. It seems an appropriate use of free cash because it's kind of outside. It's a longer-term thing that's kind of outside the ordinary operational budget of the assessment department.
[SPEAKER_08]: You want to speak on that?
[Owen Wartella]: Hello, the Arlington Street Water Main Project is something we're trying to focus on for not only capacity in a low flow, low area, but it's the first step of like a five year kind of initiative that we're going to start moving. This area was targeted because it has a high probability of unknowns and lead, and it'll also give us better pressure for fire safety and head loss.
[Bears]: Thank you. Director Dickinson, just on the fire station, essentially, my understanding of this is that short-term borrowing was done under a council resolution, and then the idea is that that money would have been rolled over into the debt for the project, but because the debt exclusion failed, there's not gonna be debt for the project?
[Bob Dickinson]: Yes, that's correct. Okay. We had a $1.5 million authorization to do the planning, What would ordinarily happen is we would have done the planning. We would have done short-term borrowing. We did actually borrow $1.5 million short-term to cover the planning process. And then we would have closed out that debt. And had we gotten the authorization to build the full fire station, we would have borrowed enough to pay off the short-term debt and all the planning costs, roll that into the long-term debt we would have had for the fire station. So right now we have to pay off the debt. What is actually been spent is the money that we're asking for from pre-cash. The rest of the money is still sitting in the city's accounts. So.
[Bears]: All right, I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you for explaining that, Mr. Hickson. I know that, so these plans, they've already done the work. We owe them the money. So instead of paying it off, and with an interest moving forward, we pay it off up front now. And these plans are ours to keep, so they're already done, right?
[Bob Dickinson]: Yes, these are expenses we've actually, we've already paid the contractors. All of those POs are closed. So that's the end of this part of the project. We still have the plans, obviously, that were produced by the contractors.
[Scarpelli]: No, there were total plans. there was a final plan that was presented. And then one of the reasons why I think it failed was the rank and file and the fire department realized that, and the former chief who was part of the planning team mentioned that it was inadequate. But we still have all of the plans, even the original plans that had the footprint that worked with the former chief, with the team that put that together, that's everything?
[Bob Dickinson]: as far as I know, yes.
[Scarpelli]: Okay, all right. And I know as we move forward, just understanding people are very confused with the free cash. So we've certified free cash last year, and we spent down some of that money to be put into different pots, correct? Yes. Now, this is the new number, we're back up to $28 million, just for clarity sakes? Yes. Okay. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you.
[Lazzaro]: Thank you. I think this is a rational ask. I'm curious. We have $28 million in pre-cash. The fire station remains in a difficult state. I am curious about where It's not really, it's frustrating. I feel frustrated. This is not your fault. It's not anybody's fault. We, I don't know how we can use what's at our disposal to help the fire station. I just want to put a statement into the public statement into the ether that it would be nice if we could do some improvements on the fire station somehow. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Any other questions or discussion on this paper? Seeing none, are there any motions? On a motion to approve by Councilor Callahan, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Is there any discussion by members of the public on this paper? You can raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in the chambers. Yes. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Bears]: President Bears? Yes, five in the affirmative, one in the negative, one absent, the motion passes. We received a communication regarding McCormick Avenue parcels, and we do have the MWRA loan order eligible for third reading. Both items? Okay. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to take papers 25-020 and 25-028 off the table, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins is absent. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 25-020, transfer and conveyance of McCormick Avenue parcels. Give me one second here. So we, I believe, have tabled this requesting further information from the Affordable Housing Trust and the administration. And I have here, to the Honorable President and members of the City Council, from Lisa Ann Davidson, Chair, Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund, date March 21, 2025. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, on March 5th, 2025, the MAHTF met to discuss and review the resolution offered by the Mayor to the City Council to transfer and convey McCormick Avenue parcels. The MAHTF approved a motion to support the sale and transfer of the McCormick Avenue parcels, F1337 and F1338, subject to the City Council's approval for the purpose of funding the Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund to establish an affordable housing linkage through a nexus study and support affordable housing developments. Regarding the McCormick Avenue parcels, the assessor's office is valuing the two parcels individually at $350,000 each. The two parcels individually are undersized lots and not developable. The assessor's office has not factored in this condition, which would lower its assessed value. If the two McCormick Avenue parcels were combined through the doctrine of merger, the land would become developable, and according to the assessor's office, its value would be approximately $435,000. Board of Trustees would be pleased to discuss this matter further. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Lisa Ann Davidson, Chair, Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Thank you. I definitely agree in the need for us to support to find money to do these, the nexus study so that we can update the linkage fees especially for affordable housing which I think we should do first. I'm absolutely supportive of that, but I will not vote in favor of selling off public lands, which we'd never get back. when we have $28 million sitting in free cash, let alone the money that is in stabilization funds. I cannot understand why we are selling off public lands when we clearly have many times that amount of money in free cash that we do not know what that is planned to be used for. So I will not vote to sell off public lands at this point in time.
[Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: Councilor. Um Councilor Callahan said exactly what I was going to say. Thank you. Um it means exactly. Yes Um, no, I would not be in favor of selling these parcels. I also know that it was these parcels were toured by, um, an affordable housing developer and architect prior to this discussion that they were basically gives these lands as owned by the city to affordable housing developers directly. It doesn't need to be, and then we have them, and then they're affordable housing. We don't need to sell them to a private person for, this doesn't, I would not support this as it is right now. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Um, I think folks who've been following this issue know I've been of two minds about it. My instinct is with my fellow Councilors that we shouldn't sell public land. I also appreciate the letter that was sent to us. I think the subtext of that letter is asking us to think bigger picture about, um, you know, getting that next study, I think will help affordability in the long term by telling us exactly how we can achieve the bigger picture goals that we've set out. I think that's why I'm inclined to support it, but I did want to take this off the table because I wanted to hear the discussion after we got that letter from the Affordable Housing Trust as well. So I wanted to hear from my fellow Councilors too.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Is there a motion.
[Leming]: I have my hand raised.
[Leming]: I mean, I'm, I do agree that. we should be using free cash for some of these one-time expenses. On the other hand, this is, I mean, this is an official communication from the Affordable Housing Trust where they're telling us that these parcels are individually undersized and they're saying they're not able to be developed. And I am disappointed and my colleagues for not supporting, indicating that they wouldn't support the recommendation of the Affordable Housing Trust. I'm also disappointed in some of my colleagues for stepping off prior to this discussion. I would really like to see this Uh, this nexus study, uh, this nexus study actually funded. It was. In some of the budget recommendations that we put forward, and I would like to see this council. Uh, get in the pattern of supporting. the Affordable Housing Trust when it gives us a recommendation. I mean, if they're going to tell us that they can't use two parcels of land and so we should have a bit more of a longer term view when it comes to selling them off so that we can actually fund the nexus study, then I'm inclined to support them. So that's all I have to say. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Appreciate my colleagues thoughts on this. I think that as we look at the parcels being small, I think that they are important. I think they are valuable for the fact that you might not see a four story development, but you'll see a butters that would take up that land relatively quickly. then move that money into the Affordable Housing Trust. So I concur with my fellow colleague, Councilor Leming, in understanding that we finally have a revenue source that we can start feeding into that. And the fact that we've heard tonight that the use of free cash to be used for anything is pretty frightening, considering this Council spoke a year ago on a number that was relatively the same number to keep us out of an override that really is affecting so many of our homeowners and affecting now a lot of our renters because of the increase in taxing that fall back onto our renters. So I think that I made a motion and I'll bring it back up soon because I think maybe my council colleagues understand the importance of maybe an audit and putting that back out to a vote. Because again, I know that one of my council colleagues mentioned that it's nobody's fault, but it is somebody's fault. When you continually have millions and millions and millions of dollars Again $28 million in free cash. There's something going wrong. Again, repeat this so people don't take this out of context. I'm not saying that someone's doing something illegal in the city, but there's a blatant misuse of our funds that we keep we keep increasing this free cash amount to a number that's astronomical. What was put forth during the override is the understanding the process of free cash is seeing most communities that are trying to eliminate free cash or keeping it at that level for the bond rating, which I believe at the time for metric was close to, I believe, seven and $11 million, keeping it there that keeps us at the bond rating that we have today and using that money appropriately. So I appreciate the, the, the highlight of the misuse of free cash, excuse me, the highlight of the free cash. And I highlight the fact that that again, something has to be done. We have to look at the way we're spending our money in our community because we see and hear over and over again that we can't do A, B, and C because we don't have the funding. But we obviously have the funding when we have $28 million in free cash. Again, free cash is money that is voted by this council for the previous budget season to move our projects forward, to move our city forward. And if that money is not being spent properly, this is where we are. $28 million in free cash. So again, even if it's not spent, putting it into a high-interest account that brings us money so it's not sitting in account for the whole year, maybe there's another way that we can look at creating revenue for our community just out of interest, out of $28 million. There are so many avenues to look at this process, but I'm going to vote in favor of this paper, because I think this is something we've talked about in supporting our affordable housing trust, something that the previous council, before this council started, Council Falco's wishes and his resolution, and I believe Council Bears and I were on that council, that again, these are parcels that we're looking at purchasing and then building, dropping in a development, There are small parcels that could be hopefully taken by the abutters and then used to add some housing and then build the affordable trust account. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Bears]: Thank you. I do want to note when it comes to the free cash, what we heard last week was that there was 1 million in turnbacks, so underspending, and 6 million in unexpected local receipts. And a large amount of that was from exactly what you just said, Councilor Scarpelli, the investment of ARPA funds and city's cash balances in high interest accounts. They earned more than was expected in the budget. And again, that free cash number is as of 6-30-2024. I'm also inclined to say that, Yes, there's a lot of free cash right now and using it on one-time projects is what it's intended for, right? There's two truths. We have an operating budget that has a very tight margin when we look at the budget. And so recurring expenses, especially in an era of inflation and contracts and the compounding effect of the city's biggest expense, which is personnel contracts, that the operating budget can be very tight and we can have little to no money to spend on new recurring expenses. But essentially because of ARPA and the underestimating of some of the local receipts, basically the assumption that the economy will be worse than it ended up being, we did not lose as much money as we thought we would from the pandemic. And that's why we've ended up with the free cash balances that we have. And then because we had those balances and because interest rates were high, we made money on those balances we weren't expecting to make. So that's why we ended up with the balance that we have. I'm inclined to say that, you know, one-time expenses like a study is exactly what the one-time funds from a free cash thing should be used for. I'm also inclined to say that Corbett Avenue is a residential neighborhood where I don't know what you get from leasing the land. And, you know, I don't know how much more benefit you get from leasing the land in the long term and having two or three affordable housing units versus the sale of it for this purpose now. So I'm just going to say that. Councilor
[Tseng]: Thank you. I mean, I think the last things that both Councilor Scarpelli and President Bears said I think way on my mind. I think about the practical effects of this. And, you know, I think There's the benefit to having two or three affordable units in that neighborhood, but does that is that outweighed by having an exit study that helps really advance affordable housing trusts work to get many more affordable units in Medford over a longer period of time. I think, in my mind, it weighs in favor of that. I'm not completely sure how many votes, this needs. It's possible that we, it might be wiser to wait until Vice President Collins is online with us. I know she was saying that she had some technical difficulties with their computers I don't. if, you know, if it's important to have that last voice on the Council, I think it might be wise to retable this, but I did want to have this discussion tonight to hear from Councilors while this paper was still, while the response that we got was on our minds.
[Bears]: Yeah, I'm almost 100% sure that the conveyance of property is a two thirds of majority. Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: First, I completely agree that one-time expenses, just like this nexus fee, is exactly what Free Cash is designed for. It is what it should be used for. We have plenty of free cash. We should be using free cash for this. Once you sell public lands, it is gone forever. I have yet to see that there has been any that we're going to have to sort of brainstorming or real in depth study of what could be done with those parcels. Uh it isn't simply that there could be permanently affordable housing on them. There are many other things that can be done with public lands. Um and II really urge my city Councilors to not rush through to sell public lands when it has not been thought through. And to urge the mayor to pay for the next study as soon as
[Lazzaro]: Is there, I may be missing it in the documentation, but is there a cost for the study that we know? Do you know how much the study costs, the nexus?
[Bears]: The letter that we received from the Affordable Housing Trust, I know numbers have been thrown around. Personally, I think we should do all of these nexus studies at once. We should do the linkage, the inclusionary, whatever's needed for TDM and all the other linkage fees, I think we should just do them all.
[Lazzaro]: I guess what I'm saying is that the studies, it seems, are not very expensive. And I really couldn't agree more with Councilor Callahan that when you sell land that's owned by the city. You can't, you don't get it back. We own these parcels. We have a history of selling off lands that we've owned. And I think it's a sacrifice that we shouldn't make lately. And I think there's more potential in these parcels than we're giving them credit for. I just I would not be prepared to sell them for the purpose of beginning a study that we could very easily begin in other ways.
[Bears]: I'm going to go to Councilor Leming then Councilor Tseng and then we do have a DT on on zoom with their hand as well.
