AI-generated transcript of City Council 07-15-25

[Kevin Harrington]: Check mic one, two. Check mic one, two. All right, let's give her a spin. Check mic one, two. Check microphone one, two, mic one, two. Mike, check one, two. Mike, check one, two. Mike, check one, two. Check one, two. Mic check, one, two. Check, mic one, two.

[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council 13th regular meeting July 15 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Council Callahan, Vice President Collins, present. Councilor Lazzaro, present. Councilor Leming, present. Councilor Scapelli, present. Councilor Tseng, present. President Bears, present.

[Zac Bears]: Seven present, none absent, please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records, 25119 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that we offer our deepest and sincerest condolences to the family of Brian Deeb Hilliard, a fixture in our community for almost 30 years. Brian was a uniquely talented trumpet player who turned his musical skills into a successful music booking agency, occasional brass and strings. We offer our sympathies to Brian's wife, Stacey, his children, Duncan and Owen, his extended family, and his many friends. Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I thank a fellow clerk that also was instrumental in getting this, putting this resolution forward. When you hear passing of members of our community and when they get to a certain age, you realize that you wish they lived a good life and they're moving on. But when you heard that Mr. Hilliard passed, it hit you right in the gut. I've known him as a dad and as a resident, and everybody knew him as a giving musician, and everybody talks about his trumpet playing and the impact he's left in the music community. But more importantly, it's what he left back as a husband and a dad. Very close to my children's age, and Owen and Duncan, and it's something that We want to thank Brian for his commitment and love of Medford and his commitment to his family, his wife, Stacey. This is something that we've said it often when we lose some community members, but Brian Hillard's passing will definitely be forever missed. So I send the deepest condolences to Owen, Duncan, and Stacey. We, if we ever, if they ever need anything, we should be there for them. So thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarapelli. Councilor Tseng.

[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Scarapelli for putting this on the agenda and for your kind words. It's a difficult moment for the Hilliard family and I want to send my deepest condolences as well. I went to school at Duncan and It's tough to say anything because I think it hits particularly hard when it's a family of someone you know. I think I just want to send my best thoughts and recognize Mr. Hilliard's really wonderful life and legacy, his wonderful family. I think it's hard for me to gather my thoughts, too. You know, it does come as, you know, a shock to the community, especially, I think, I know a lot of us were at the Memorial Day event recently, and Mr. Hilliard played some really beautiful, moving music there. And I just wanna, you know, say on the behalf of Benford City Council that we send our deepest condolences to the family.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Lazzaro.

[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you, I wanted to share that I heard about Mr. Hilliard's passing from the Medford Boat Club, sent out an email. I'm a member of the boat club. He was a very active member and he organized the Hawaiian night and just his family was very active and continue to be very active. So on behalf of the, book club community, he'll be hugely missed. It's really a huge tragedy and I'm so sorry for his family and for the whole city. It's never easy and our hearts go up. So best wishes to his family. I hope they can get through this difficult time.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming.

[Matt Leming]: I remember Mr. Hilliard, played at the Memorial Day Ceremony, the Patriots Day Ceremony. And this one, it kind of closed home for me because my dad, he's a professional trumpet player. And so anytime I see a trumpet player there representing the community, the musicians, I take note of them. Went up to Mr. Hilliard, had a conversation. I wanted to get to know him better. So when I saw that, when I saw he passed away, it was a shock. Every community needs its musicians. Every community needs people there to play taps. Every community needs music and without Mr. Hilliard, Medford's lost that. So my condolences to his family and thank you, Councilor Scarpelli for bringing this resolution.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. It looks like we do have one comment from a member of the public. I recognize Bill Giglio, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.

[Bill Giglio]: I want to thank George also for putting this on. This is very deeply saddening. I met Ryan when my, when our oldest boy started kindergarten and our youngest boys went to kindergarten together and they played sports. everything and I knew them throughout the years and they're just a great film. And I loved, like everybody else, I liked seeing Brian down at the, um, the cemetery, the Memorial Day and the Patriots days and everything like that. And just running into him every now and then that, uh, like I seen Stacey the other day and I'm told I was very glad I could at least say hi to him one last time, but it's very, this is very heartbreaking. So thank you George for putting this on and thank you for everybody else.

[Zac Bears]: Hey, could we have your name and address for the record please?

[Bill Giglio]: Yeah. Uh, bill Giglio, uh, winter street method.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no further comments either in person or on Zoom on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Callahan. We'll call the roll and then we'll take a moment of silence. Please call the roll, Mr. Clerk.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng?

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: President Bears?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative and none in the negative, the motion passes. Please rise if you're able for a moment of silence. Paper 25-112 offered by Councilor Scarpelli, be it so resolved that the Medford City Council recognize the Tufts University Government and Community Relations Team comprised of Medford's own Rocco DiRico, Liza Perry, Leah Boudreau, Maggie Carroll, and Aaron Braddock for being honored with receipt of the Tufts University Distinction Award recognizing their exceptional accomplishments. Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Tufts University seems to be a lightning rod, and it was funny, for one resident that called and said, George, they're building a monstrosity. I tend to agree with them, but this is for recognition for a team of professionals that, as for one Councilor and one school kid member for many, many years, whether it be Barbara or Rocco and his team that have always been there, whether they were going to get their butts kicked for an issue that Tufts didn't follow through with or something we think that they should have done more. And I just wanted to send congratulations for their hard work. And again, thank them for always picking up the phone and at least giving us the information we need so we can serve our constituents better. So thank you, Mr. President.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion by members of the council on the motion? Is there a second? On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro?

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Tseng?

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: President Pierce?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative and then a negative, the motion passes. Records, the records of the meeting of June 24th, 2025 were passed to Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, how did you find those records?

[Kit Collins]: I found them in order and I move for approval.

[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan? Vice President Collins?

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng?

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: President Bears?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes and the records are approved. Reports of committees 25109 offered by Council President Bears, Committee of the Whole, June 24th, 2025, report to follow. On June 24th, we held a committee of the whole meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss proposed litigation settlements and potentially enter executive session to discuss those settlements. We did read the mayor's request to enter executive session to consider the matter of Aleesha Nunley Benjamin versus the city of Medford. We reconvene in open session and adjourned. Is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Callahan, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. I'll get to it, I already called the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan? Vice President Collins? Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng?

