[Unidentified]: Hi, can you hear me?
[Emily Lazzaro]: I'm just testing because I'm in a unique location. Just testing, I can be heard. Testing, testing. Can you hear me, guys? Can anyone help me test if I can be heard? Matt, are you there? Can you hear me? Hello, Matt? I can see you in the council chambers. Can you hear me? Test, test. Adam, Matt, I can see you guys. Can you hear me when I talk? Can you hear me, Adam? You're muted, so I can't hear you, but I see your thumb. Thank you. It's a thousand degrees in the room I'm in. There is no air conditioning. I'm trying to not have to wear this jacket, but I know I have to wear a jacket. I really don't want to, but here we are.
[Unidentified]: Test.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Testing.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the whole July 15 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Present, six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. There'll be a meeting of the Medford City Council, Committee of the Whole at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber. Second floor, Medford City Hall 85, George B. Hassett Drive, Medford M.A., and via Zoom. Action and discussion items, 19-070, offered by Vice President Collins and Councilor Callahan, Tree Committee Ordinance. We have a copy of the Tree Committee Ordinance before us tonight that has been reviewed by city staff and councilors and residents. involved in Trees Medford for our discussion and I will recognize Councilor Callaghan. Should be good.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. Um, I just want to catch up my fellow Councilors as well as members of the public that at our last meeting, we sent this particular ordinance to have discussions with staff specifically, um. With the DPW commissioner as well as our the DPW commissioner had already sent me some edits to it and some concerns, things to change. So we updated the wording with them. And then I also met with Trees Medford. Trees Medford has been instrumental in creating this ordinance. And they were also very happy with the changes that were made. So today I'm hoping that this ordinance, which has been in committee a number of times can get sent to the City Council, but obviously we'll go through it one change at a time and see how the committee feels.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do you want to review the ordinance?
[Anna Callahan]: Yep. The purpose of the ordinance, I'll just read it right out of here. The Medford Tree Committee will promote a diverse, healthy and sustainable urban forest that will provide for the health, general welfare and quality of life of Medford citizens and the beauty and quality of the city's environment. And really the purpose of this is just to have residents involved, to have a committee. We have many commissions and committees and to have one that can specifically focus on trees. So the changes that were made were primarily to the duties. And I can go over some of those changes. There were a couple of items that we removed from the duties because Commissioner, DPW Commissioner McGivern mentioned that these are already duplicates of things that are being done by the DPW, their DPW jurisdiction and should not be given to a committee. So we removed those. We also changed some of the language. So for example, around the community forestry management plan, Commissioner McGivern again felt that this was a little bit more the jurisdiction of the DPW and the tree warden. So rather than actively creating or working on that, We change it to reviewing the community forestry management plan provided by the DPW forest division, reviewing the administration's progress and implementing the plan, as well as reporting any concerns to city council. So just sort of being available to make sure that these plans are being followed. and to help if they can. Similarly, with the annual report of tree planting and tree removal and maintenance, so this already is a report that is created, so rather than, you know, handing that to the tree committee, it's simply reviewing, requesting the annual report, reviewing it. and much of it otherwise has remained the same. I believe we did have a long discussion about the tree inventory and came to the conclusion that it would not actually be helpful for the tree committee to update the tree inventory because reasons. I could go into that long detail if people are interested, I'm happy to. But basically, switched it again to reviewing the inventory, as well as the administration's sort of ability to maintain the inventory, just keeping a check that the inventory itself is being updated. And then the very last point, which is labeled as A, but I believe that should be I'm looking at my copy, I'm not sure if I'm looking at the same copy, but the very last point of being available to assist the tree warden really rather than putting, sorry, to assist the tree warden in intended placement or replacement of trees, just switching the language a little bit so that they are available to help as needed rather than it being specifically in the hands of the tree committee. So as you can see, most of it was taking a few things that, that had been officially like the tree committee will do this and saying no, actually, those things are already done by the DPW and saying that now instead, the ordinance says that the tree committee will be available to help or will review. And that's most of the changes. I'm going to pause there and ask if there are any questions about the duties. But after that, I'd like to go back to the appointment section.
[Zac Bears]: Council have any questions on the duties of the tree committee? Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: First, thank you, Councilor Kalani, for all your hard work. I think this is important. I think that, again, it keeps coming back and I don't see, is the, would this committee be in place for private trees in people's neighborhoods? Okay, so that was a question I had from one resident.