[Leming]: I mean, I'm on the, I'm on the community land trust, which actually is looking at. I mean, it's, it's, it's still pretty early stages. We're working with some, with some consultants on forming a community land trust for the city and the McCormick Avenue parcels aren't even on the list of city owned land that we would be looking at to build up any sort of, Any any sort of affordable housing. So there are parcels of land that the city owns that we would be seriously looking into for that purpose. But again, these are, I mean, these are too small. For for that purpose, um, and this clearly has been deliberated specifically at the. Uh, within the affordable housing trust, and we received an official communication recommending that. Uh, they'd be sold off for this purpose. Um, so I would 2nd, the motion to table that, um, I. I think that Vice President Collins did seem to be having some internet connectivity issues. So this could potentially be taken up at a later time. But given that, I would also like to hear what Ms. McGor thinks, Ms. McGor has to say as well. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thanks. There is no motion to table unless someone makes it and that motion is undebatable. So if someone makes it, we can't hear from Ms. McGor.
[Leming]: never mind then. Sorry, I thought he made a motion to table.
[Bears]: Councilor Tseng suggested it. Aditi, we'd love to hear from you with what your thoughts are. Oh, I have to ask you on mute.
[Adithi Moogoor]: Good evening, President Bess and members of the city council. Am I audible?
[Bears]: Yes, we can hear you.
[Adithi Moogoor]: Yeah, thank you for this discussion. First to respond to the question about the cost of the nexus study, it would be approximately $80,000, and this would include adding affordable housing linkage and reviewing our existing inclusionary zoning percentages as well. And regarding the McCormick Avenue parcels, the two parcels, individually, I believe, are assessed at around $35,000 to $40,000. This is because they are undevelopable. And PDS's recommendation is if they were to be sold or conveyed, it's best if these two parcels are merged by ANR, and then that would increase the assessed value to approximately $435,000.
[Bears]: Thank you. What would we have to do to merge them? Is there a vote of the council required to do that?
[Adithi Moogoor]: And... I think, I'm not very sure, but I think it would have to go before the CD board and an ANR process would be required, but I'd have to check with my colleague, Daniel.
[Bears]: Okay. And it sounds like just it sounds like that probably, whichever way we end up on this, it's probably not going to hurt us to have the parcels be merged or not merged.
[Adithi Moogoor]: To clarify, if they're not merged, then the value would be much lower. So for each parcel.
[Bears]: I meant to say that if we end up choosing not to sell the parcels, like let's say the ANR process goes forward and they're merged and then the council doesn't want to convey them. That's, it's not really, that's not a problem, is it?
[Adithi Moogoor]: No, that wouldn't be a problem, I believe, yeah.
[Bears]: All right, I'll go to Councilor, thank you, and I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: You're welcome. Thank you. Can you clarify for me, undevelopable, does that mean separately as two parcels, or if they were made, because they're next to each other, correct?
[Adithi Moogoor]: Yes. Yes, they are undevelopable because each of these parcels are undersized lots. So based on our zoning, these lots are not developable.
[Lazzaro]: Right. So as they are, as our zoning is right now, the two lots, the size that they are now, are undevelopable as the two separate lots. But if we put them into one lot, then they are a normal size for something to be put on them together?
[Adithi Moogoor]: Yes, based on our current zoning overhaul and the proposed zoning change, I think once the two parcels are merged, it would allow us to have one single family unit and an ADU.
[Lazzaro]: right? So I think that's an important thing to note here. It's that it's there's a somewhat arbitrariness to the fact that this is an undevelopable undevelopable lot. It's not that you cannot build something on it. It's that because of the way that they're that the lines are drawn because of the way our zoning ordinances are right now. Technically, you can't put two houses on these two lots, but that does not mean that you can't physically build something on this space. It just means that it's a wonky weird thing right now. it does not mean that there is not potential for this to hold a building that could house humans in it eventually. Thank you. Yes.
[Bears]: Give us one second here. We're having a technical issue. Yeah, but I don't know if we're broadcasting anymore, at least to YouTube. Well, let me just make sure we get this fixed. Oh, still going. All right.
[Adam Hurtubise]: If you click here.
[Bears]: Okay, I think we're good. Is there a motion on the floor. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to table seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan, any further.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's a cow. Vice President Collins is absent. Councils are. Yes. That's a lemon.
[Leming]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng, President Bears.
[Bears]: Yes. Negative motions to 5028 loan order MWRA water bonds first reading February 25 2025. Advertised for second reading March 13th, 2025 in the Medford Transcript of the Somerville Journal. Eligible for third reading March 25th, 2025. Is there a motion or any further discussion? This is for the loan order for the MWRA zero interest plus rebate program to replace lines. On the motion to approve for third reading by Councilor Tseng seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Yes. Vice President Collins is absent, sorry. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng.