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, having the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Vice President Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I would motion to suspend the rules to table Papers 25-103 and 25-105 to our next regular meeting and to take Paper 25-118 out of order.

[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to paper table, papers 25103, that is proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance, other quarters districts for referral to the community development board. 25105, that's the local investments ordinance proposal. And to take paper 25118 out of order, that's the amendment to the personnel ordinance civil project manager. Is there a second on the motion? Councilor Scarpelli?

[George Scarpelli]: on some of these issues. And if we can at the end, there'll be public participation. They still be allowed to speak.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, we have public participation. Thank you.

[George Scarpelli]: So thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motions by Councilor Collins, seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro. That's all right.

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative one in the negative. The motion passes papers 25 one Oh three and 25 one Oh five are tabled to the next regular meeting paper two five one one eight dear President Bears and city councilors I respectfully request and recommend that the city council approved the following amendment to the revised ordinances chapter 66 entitled personnel article to entitled reserve the city's classification and compensation plan formerly included as article to section 66 dash three one to 66 dash four zero. by adopting the following change. Amendment A, the language of Non-Union Public Works, NPW, shall be amended to include the following position. Civil Project Manager, respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. Looks like we have the City Engineer. Do we have the Chief of Staff? I don't see the Chief of Staff, so you're on, Owen.

[Owen Wartella]: Thank you for allowing me to speak on this. We're looking for some help in the engineering division, and this job position will open up some opportunity for us to distribute, you know, the workload.

[Zac Bears]: Do we have questions for the city engineer from members of the council? Councilor Callahan.

[Anna Callahan]: Yeah, if you could just let me know a little bit about the make up union, non union of the engineering staff.

[Owen Wartella]: Um, our whole staff is non union, except for the clerk who is union.

[Anna Callahan]: Okay.

[Zac Bears]: Do you have any other questions for the city engineer from members of the council? Seeing none. Is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by.

[Owen Wartella]: Second.

[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Yes, for first reading. When you're ready, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Vice President Collins?

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro?

[Emily Lazzaro]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Leming, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng.

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, I'm in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes and the ordinance is moved for first reading. Hearings, public hearing, proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance, chapter 94, Medford Square and West Medford Square districts to be continued to a date certain. Whereas we haven't received any recommendations from the Community Development Board on these proposed ordinances, we need to continue the hearing to a date certain. So I'm going to open the hearing and then we can hear a motion. The hearing is open. Vice President Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I would motion to continue this public hearing to the September 9th regular meeting.

[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to continue the public hearing to the September 9th regular meeting, seconded by seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan? Vice President Collins?

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro?

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, so many affirmative, none the negative. The public hearing is continued to September 9 2025 petitions presentations and similar papers to 5120 petition for a class to auto license obese auto service and collision LLC. Dear Clark Herbies, in close for filing, please find petitioner's application for a new class two auto dealer used car license, used car sales license, including the application in the city council. Notice of petition to the building commissioner, notice of petition to the fire chief, affidavit as to tax filings, DOR letter of compliance, workers' compensation insurance, affidavit, business certificate, evidence of surety bond. signed Kathleen Desmond representing OBE's Auto Service Inclusion LLC. I will recognize Councilor Scarpelli, Chair of the Subcommittee on Licensing, Permitting, and Science.

[George Scarpelli]: For our professional at the, to give us a brief synopsis, I know that we've been working on this.

[Zac Bears]: If the petitioner could provide a brief synopsis of the proposal. One second, Kathy. There you go.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Can I move it? Thank you. Good evening, President Villescaz, Vice President Collins, City Council members. service and collision. Before you tonight, you have a request for a class two dealer's license to sell what is a limited number of vehicles, not to exceed nine on the premises. We went before the Board of Appeals in June of 2024. The property is located in a C1 district that allows for new sales, but not for used vehicle sales. We obtained a used variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals On the basis that the property is a 31,000-square-foot parcel of land, there's an 8,300-square-foot building that houses the repair and auto body shop. The remaining portion of the premises is a substantial yard area where there would be the ability to park up to nine used vehicles. for sale. The petitioner proposes to provide a limited number for sale on site. Presently there's 25 exterior parking spaces. It's anticipated that the average number of vehicles that he would have at any one time on the property would be six vehicles. He is engaged in the auto body repair shop, which is a requirement for a class two dealership that you have somewhere where the vehicles can be brought for warranty work. As part of his auto body business, he frequently has customers that, for one reason or another, don't want to spend the money to have their car fixed. And he would have the opportunity, if those cars were still viable, to purchase those and put them on sale, probably less expensive used cars for the public. In addition, he deals with people whose cars have been totaled. and don't have a vehicle and this would provide him again with an opportunity to provide those people with a used vehicle for them to purchase. As indicated, we were able to get a use variance for that purpose. At the time, we had a number of neighbors to the property which were in favor of the variance. Neighbors very close. They have their cars repaired there. Obie's Auto Collision has a five-star review for He's been in business in the city for five years previous to that. He worked for Fantasia. Part of the restrictions that we discussed with the Board of Appeals is that he is not going to change the hours of operations. So there will be no weekend and night operations. It's going to be a 9 to 5. I believe it's 9 to 5. It might be 8 to 5. operation Monday through Friday. There's no additional salesperson that are being introduced. There's going to be no advertising on site or vehicles in the front of the property. It's only basically internet sales and then sales to existing customers who are looking for a modest second-hand car in instances where they might be desperate because their car's been totaled. And he has, you know, in order to do this type of thing, if we weren't granted the use variance, then he would have to move to another location. And it just doesn't make sense. He's got his auto business there with the repair station right on site to deal with this. And again, we're only looking for a limited number of vehicles, not to exceed nine.

[George Scarpelli]: Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. So I see everything in order. I think one of the biggest questions that was brought up maybe by one neighbor is that with the cars there, as you're doing the body work, that the overflow would then go on the streets and the side streets and affect neighborhood parking. So, I mean, I would, this business has never had an issue, Mr. President. I don't know if we can add just a 30 day, 60 day, 90 day review, just to make sure that there's not overflow. I don't see any other issue here, so.

[Zac Bears]: Do you have any other questions from members of the council? No. Seeing none, we have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to approve with a 30, 60, and 90 day review, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Seeing no further discussion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll to approve as amended.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng.

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative and then the negative, the motion passes. Thank you.

[George Scarpelli]: Mr. President, we move to suspend the rules to take a public participation.