[Anna Callahan]: No, it would not. It could not cover private trees. It is only the public trees.
[George Scarpelli]: And I think we've seen, you know, with the limitations of forestry department, having a committee to assist, and especially Medford's so passionate about the tree canopy, I think it's important that this is a well-driven initiative. So thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any other questions from members of the council on the duties of the tree committee? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I wanted to thank Councilor Callahan for bringing this forward and all of your work. I think a really critical thing about this ordinance will be bringing attention to the disparity in different parts of the city, the heat map areas where there are more trees and where we need to focus our attention and bring more trees. And I think that a committee will be able to highlight that especially. So I'm really excited about this moving forward and excited to see where it goes. So thanks again.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. And just a quick reply, which is that letter F does specifically say promoting equity of tree planting across the city, including in neighborhoods identified as needing more trees. So I feel that that's adequately covered in there. And thank you for bringing that up.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Any further questions on the duties of the tree committee before we continue with the rest of the ordinance? Seeing none, Councilor Lohan. Oh, sorry. Councilor Leming got in under the wire. Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Just a question about the line saying that two youth members between the ages of 15 and 22 shall be at the time of their appointments. Does the city currently have any mechanisms in place to reach out to high school students or college students in order to just make sure that those appointments get filled?
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. So I was actually just about to go to now review the appointments section. So that was just the duties section, and I'd love to go over the appointments section, because that is one of the comments. So in the appointments section, the staff did not ask for changes, but they did make some comments. And so if I can just go over those comments with you all, and folks can make any suggestions. One is that, I apologize, what? I'm not, let's see. Do we wanna, I mean, let's see, I'm not looking at the same copy that you're looking at. I'm looking at a copy that I have, like the track changes.
[Zac Bears]: Councilwoman, could you share your screen? do we work from the version that's in the agenda?
[Anna Callahan]: Let me see. I mean, I need the copy that I've got some notes in, that's all, so.
[Zac Bears]: If Councilor Leming shared the copy that's in the agenda, would that be sufficient for us to look at, see on the screen? I'm sorry. If Councilor Leming shared the copy that's in the agenda, would we be able to?
[Anna Callahan]: I think so. I think that would be helpful for the public and everything.
[Unidentified]: All right.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you so much. So the first comment, which was from Director Hunt was whether there was a process for removing people. And she mentioned that for sort of advisory and educating committee like this one, it's good to allow it to be fairly large, but then you may want to have a process for removing people for non-participation because otherwise you sometimes can't meet quorum. So that's one element, and I think I have some language that we could pull from the HRC ordinance, the Human Rights Commission ordinance about that. So that's one. And then the second one was specifically about the line that you were just mentioning, Councilor Leming. It says in letter A, two youth members shall be between the ages of 15 and 22 at the time of their appointment. We could leave that in. Therese Medford is also happy for that to become softer, either a suggestion or only one. So I think that's something for us to discuss. In letter B, there originally was more stringent language, so we've already softened letter B, which says at least one member of the committee, it now says, will demonstrate expertise in the field of urban forestry and or landscape design. And Medford residency is not required if this requisite expertise is demonstrated. It previously said that they had professional experience, and so I think this is softened language. And then my other comment, which I think I noticed very late today, is that we currently under letter C, the appointments are split among one year, two year, and three years for the first five people. but it does not really adequately deal with if, for example, we appoint 10 people, like those other five people would then be appointed for terms of three years. And then we would suddenly have like one person, two people, and then, you know, seven people all up at the same time. So maybe some language around that would be helpful. So any comments on those specific questions that staff had?
[George Scarpelli]: I know that we'll probably get to it, but it just I think that part of the charter review. We also mentioned that looking into having residents. I think we have multitude of residents that are passionate. So I hope it would recommend that this would be method residents only as part of this commission. So again, I champion this as well. So I appreciate your input. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Yeah, I do want to be able to have youth members on the committee, but I am thinking of just the situation where outreach is bad at a given year, so something to, if there's some way to adjust the language to make it so that that's strongly suggested, but wouldn't lead to two empty seats if youth did apply to it. So I think that you know, some way to adjust it so that that's not so strict would be useful. I do sympathize with my, with Councilor Scarpelli's comment about having Medford, only Medford residents on the committee. But it may be that, but I also do want people who have a demonstrated expertise in urban forestry on the committee. And maybe there could be a situation some years where you may not have that in a smaller pool. So if there's, there could be some language that says that if somebody is not, Now, I think that's something I'm still thinking about. Maybe some language that says if somebody is not a Medford resident, they don't necessarily get voting power on the committee, but they could be there sort of in an advisory capacity. Yeah, I do want expertise on the committee. And I am concerned about limiting the pool for that. But yeah, I do. At the same time, I do understand where my colleague is coming from.