[Bears]: President Bears. Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. and the loan order is approved for third reading. Public participation. If anyone would like to participate on anything for three minutes, they can. And I have a hand on Zoom. Eunice Brown, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Eunice Browne]: Hi, thanks. Eunice Brown, Greenleaf Ave. I am asking or looking for an update on the timeline to send the charter to the state legislature. As I understand it, two weeks ago on Tuesday, March 11th, the city council voted to send their version to the mayor. Presumably she got that within a day or two. That means then that she's had the city council version for review for almost two weeks. Um, the 2 versions of the charter are markedly different. And some very critical elements. Including, but not limited to the composition of the city council. The mayor is the chair of the school committee and article 8, which is the citizen. Participation mechanisms among others. Both the mayor and the city council need to agree on a document that gets sent to the state legislature. The timeline has the mayor sending the charter to the state by the end of March, the 1st of April, which is next week. President Bears, as you said on the 11th, if there is negotiating to be done to arrive at a final document, there may need to be another committee of the whole and then a vote at a regular meeting. And that pushes us well into April. So my questions are as follows. Where do things stand? Are you both actively negotiating to iron out the differences? Or is one party acquiescing to the other? Are additional meetings planned? When will the document be sent to the state? And is there a drop dead date where it has to go to the state legislature in time for their review and return so that it gets placed on the ballot? And will there be a final copy available to the public? And then assuming all of that happens, and I don't know if this is your bailiwick or the mayor's office or what, but this is a very dense document, a dense project, a lot of you know, things went into it, how is the public going to be educated on the charter for them to make an informed vote? Will there be more education, more than just a ballot question? So thank you very much. I look forward to your response.
[Bears]: Thank you for the question. We did submit the amended draft to the mayor I think the Thursday the 13th, so two days after the regular meeting, we have not received back anything in writing formally from the mayor about her proposed changes. My understanding certainly is, you know, that did pass this council six to zero with one absent, and the mayor could send it off as amended right now. When we hear back from the mayor about Uh, if she wants to negotiate further, if there are changes, um, that she wants to make, uh, to the amendments that we proposed, we would definitely schedule another meeting to discuss that. Um, but that's the status of it now in terms of what happens in terms of a drop dead date and what happens before an elect a vote on a ballot. Uh, there's technically no drop dead date. Uh, this is all about will the legislature take it up and, uh, you know, it's kind of a black box. They don't have any disclosure or anything. Certainly they could, we could send it to them, you know, the first week in April, they could take it up the second week in April and we could have it done the third week in April, but that really all depends on them taking action. What we know basically from the Collins Center is that both drafts, the draft from the CSC as changed by the mayor and then the draft that from the mayor that we amended that there's nothing in any of those that is outside the scope of what the legislature generally approves for. for charters so we didn't include anything like rank choice voting or budget authority for the council or any of those types of things. We also have been told that the legislature prefers supermajority or near unanimity on homeworld petitions of this matter so it was sent you know our we voted six to zero with one absent in the past when we had sent up home rule petitions to create an elected charter commission. Those have been by votes of four to three. And so the legislature chose not to act on them. In terms of an education campaign, I don't know what the mayor's team would have planned around that or what information would be put forward on the city website, or what private entities, individuals or groups that might form around the ballot questions would do.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay, because my understanding was that the whole idea of getting it to the legislature sooner than later was because once they get bogged down in their budget stuff, they just don't have time for this.
[Bears]: That is kind of the reading of the tea leaves that we're trying to match up with. But end of March, early April is kind of what we were told. I think House Ways and Means generally puts out their draft, it's either the week before Patriots Day or the week of Patriots Day. So certainly if we could get it in before then, that might be sufficient. But Collins Center said last week of March, first week of April would be ideal.
[Eunice Browne]: OK, so basically at this point, I would expect that there would probably be some negotiating know, between the two groups. So sounds like there's a bit more to come then.
[Bears]: Yeah, when we receive a formal response from the mayor, we'll schedule whatever's needed. Unless of course, that is that she sent the draft that we sent to her to the legislature, in which case there would not need to be any further meetings.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, we'll see. Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate it.
[Bears]: Thank you. Any further public participation. Seeing none, are there any motions on the floor on the motion of adjourned by Councilor Callahan seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Council Callahan, Vice President Collins is absent Council is our Council Leming.
[Bears]: Yes. Yes 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
|
total time: 41.23 minutes total words: 5995  |
total time: 5.73 minutes total words: 699  |
total time: 12.31 minutes total words: 1845  |
total time: 6.62 minutes total words: 1075  |
|
total time: 4.93 minutes total words: 795  |
total time: 4.3 minutes total words: 583  |
total time: 3.31 minutes total words: 603  |
|