[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli to suspend the rules to take public participation. Seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: No.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Leming. I'm sorry to hear. Yeah. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng.

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, 60 affirmative one of the negative the motion passes public participation. Greg Collins, July 10 2025 to the Honorable City Council, the undersigned respectfully request for tree removal. I am a homeowner in Medford since 2016. I'm currently in the process of building a new home on Walcott Street. Unfortunately, I need to remove a tree located on a public sidewalk in order to have a functioning driveway. I follow the protocols with the tree warden DPW, and they have ignored my rightful due process to have a public hearing in order to remove the tree petitioner's name Greg Collins residents 41 Fulton Street 77 Walcott Street, Greg. You have the floor, you have three minutes.

[Greg Collins]: Thank you, City Council. So let me just introduce myself. My name is Greg Collins. I purchased my first house in Medford in 2016. My grandfather grew up on Forest Street during World War II, and so Medford's always kind of been a theme in my family. Love the city. So I'm building a house on Walcott Street. Part of the construction, we bumped out part of the front where the existing driveway was. And so essentially, in the plans, we have to have the driveway go up along the left side of the house where there's 10 feet of clearance. And so there is a tree currently on that side of the house. And so I would like to go through the process through the DPPW to remove the tree, go through the public hearing process, see if the public has any, you know, objection to moving the tree so that we can put in a driveway so that the family can functionally live in this house. And so my understanding and what's on the website is that Trees cannot be removed unless the tree warden or the deputy deems the tree unhealthy or dead or approved through a public hearing. Public hearings are requested in writing to the tree warden. So I requested this hearing back in early May. Excuse me, I have a whole list of dates, but I'll just try to summarize it for you guys. I talked to Aggie about having the hearing. She said it was okay. She explained, okay, well, we're gonna take the circumference of the tree if the public doesn't have any objection to it, and we'll have to plant four to six more trees in the neighborhood if we take the tree down. And that sounds fine. I'm fine with paying for the new trees and going through the public hearing process. That seems like a fair trade-off. So this all started back in May and really there's just this long period of silence from the DPW and Aggie and you know I'm trying to be very patient because I understand that you know there's reasons for some of the delays. I'm trying to be very cordial but I was really basically ignored up until July 10th, I finally got an attorney to reach out to the mayor's office to say, what's going on? Like, they're not responding to my emails. I go to the office, they tell me that, oh, I'm gonna get a call back, nothing, just silence. And so, all I'm asking for is what's on the Medford City website to have a public hearing to see if anyone has any objection to removing the tree. If there's objection from a public, then that's fine. But that's how the democratic process works. And I'd be fine with that. But all I'm asking for is to go through that process. And it appears that the tree warden and the DPW is just not worth their time to do that. And so I'm just here to bring that to the council and just let you guys know that You know, I'm a member of the community. I demand, you know, I should have the same respect as anyone else. And I would just like to have some guidance on this.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll recognize Councilor Scarpelli. And then I did receive an email from the DPW commissioner on this matter that I can read.

[George Scarpelli]: I yield to you, Mr. President.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So thanks for being here tonight. Appreciate your petition. As you probably know, considering you've been going through this for a few months, the public shade tree and the public hearings are governed by mass general law. And the council doesn't have a role in them. But of course, you know, we do hear from folks in this space about many things that are going on in the city. I'm going to read this response. It is not My, uh, it's not coming from me. It's coming from the DPW commissioner. He wrote me after the agenda went out. Good morning, President Bears. I wanted to bring to your attention information regarding the issue with Mr. Greg Collins and the public tree that is on your agenda for next week. Mr. Collins has not granted a permit from the tree warden to remove a public shade tree. He would like a hearing. However, hearings are required when a permit is issued to remove or take down a public shade tree. Despite his claims, the tree warden has been responsive to him. It is also worth noting that the building project began prior to the proponent receiving plan approval at the engineering division for elements such as the ROW curb cut. Unfortunately, the desired driveway for the project would eliminate a tree. The proponent asked to remove the tree, and the tree warden said no, denying the permission. Typically, site plans are approved at the engineering division prior to building, and especially if there are new curb cut locations. Mr. Collins is now represented by an attorney, and the communication has moved from the DPW to the city solicitor. I hope this helps. Regards, Tim. I can recognize Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: you know, if that answer isn't efficient or it doesn't, then I'll gladly reach out to you tomorrow. I'll call the city solicitor myself and see if there's a way we can help, so.

[Greg Collins]: Like, you know, weeks or months ago, all I was looking for was for some kind of response from the DPW commissioner from Aggie. But like I said, it was just silence for months. And I'm trying to, you know, I was trying to be very patient with everyone. But I haven't even heard that from the commissioner. So now I'm hearing it for the first time. So again, I'll talk to my attorney and see what I can do. And first and foremost, I want to be continuing to be having a good relationship with the city. I plan on having my house here for many years to come. So it's important to me that I have a good relationship with everyone and hope we can get this sorted out. And that's it.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate your time coming down and Councilor Scarpelli as well for your offer. Continuing in public participation. If you'd like to speak in public participation, you'll have three minutes. You can raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in person. We will alternate between the podium and Zoom. Hi there. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.

[Rahma]: Yes. My name is Rahma, but I'm here on behalf of SEIU 32BJ and our member Maria is going to read a short statement and then I'll translate it in English.

[Maria Cotto]: mi nombre es maria coto limpia la escuela secundaria medford intermedia durante 10 años disfruté mi trabajo y estaba orgullosa de proporcionar un ambiente de aprendizaje limpio y sanitario para los estudiantes de medford mis compañeras de trabajo y yo teníamos salarios justos beneficios y condiciones laborales bajo un contrato sindical con S-E-I-U-32-B-J. Sin embargo, el distrito ahora ha concedido su contrato de limpieza a una nueva empresa llamada Partners Facility Solutions. Es una empresa no sindical que se negó a contratarme a mí y a mis compañeras de trabajo a pesar de varios intentos de postular el sindicato. Ha presentado una denuncia I'll read quickly.

[Rahma]: My name is Maria Cotto and I cleaned Medford High School and McGlynn Middle School for 10 years. I enjoyed my work and was proud to provide a clear and sanitary learning environment for Medford students. My co-workers and I had fair wages, benefits, and working conditions under a union contract with SEIU 32BJ. However the district has now awarded its janitorial contract to a new company called Partners Facility Solutions, which is a non-union company that refused to hire me and my co-workers despite several attempts to apply. The union has filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board alleging the partners refusing to hire us because we are part of a union. The City of Medford should do the right thing and choose a responsible contractor for the next school year that will respect our union and our work. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anything else you'd like to add with your additional time?