[Zac Bears]: And Councilor Lamee. Councilor Callahan. Councilor Callahan. I don't know what's going on here today. Here, try it now. Nothing. Take Justin's for a second. There's something up with the mics. This is so strange. Blinking green.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. So I am very happy for them to be Medford residents. I would lean maybe toward just the one member with demonstrated expertise, the residency being not required. So I'd be interested in what other Councilors think of that. And I do think that we should have a removal process. The one that's from the Human Rights Commission is quite simple. It just says they can be removed for cause by a majority of the commission. So that's something that I would consider recommending after hearing from other Councilors. But I would also love to, I don't know if this is a good time for public comment before making a motion or if you want to make all the changes in a motion before we take public comment.
[Zac Bears]: What would your motion be?
[Anna Callahan]: Well, I would make some very minor but specific recommendations, like the committee shall consist of between five and 10 Medford residents, rather than of five Medford residents and up to 10 members total, but leave the rest of it that says the demonstrated expertise, that one person, the Medford residency would not be required. So I might make that suggestion and then I would add an ability to remove if, you know, voted on by the whole commission. So those are the kinds of things, the things that I've already mentioned are the things that I would maybe make some recommendations for, but it might be informed by public comments. So I would be happy to take public comment first.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Council Member, if you could stop sharing screen. We have members of the public would like to comment on this draft ordinance either in person or on zoom income to the podium or raise your hand on zoom, we'll go to the podium, and then we'll go to zoom. Name and address for the record.
[Tom Lincoln]: Tom Lincoln 27. Gleason Street. I'd be happy to be the youth member, by the way. So, I'm sorry, I'm a little behind on this. This is one of two tree ordinances, if my memory serves. One of three. This is just about the, sounds like an advisory committee, correct? And the other two ordinances will be brought back here soon, yes? Okay, that's good. I was curious about the tree inventory. I don't know if this is germane to this particular, because I don't think I've ever seen one. In fact, I haven't seen statistics for plantings and cuttings in 2024, although I asked for this. Is there an updated tree inventory? Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: So there is a tree inventory. It was done, I believe, last year. And the administration is still, the DPW is still working on being able to keep the tree inventory completely updated. So they're working through the process of having that be part of staff duties.
[Tom Lincoln]: So statistics on things like stump removal is not part of the tree inventory, or is it? So when when you say removal and well we had an inventory want to talk about inventory we had an inventory of hundreds and hundreds of stumps. gracing our sidewalks and streets for a long time and there's been a lot of concern over the last. who knows how many years about this phenomenon. And my understanding is that progress has been made. I mean, years ago, the DPW didn't even have a stump grinder, I don't believe, that progress has been made. Is that reflected in the tree inventory or I get those statistics someplace else?
[Zac Bears]: I am not sure. Sorry, it's just one second. Councilor Callahan, we invited the DPW Commissioner. Do you know, I'm not seeing him on zoom do you know if he's going to join us at some point tonight or did he communicate with you. Okay. All right, go back to Tom.
[Tom Lincoln]: Yeah, again, more of a rhetorical question. So it sounds to me that the confidence level in the DPW is pretty high on this in terms of the changes made, which I think is... well, it is what it is. So I will look forward to the more substantive tree ordinances, and I've been working with some people at Trees Medford on some other ideas concerning the intersection of the trees the tree issue and the zoning proposal, because I think, as a number of us do, that there really needs to be some interaction there and some teeth in the zoning on tree protection. But that'll be for a future discussion. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Sarah on Zoom. Sarah, name and address for the record, please. Oh, you're going to need to unmute, Sarah. There you go.