[Rahma]: I think, I don't think so.

[Zac Bears]: Okay. Thank you for speaking. Is there any councilors who'd like to say anything at this time? Go to Councilor Callahan.

[Anna Callahan]: I am very sorry to hear about this. I want my city to be a pro-union city. I think the janitorial staff should be union members. So I will certainly do what I can to look into it. clearly. City is not the purview of the City Council exactly, but I really appreciate you coming here and bringing your stories. And it definitely is something that we can have an impact on. So let's see what we can do.

[Rahma]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think that this is alarming because

[George Scarpelli]: If not, most of all of our employees that work for the city and our active custodians are all members of the union. And I think having organized labor, you can see what's happening across the country right now and making sure that our community is supported through labor and making sure that initiatives that come up, it's for the benefit of our community. And that's why we support our union. So I find this very disturbing. So I think that this is, You know, everything talks about cost cutting, but having union employees and having our employees represented and protected, I think, speaks volumes. So, for one, Councilor, if there's something I can do, I will definitely reach out and, you know, see what we can do to support your organization in moving forward. If I gather, I know that we've been reaching out to see even with to this non-union company to be hired, they're not even coming, getting back to you.

[Rahma]: That's right. Our members have replied numerous times. In fact, it has occurred there's a charge with the National Labor Relations Board because of their refusal to hire our members, and we believe that's purely because they're union members.

[George Scarpelli]: Well, and again, that's what happens now. There's a greedy person at the top. He's benefiting from the people that are getting their butts kicked every day doing the work. And I think that's why unions balance that situation. So thank you, Mr. President, but I look forward to working with you to make sure that it's rectified. Thanks.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming.

[Matt Leming]: Yeah, I'd like to echo the sentiments that my colleagues just offered. I'd also just like to encourage you to follow up later so that we can do what we can do behind the scenes and at a council meeting to help out with the situation. I'm not pleased to hear about this, and thank you for coming out here and speaking.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, yeah, and I will communicate to the superintendent that we heard from you tonight and ask for a response.

[Rahma]: Thank you so much.

[Zac Bears]: We're still in public participation. If you'd like to speak in public participation, you can come to the podium or make a line behind the podium and raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.

[Sharon Deyeso]: Sharon Diesso, corner of Circuit Road and Mass Ave in Medford. Good evening, everyone. It's nice to see everyone. What's concerned matters, even in this dire heat. I just have a quick question for those who may have come in a little late, and I'm a little confused. Many of us have been following the zoning news, but the public hearing on zoning news at the beginning of tonight's meeting, President Beas, was postponed to September 9th. Now, the board is meeting, I think, one more time in August and then September 3rd. So do we have to wait until you like rebuttal with them and then we can participate on comments, wait until September 9, because you have another motion on the agenda this evening regarding zoning. So when we'll be able to comment ourselves on items that we have reviewed.

[Zac Bears]: Sure, so there are three active zoning amendment proposals currently under consideration. One is the residential districts and ADUs. That was referred to the Community Development Board in, I want to say March, and they've had several public hearings on it. Their last public hearing was last week, and they're having another one in early August. for the residential and ADU proposals. And I believe the comment deadline for the written comment is July 23rd. That's the deadline that they have set for written comments. And I believe they have said that on August 5th, they will be deliberating, but they won't be hearing public comment. And they will be directing the planning consultant to draft a new set of recommendations. Once that's done, they're going to hold further public hearings in September and October before referring recommendations back to the Council. That's on the residential and the accessory dwelling units proposal. The proposal that was on our agenda tonight that was delayed till September is a public hearing on Medford Square and West Medford Square zoning. the CD board had a meeting on that proposal, I think the last week of June and maybe discussed it further last week and they have to continue to hold public hearings before making recommendations to the council. We can't take action until we receive recommendations from the community development board or the community development board chooses not to make a recommendation. So that's why we had to delay the public hearing. We don't have recommendations, so we can't take action. The third proposal is the proposal for what's called other corridors that consists of Broadway, Boston Avenue, High Street, Harvard Street, and Main Street, various kind of mixed-use lots on those streets. And the CD board has requested that we hold off on referring that to them until at least our August 5th meeting, so that was tabled.

[Sharon Deyeso]: Okay so when would the residential be reviewed again because we had the meeting before the last one had one way of thinking and the last one there were many more people who have been informed so I really really urge anyone if they can think of another way besides internet communication for many people who will be affected especially older people that we need to get some sort of a flyer, besides stuffing it in a tax bill, because that precludes renters, and it also precludes business lessees, you know who don't know that this is going on. Thanks a lot.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I see a Maria on zoom Maria I'll go to you name and address for the record and you have three minutes.

[Maria]: I just wanted to double check. Did you say the values aligned local investments ordinance is deferred to September the 9th?

[Zac Bears]: The investments ordinance is tabled to the next regular meeting on August 5th.

[Maria]: Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.

[Roy Belson]: Roy Belson, 2500 Mystic Valley Parkway, Medford, a longtime member of the Jewish community, and a former employee of the Medford Public Schools for 50 years. I'm here to speak tonight on the proposed ordinance that you did lay on the table, but I believe I have some words to say that I would like to have heard. So good evening, Mr. President, members of the council. The role of city government is to focus on the welfare and betterment of the community. As individuals, you always have the right to advocate for issues in the international arena. As a local governmental body representing a diverse community, you need to promote harmony, not create friction and fragmentation over an issue that is not your mandate and well beyond your capacity to significantly influence. Words carry meaning. The old saw that sticks and stones may break bones, but words will never harm me is very misleading. Sometimes words are sharper than a sword. All you have to do is study social media or be bombarded with campaigns of disinformation to realize that words can lead to severe negative outcomes. To paraphrase, the road to disaster is often paved with good intentions. Do not let your zeal to advance your ideals blind you to adverse impacts your actions can and will create. The issues in the Middle East are not just contemporary, but are hundreds of years old. The causes and circumstances are complex, and the resolution has been defying even the most honorable peace brokers amidst the actions of multiple terrorist groups and partisan fanatics. You don't have to agree with all of Israeli policies and practices to recognize the Israelis' right to exist, but to recognize the urgent need to eliminate any possibility of anti-Semitism in our community. Recently, think about the young couple in Washington, Yaron and Sarah, who were gunned down leaving the Israeli embassy by a man screaming, free Palestine. And 11 days later, think about what happened in Boulder, Colorado, when a man yelling, free Palestine, threw a Molotov cocktail at peaceful marchers calling for the release of hostages. Think about Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, who barely escaped with his family a fire in his home started by another man calling to free Palestine. I could go on. Don't think for a moment it couldn't happen here in Medford. We are as vulnerable as any other Jewish American community. The proposed ordinances are performative at best. Passage will not alter the international reality. Any study of BDS has not proven effective. Massachusetts law and practice makes implementation of such a proposal impractical and not in the best financial interests of the community. You already passed a resolution in February of this year. Will you accept accountability if anti-Semitic violence happens in our community? Don't delude the Palestinian supporters in our community that such an ordinance can even be enforced. Don't subject the Jewish citizens in our community to a greater threat of hate and violence. It can happen here. Instead, demonstrate real leadership by rejecting performative votes. Yes, you can preserve and advance your values and concerns much better by promoting community dialogue, by bringing citizens together, by promoting understanding. Council business has many challenges and you know it. Focus on what you can do to better unify the community. Thank you for listening.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no hands on zoom will stay at the podium name and address for the record please give three minutes.

[Mike Cohen]: Thank you, sir. My name is Mike Cohen, I am you guys hear me okay, we can hear you. Yeah, I live at 200 Brooke Street. And so I'm here tonight, not as a foreign policy expert because, well, frankly, that's not what we should be talking about here. I'm here as a concerned resident, and I'm here because something doesn't sit right and that so called values alignment investment ordinance. Now it sounds righteous, I get it but it really crosses a lot of moral and civic lines. And let's be honest, you know you guys do a lot and I respect what the city council does, but certainly foreign policy that's not in the city charter, right. This ordinance, it goes out of its way not to mention Israel, but we know what it really does. It unmistakably targets it. It's a dramatic overreach. Worse, it's a distraction. It's like parks and recreation issuing a position on nuclear disarmament. What's gonna happen there? Not much. It's not in your lane. And I don't wanna kid ourselves. The omission of Israel doesn't make this ordinance more neutral. It makes it more insidious. It pretends to be about human rights, but it holds one country, that little country that so they do everything wrong. The only Jewish state, the singular, they hold them to a singular and impossible standard. And that's not a principled stance, it's a targeted one. Now we know how antisemitism morphs. If you look at history, it's slippery. First it was about religion, then race. Now it's politics and policy. The justifications change, the target don't. We see it, we know it, we won't ignore it. And let's not kid ourselves, do not alienate or scapegoat Jewish people. We won't stand for it. The ordinance doesn't help anyone. It doesn't advance peace, it doesn't save lives. What it does do is single out Israel and by extension Jewish people under the guise of justice. But justice that only applies to one group, that's not justice. That's biased with the press release. I know in a lot of circles it's fashionable to be anti-Israel, but it doesn't make it right. So I urge you all, ladies and gentlemen, please stay focused on your mission, fix what's local, fund what matters, and please don't turn the city into a billboard for a one-sided device foreign policy statement. Thank you for your time, folks.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I'm going to go to Zoom. We have Micah Kesselman on Zoom. Micah, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes. Yeah. Can you hear me?

[Micah Kesselman]: Yes. Great. Yeah. My name is Micah Kesselman. I live at 499 Main Street. I was not going to make any comments tonight, but I just want to respond to some of the things that have already been said. Let's understand for everyone here that that is making comments against the ethical investment ordinance or values aligned investment ordinance. This was brought to the city council by a cross-section of people who live in Medford from various parts of the community that are concerned about the way that we invest our money and finances. It is fundamentally about how a city invests the money and how it exercises the controls that it is allowed to under mass general laws. That is a fundamentally local issue. And not only is it a local issue, it's a local issue that was brought forward by residents of the community. Nowhere does it say Israel in specific. It refers to human rights violations, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, various other countries which might be found to be under it. No one is out there saying that it's against Asians or against Saudis or anything like that. Moreover, I want people to really think about what they're saying when they're implying, imputing anti-semitism in an ordinance that doesn't even directly attack like go after Israel. You are equivocating issues with a state to be issues with a people with an ethnicity. That is dangerous. We just saw in the last few days The Elmo incident on social media where someone hacked the account and was spewing horrible anti-Semitic things. Notice what they were doing, though. They were basing that call on that equivocation between Judaism and Israel. It is dangerous to equivocate the two, and by doing what a lot of you guys are doing, you are feeding into that equivocation narrative, which is dangerous for me and my fellow Jews in the community, and more so that makes me really angry and hard for me to keep it down, is that it makes it dangerous for my son. for my children and my family. So stop equivocating anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism or a-Zionism or diasporism. It's dangerous to all of us.

[Zac Bears]: That's it. Thank you for your comment. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.