[Sarah Gerould]: I'm Sarah Gerald. I'm at 29 Burbank Road. I have two comments. One concerns the urban forest management plan, which is the development of which is underway and also the zoning and the public tree ordinance. All of which might contribute ideas to this committee, the activities of this committee. And I would like there to be some flexibility about being able to add those activities or responsibilities to the tree committee if such a thing arises. And then the second comment that I have concerns the student members. It's possible that one of the student members will be in college at Tufts and might be a resident of Medford some years and not others. And I think it's kind of would be if we have somebody who is doing a good job for us, we oughtn't, if they move to Somerville, tell them they can't be on this committee.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Sarah. We have Jeremy, Jeremy Martin. I'm gonna ask you to unmute, name and address for the record, please.
[Jeremy Martin]: Hi everyone, Jeremy Martin, 65 Burgett Ave. Thanks to Councilor Callahan and others who have championed this Trees Medford group, especially. Councilor Callahan, you've described in the past, and I've heard it presented multiple times that this is a, both an advisory committee, but a way to hold the city accountable for our tree canopy, our urban canopy. With the changes that have come out of the discussions with staff and with the DPW, do you feel that this ordinance as it's written still has the teeth to hold some accountability? Have we lost some of that with kind of giving up the responsibilities and roles that the DPDW already covers. I hope that we aren't losing some of our ability to really influence the way that the city approaches trees in public space by softening some of the language in the proposal. That's it, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to comment at this time before I turn it back to Councilor Callahan? seeing no hands on zoom and no one in the chamber. Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: I appreciate that final question, and I am going to answer it. I actually, um, I feel quite strongly that the changes that were made were not changes that, um That lessened the impact of the tree committee. I think, um In many cases, what happened was it became clear to me through long discussions with Commissioner McGibbon that in the case of the tree inventory, it actually was not possible for the tree committee to do that work because we talked in detail about exactly what that work would mean and who would be where at what moment in time when that needed to happen. So for that specifically, I think really it does need to be done by staff. I think in the other circumstances, for example, the very last one, it really was just a question of You know, these are things that that are being done and and it wasn't even the desire of the folks writing the tree committee ordinance to take it away from the tree warden. It was simply kind of a little bit of a misunderstanding, but that this work is being done. This is the intended placement and replacement of trees and what they wanted was to be available. So I don't feel that it is weakened. I just feel that it fits more closely with, because I don't think those conversations, the deep conversations between the forestry department and the writers of this ordinance had happened yet. So I think it's quite strong and I'm really excited for the tree committee to come into existence. I think it's gonna be a fantastic help. The truth is we have an incredibly small forestry division. And so it's, When we talk about accountability, it's really more like many hands make light work. We need more people who can just kind of have their eyes on things and be available to do things, to show up at the hearings, to review things. Our staff is very, very busy doing the work. And so having some folks that can be there to sort of help with management and help with education efforts and all of that, I think is gonna be incredibly helpful. So that was my first. My first one, I wonder if we could, I'm gonna make a couple of motions or I could make it in one motion. So I'm going to suggest that we change the last line of the last sentence in appointments letter A to say, something like, if possible, two youth members shall be between the ages of 15 and 22 at the time of their appointment. And up for discussion, Medford residency not required for youth members. Maybe, see what my fellow Councilors think of that before we put it in writing. And then I would take a quote, I would add a bullet point about removal. And I would say tree committee members may be removed only for cause by a two thirds vote of the commission, including for unexcused absence that exceed 25% of the number of meetings. that the committee has held within a 12-month period. That's directly out of the Human Rights Commission ordinance. So I would add that line in case we have a large tree committee and they're not able to take votes because of absences.
[Zac Bears]: Could you email the amended language to me and the clerk, please? Do you have any further amendments?
[Anna Callahan]: Should we add something about, oh, yes. My third one, and please let me know if people have any comments before I write them. if you have any immediately. But under C, it says upon formation of the Medford Treat Committee, two members will be appointed for a term of three years, two members will be appointed for a term of two years, and one member, what I would say is one third of the members shall be appointed for a term of three years, one third of the members shall be appointed for a term of two years, and the last third shall be appointed for a term of one year. That way, if we appoint nine members or 12 members or however many, if we appoint more, then they're evenly distributed between the three years. I will email you those changes.
[Zac Bears]: We have a motion to amend by Councilor Callahan to adjust the appointment section in the following ways to require Medford residency except for the possibility of two youth members and to appoint one third of initial members for three years, one third for two years and one third for one year. Do you have discussion on the motion? And is there a second on the motion? Is there a second? Councilor Leming seconds and has discussion. Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: So instead of not requiring residency for the youth members, I think it might be better to add in a line about basically if a member moves away and they have less than X number of months on their term, they're not automatically removed. They can serve out the remainder of their term remotely if they so choose. I think that kind of language would be a little bit more would cover the situation that Sarah described just now a little bit better.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. I'm not necessarily opposed to Councilor Leming's idea because I think it does capture what Sarah mentioned, but I just worry the wording might be a little convoluted. And I think Councilor Callaghan's proposal also kind of gets, I mean, it is slightly broader, but gets at a very similar idea without being so complex. That's just my take, but I think either I'm okay with.
[Matt Leming]: I personally just feel like not requiring residency for the youth members at all is a little bit, could be a little bit odd.
[Justin Tseng]: Uh, president bears. Can I answer saying, um, yeah, I mean, I, I definitely see that. I do think that cases would be pretty rare. Um, maybe the phrasing should be like. Medford residency and those enrolled in Medford. Like, educational institutions, something like that, like that would capture tops. I think the question is what if. well, no, nevermind, they would be Medford residents. Ignore that very last part.
[Matt Leming]: Councilor Leming. I would be fine saying Medford, like youth, the youth may be Medford residents or enrolled attendees of educational institutions based in Medford. I think that would capture the spirit of it.
[Zac Bears]: either Councilor Callahan or Councilor Leming, I think it'd be helpful if we could read an amended version of section A. 2A, Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: So I'm about to send this email. What I have is the committee A, the committee shall consist of between five and 10 Medford residents. So that's a change. And then before the last sentence, if possible, two youth members.
[Zac Bears]: Did you just read the full?
[Anna Callahan]: Oh, sure.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Anna Callahan]: The committee shall consist of between 5 and 10 Medford residents. One appointment made by City Council and all additional appointments made by the Mayor subject to confirmation by the Medford City Council. If possible, two youth members shall be between the ages of 15 and 22 at the time of their appointment. Do you have language for the youth members being in an institution that is?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming?
[Matt Leming]: Let's see, maybe at the last sentence of 2A, the youth members, maybe just residency is not required for the youth members as long as they are enrolled in educational institutions based in Medford.
[Anna Callahan]: Okay. I am sending it now.
[Zac Bears]: So section 2A would read, the committee shall consist of between 5 and 10 Medford residents, one appointment made by City Council and all additional appointments made by the Mayor subject to confirmation by the Medford City Council. If possible, two youth members shall be between the ages of 15 and 22 at the time of their appointment. Residency is not required for youth members as long as they are enrolled at an educational institution based in Medford. Section C would be updated to, 2C would read, upon formation of the member tree committee, one third of members shall be appointed for a term of three years, one third of members shall be appointed for a term of two years, and one third of the members shall be appointed for a term of one year, and then would add a section 2D that reads, tree committee members may be removed only for cause by a two-thirds vote of the committee, including for unexcused absences that exceed 25% of the number of meetings of the committee held within a 12-month period. And that's a motion to amend by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Leming. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? By members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any further discussion by members of the public on the amendment or the ordinance proposal? Seeing no one in the chamber and no hands on zoom. We'll take a vote on the amendment, Mr. Clerk when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Council Callahan. Yes. Vice President Collins.
[Sarah Gerould]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro.
[Sarah Gerould]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Leming, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng? Yes. Further affairs?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes and the amendment is the ordinance draft as amended. Councilor Callahan?
[Anna Callahan]: Motion to approve and send to City Council.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the amended ordinance draft and refer to the City Council's regular meeting by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Vice President Collins?
[Sarah Gerould]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Program Affairs?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. Any further motion? On the motion adjourned by Councilor Callahan, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan, Vice President Collins.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Leming. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. So the affirmative, then the negative, the motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. We'll reconvene at 7pm for our regular meeting.
|
total time: 2.12 minutes total words: 149  |
total time: 7.63 minutes total words: 581  |
total time: 16.32 minutes total words: 811  |
total time: 1.01 minutes total words: 83  |
|
total time: 3.68 minutes total words: 235  |
total time: 1.12 minutes total words: 75  |
||