[Max Embarrassing]: Hello, everyone. My name is Max embarrassing. I live at 30 review Beach Parkway from Medford. I'd like to start just by making some personal comments that I like to read out a letter. For one thing I want to address some of the points that were also recently just made. A lot of the language that is used within paragraph D of the values ordinance is particularly politically charged. It's quite provocative, and it is undoubtedly taking advantage of a lot of the things that people might come to mind due to the discourse that is kind of self propagated throughout online culture nowadays. A lot of that language that's quite provocative and debatable and often contested includes the words of apartheid genocide ethnic cleansing and everyone gets very riled up when they, when they see these things. I'd like to make some personal comments. I'm a homeowner and a taxpaying Medford resident of five years. I'd like to voice my opposition to the inclusion of paragraph D in the Medford values aligned local investment ordinance. I actually support paragraphs A, B, C, and E, and I think that the majority of people here do, but we cannot beat around the bush of the fact that the language in paragraph D is lifted quite directly from a lot of the guidelines and narratives pushed by the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement, and that is undoubtedly targeted at Israel in the use of this language. And it often hides behind this cloud of ambiguity of, you know, we could apply this to many different nations. And while we can have all of those discussions, it's obviously going to be targeted at Israel at the point of this discussion. I also don't believe that the language in the particular paragraph that we're discussing particularly to the city of Medford is in the budgetary interests of the city. A lot of them would involve divesting from companies that are incredibly useful to invest in incredibly profitable some of the most successful companies in America. being speaking with about some of them. But I also don't think it agrees with the city's narratives of fairness. You know, we have these values as Americans that we all want to, you know, support equal justice, equal rights, but a lot of what people are going to feel as a result is a tangible result of passing this ordinance is going to cause real harm to the Jewish community of Medford and it would create a domino effect to the greater rest of the Commonwealth and to the country. It is going to make Jewish residents, Israeli residents of Medford and around Massachusetts feel unsafe. And with that, I'd like to read out loud a letter that was sent to the city council by the American Jewish committee. I urge the city council, unless I don't have the time. Well, ultimately, some of the companies that are listed here are, you know, Apple Nvidia Hewitt Packard Intel, these companies, they are incredibly useful. At the same time, if you're going to abstract the language to other countries, there are countries that we also would probably have a lot of trouble divesting from, namely China. Some of our most successful companies are investing in China. And those things are simply just not going to be feasible at the city level for us to really divest from. And it wouldn't be budgetarily effective for the city. I'll skip on the letter, but I have been aware that it's been delivered to your inboxes. I do encourage you to read this. So thank you for your time.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Thought I saw a hand on Zoom, but it's gone down, so I'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.

[Nick Giurleo]: Nick Julio 40 Robinson Road. So, while I'm glad that we're not going to be taking a vote tonight on the value aligned ordinance. I do think that decision to table discussion on it was pretty cowardly given there's an obvious presence, people here who are going to speak against it. applaud the Councilor who voted against the motion table as well as moved to take public comment out of order. So people do have that opportunity to voice their thoughts. My comments, which I'm going to be discussing, we're assuming that we would be having that discussion tonight. So forgive me if they're a little off and some to some extent, but I'm very disappointed that, looking at the draft of the ordinance between the last public meeting and this one, that exactly zero changes were made, zero edits, despite extensive public comment at the last meeting from many people, including myself, who were critical of the language. Speaking just for me, I pointed out that subsection D of section 2-697, that's the part on divesting from human rights abusers, is very disturbingly vague, and I've yet to receive an answer to the question I asked for the record at the last meeting on this, you know who makes a determination that a company or entity has severely violated, quoting from the ordinances drafted human rights and international humanitarian law as determined by international legal Humanities bodies, including the United Nations, unquote, maybe it's implied that this would be the treasurer, based on the next section of the draft, but is the treasurer at all qualified to make this determination does she have a degree in international relations does she have a degree. uh, in or is she an international law attorney? I mean, I call on all of you to ask the treasurer the next discussion to come here and actually provide some information as to will they be qualified at all to make these determinations. The ordinance calls for if the ordinance or were to be approved. So since it remains completely unchanged between the last meeting and this one, I have to oppose it in its entirety. I think the vagueness and the overbreath is just going to open the door to political abuses. And I definitely agree, this will include targeting based on religious affiliation. So an absolute minimum, I'd hope the council, when this comes up again, would strike subsection D entirely. If they're not willing to do that, you definitely should not approve this ordinance until that language is made more specific. I would ask, which companies and entities do you wanna sanction? Name them explicitly. If that includes the entire country of Israel, don't hide the ball. Some of you have made it very clear your legislative intent is to target Israel, but at least own up to that and hear what the public has to say in response. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We will go to Zachary Chertok on Zoom. Zachary, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.

[Zachary Chertok]: Zachary Chertok, 5 Almont Street. I want to echo some of the financial and community concerns as well as the BDS concerns in Section D. I've talked to a lot of folks in the investor VC and PE communities. that I know professionally and I've worked with both inside and outside the Jewish community. They have both, they've all emphatically stated that the broad language used in this ordinance, not just in section D, but across the rest of it, will deter them from advising their portfolio companies to come anywhere near Medford in favor of more surrounding communities that don't target very severe restrictive financial measures in this case. Similarly, I have put in comments and memoranda to the city council as well as the mayor's office asking for if any financial or legal evaluation has been done as to the risks that this exposes the city to as well as the constraints and have not heard anything definitive back. External analysis with colleagues out of Columbia SIPA have definitively noted that the broad language in here will basically severely restrict the city's ability to use investments as a non-tax source of revenue, basically rendering one of the only assets available as CDs. Um, which according to section 55 in the mass general laws is not in the best financial interest of the city, um, towards maximum achievable returns. Furthermore, I will echo the sentiments, uh, by Mr. Jaleo before me that, um, it's not really definitively clear as to whether the person who is tasked as being responsible with executing this. Being the treasurer collector that they have the necessary FINRA financial or CPA certifications to be able to execute or provide this kind of financial advisory service. And I would ask that the language be tightened up significantly and that we see a better updated draft that reflects several of the concerns here tonight, including my own sent to you and now spoken. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to the podium, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.

[Barbara Rutstein]: Barbara Rutstein, 16 Interrail Avenue, Medford. I'm scared. You have made me scared. I'm not speaking on the resolution. I'm talking to you as a Jewish person who has been in Medford for over 50 years. I've served on the Conservation Commission, the Recycling Commission. I'm a supporter of the library, Chevalier, M-Belt. I don't, I have just been here for a while and never really been scared to be Jewish. But at the Embell picnic this past Saturday, I saw some bumper stickers on one car that was quite upsetting. And one of them was a trope. that was used in Germany about Jews ruling the world, but in this case it didn't say Jews ruled the world, it said America is ruled by Zionists. Now you ask many, many people and they are probably going to tell you that to them, there's no splitting of hairs or threading the needle, that there's no difference between Zionism and Judaism, Israelis, whatever. So I am scared. Two years ago, through the Jingle Bell Festival, my house was on the house tour because they had never had a house decorated for Hanukkah. in the years that the Jingle Bell Festival has been in existence and has definitely raised good amounts of money. But I can tell you today that if I were approached today and asked, do I want to open my house to the general public and support the Jingle Bell Festival by opening up my house to everyone, I would have to say, no, I'm too scared to do that. So I don't think that those of you who feel that this resolution is something that should be passed in its entirety, the way that it is written, I don't think that you recognize the repercussions because there are not many people who thread that needle about what Zionism is, what Judaism is, who threads that needle. I am scared. And all politics is local. Tip O'Neill. And this is what's local to me. It scares me. The resolution is not going to have an effect on what happens in Gaza. In some sense, I think it's a lot of grandstanding. And there have been many of us who have felt, well, you know, people own businesses. They've held positions of responsibility in the community, just like 1933 in Germany. People own businesses. They have thousands of employees. but the Jewish component stirs up anti-Semitism. I don't think that you mean to do that, but it happens. And it was, again, I'll reference that bumper sticker, on my way to a picnic with my grandchildren at the Brooks Estates last Saturday. My grandchildren were upset. I was upset. There was obviously nothing we could do, but it definitely stirred up that pot. I don't want to continue to be scared. So I don't know what your resolution is going to be. But I am scared, and I think that the proponents of this resolution don't understand the fear that some of us feel.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I'm gonna go to Maria on Zoom, and then I'll come back to the podium, and then we can go to people who've already spoken once. Maria, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Maria, I'm asking you to unmute. There you go.

[Maria]: OK. Maria Sullivan, 27 Dudley Street, Medford. Good evening. And again, I am also going to talk about the values aligned ordinance. Consider this. If someone in Massachusetts mines granite and uses it to make a countertop for their home, that's fine. If they sell granite to feed their family, good. If a local person sets up a company and hires workers, that's fine. If an international company buys land in Massachusetts and hires Massachusetts miners and sells the granite, is it investing in our infrastructure and creating US jobs or is it exploiting our natural resources? You and the treasurer were not elected to make this decision. If it were not Massachusetts, but it were a company making widgets, or extracting oil in Ukraine, or Sudan, or Nigeria, or maybe even Hong Kong, or any disputed area which might be deemed illegal occupation, or an apartheid country such as South Africa, there's so much risk and uncertainty. Don't we want to reward the companies who have the courage to create employment with decent jobs for the regular people who live there? You and the treasurer were not elected to make that decision. If the Medford treasurer simply invests our funds in the S&P 500, that is arguably the 500 most popular stocks in the United States. Under this proposal, it would be illegal because of Apple, Intel, Samsung, and Caterpillar, plus many others. Those companies have sourced or supplied materials in areas of conflict which have contributed to the named violations. Under the spirit of this proposal, Medford would need to throw away its phones, computers, refrigerators, and lawnmowers, plus track the sources of the fuel used in our trucks and buses. You and the treasurer were not elected to make these decisions. How about simply investing in United States treasury bills or treasury notes. I can imagine that there are city council members who believe our federal government in the United States commits crimes against humanity and illegal occupation. You and our treasurer were not elected to make this decision. Please focus on Medford. We need fiscal responsibility. Our world is so complicated. Medford employees don't have the time or the expertise to decide how to implement section D as in dog of the proposal in accordance with the wishes of the voters. I heard earlier today that there are 7,000 emails to you on this controversial no-win situation topic. Please don't handicap our treasurer or burden our treasurer with this. I move that paragraph D, as in dog, be deleted from this proposal. Do I hear a second?

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your time and your comment. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.

[Jessica Dell'Era]: Rabbi Jessica Dallara, One Hammond Place, Medford. I am also disappointed that I see no effort has been made to amend the problems with Section D that I and many others pointed out last time. There's no criteria for determining it. There's no list of permissible and impermissible companies. There's no process defined for appeal or review of such designations. No attempt to allay the concerns that I and my community have brought up about that this will be unevenly applied, primarily or exclusively targeting Israel. I didn't want to be this pedantic, but you didn't even fix the typo that it would be determined by international humanities organizations instead of humanitarian. What are we going to ask the Modern Language Association, the International Baccalaureate, to decide what we should be investing in? Last time I felt obligated to speak on behalf of those members of my Temple Shalom community who were and continue to be alarmed that enshrining even a vague backdoor BDS into the law of our city has the potential to endanger Jewish residents. Tonight I speak on behalf of the moderate middle the majority of my congregants who hold tight, the increasingly counter cultural values of nuance and compassion, the thoughtful liberal to progressive politically active congregants who otherwise cheer on much of the work of the city council. but who will not be goaded into trying to prove we're one of the good Jews by turning our backs on Israel. I personally, as the rabbi of the only synagogue here in Medford, cannot stand silent to allow a bad ordinance to enshrine disguised anti-Israel posturing into the law of our city. That obligation as a Jewish leader is independent from my own personal opinions, either about Israel or about the other provisions of this ordinance, many of which I and a majority of my congregants would actually support. It is not only possible but common in my Temple Shalom community to hold on to the humanity on both sides of the terrible conflict between Israel and Gaza, to weep not only for the remaining 48 hostages still held captive by Hamas, but for all of the suffering and displacement and loss that has plagued Israel and Gaza and the wider region since October 7, 2023. Those wearing keffiyehs with their kippahs have never had a monopoly on the Jewish value of rachamim, compassion, nor on shalom, a desire for morally acceptable peace. But this ordinance seeks to shoehorn me and my congregants into a false binary where we either must prove our progressive bona fides by allowing Israel to be targeted here in all but name, or we are officially putting ourselves outside the boundaries of Medford values. I reject that premise fundamentally, I am pushing back against this ordinance because of my Jewish values and because of my civic values as an American and a Medford homeowner. This ordinance is badly worded liable to endless and expensive legal challenge, ensure to change nothing on the ground overseas, its main impact will be symbolic. telling all of us Jews whose opinion of Israel goes anything beyond a reactive and un-nuanced antipathy that we do not belong here. It erases us from the narrative of our city, just as surely as the name Yisrael has been erased from the text of this measure. Until and unless Section D is removed or substantially amended to allay the concerns that I and my congregants have now repeatedly raised, I must continue to oppose this measure, which does not align with my values. Thank you.

[Owen Wartella]: Thank you for your comments. We will go to Zoom.

[Zac Bears]: We have David Lifter. David, name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.

[David Lichter]: Thank you. Hi, my name is David Lichter. I'm a Somerville resident, 9 Belmont Place. I'm here, I wasn't planning on speaking, but I just wanted to, so I don't have prepared remarks. I just want to give you a flavor. I'd like to speak in favor of my fellow supporters there in the room who are brave enough to speak out against this resolution. I want to give you a flavor of what The practicality of doing this has done in Somerville. And I want to relay back earlier comments to Mr. Kesselman about speaking about his his child. I have a daughter in the school system, a young nine year old. And what we see around Somerville every single day, because we have a BDS measure on our ballot in November. is harassment, intimidation of community members with chants, public slogans, kathiyas everywhere, storming city hall, trying to intimidate our mayor, our city councillors. And what this often comes from in a very uncivilized and disrespectful way is anti-Israel rhetoric, which is anti-American. It's disrespectful. It's discriminatory. And BDS, by that nature, is promoting narratives of terrorist organizations. It doesn't belong in our community. There are better ways to unite the community than this. I speak very strongly against this, and I urge the committee to learn from the example going on in Somerville. We're just down the road, and we see this hate every single day. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.

[Gaston Fiore]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Gaston Fiore 61, Stigney Road. So I oppose this so-called values-aligned investment audience. I spoke against it last time, so I'm not going to repeat myself. I'm just going to ask a few questions about what happened. So the first one is that Paragraph D was mentioned. I also mentioned Paragraph C because it says any companies that derive any of its revenue, that's even $1. Do we like weather satellites or we don't want any more weather satellites? Because we're not going to be able to invest in any companies that, for example, manufacture weather satellites. And as some other people have mentioned, even companies that produce applications or the electronics that we use on a daily basis would fall under this category as well because it's even $1 that they get out of weapons of any kind, including defense contractors, then we can invest. So this is against our national security, the US national security. it's also against our finances, which after all is taxpayers money. So I also would like to point out that there have been no change in this audience since last time to this time. So it goes postpone again. So I'm sure you know, everyone here, we make an effort, we love coming here, we do. But it's also like, you know, it's a little bit taxing, like tomorrow, we have to come again, because we have to discuss zoning. So um, you know, I I'm just a little bit frustrated that things get put in the agenda and then they get postponed to September or to some future meeting that we have no idea about. So I would like that to end. And I would also like to mention that, you know, so I'm a little bit, I'm not sure about this resident support of this, as was mentioned earlier. So I would like to remind everyone that we live in a democratic system, at least up to now. And then, you know, so people get elected, and they need to work for all of the city. not a special interest group, not a very small proportion, and in the best case scenario for all of us, and in the worst case scenario for the people that have voted for some of you. And I remind that participation in local elections covers around 30%, and then no one gets 100% or 30%, which means that overall, the people that have voted for you, it's like probably around a quarter. And I can't imagine that a quarter of those, if all of those people actually support this kind of voting. And so, I just feel that, we need to do a little bit of a better job at sort of listening to the whole city. What has happened to all the comments that were heard last time, my comment included, and everyone else's. The comments today, the comments that are going to happen next week. Is the audience still going to look the same, or is it going to change? Is someone going to address what we're saying, or nothing is going to change? Because otherwise, you should just tell us, like, you know, high-quality participation, and then just pass whatever you want to pass. And then it would have the same effect. So thank you so much for listening.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We'll go to Zoom. I see PBB on Zoom. I'll unmute you and you'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please. Oh, we can't hear you. Let me request an unmute again.

[Patricia Doherty]: Okay, got it.

[Zac Bears]: There you go. Name and address the record. You have three minutes.

[Patricia Doherty]: Patricia Brady, Dougherty, 190 High Street, Medford. I turned this on to watch what was going to happen to the rezoning. Instead, I'm watching this. It's so horrible. This is horrifying. To think that you have put longtime senior citizen residents, actually of all ages, at risk, and to think they feel the need to come up and say to you, I'm afraid. For Barbara Rutstein to have to come up here and tell you that is horrifying. This is so embarrassing for the city of Medford. You shouldn't be laying this on the table. You shouldn't be continuing this. You should be having a motion tonight to end it tonight. You people ought to be embarrassed. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll return to the podium, but I want to get folks who haven't had a chance to speak yet, Sharon. So I'm going to go, sorry, did you speak during public participation? on the zoning? No, you didn't Melanie. So we'll take you first. Thank you. Yeah, no, I know you hadn't spoken yet. Give me one second to reset the timer. And then for anyone who's already had a chance to speak, we'll come back around to you for one more minute if you'd like. Name and address for the record, please.

[Melanie Tringali]: Melanie Tringali, 116 Forest Street. I wasn't going to comment tonight on this at all. My original comment was about this ordinance and the council's fiduciary responsibility to the city of Medford. It's your fiduciary responsibility who oversees the budget to make sure that we have right investments and bring us a good return on our money. But then listening to these stories and these people who are afraid and upset The gentleman from Somerville who called in talking about the hate that he's witnessing in Somerville and what's happening over there should be enough for you people to make these changes to these ordinances. I mean, other than the fiduciary responsibility to the city of Medford and its residents, but also for all these other residents who don't support this at all and are afraid. I really would recommend that you reconsider it altogether. Thank you.

[Unidentified]: Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: All right, seeing no new hands on Zoom, we'll stay at the podium for folks who haven't had a chance to speak yet. Name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.

[Judy Beatrice]: Good evening, council. My name is Judy Beatrice. I'm chairman of the Commissioners Trust Funds. We manage and I do share responsibility to invest such funds. I'm here to say that this particular document, I have looked hard. It looks to me like it was rewritten from one of the Boston documents on divestment. And I did notice when I was going through the Boston, I said it does not apply to Boston. My mate, there's enough people talking here about it. My concern and from my point of view of manager and we have the fiduciary responsibility for all the trust funds is the fact it says no public funds, no public funds, no public funds and no public funds. The only public funds that I know currently that exist in the city are tax receipts, If you've got the Inflation Reduction Act, you have money from me, that's a grant. Those are public funds. The funds that we manage or that your pension fund manage, they are not public funds by statute, by Massachusetts statute and by ours. So I think there really needs to be some serious consideration about the verbiage of this particular bill that it really doesn't really match, I think, what you're trying to accomplish. It will cause, well, I can tell you very frankly, the commissioners, we will disagree with the fact that our funds are public, they are not. we operate under fiduciary rules and therefore, and the Prudent Investment Act. And we have managed the fund appropriately to make sure that there are funds available as given by the various trusts that we operate for the benefit of whom they wanted to be beneficiaries of those funds, including and not unlimited to the perpetual care of the cemetery, which goes into your budget to the tune of 200,000 plus every single year by our management. And by having taken over that fund years ago and straightening it out, Formerly, when I first was on this committee, it was all invested in bonds. And in bonds, it was great because if you bought a bond in 1986, they were paying 10, 12, 13%. Well, guess what happened when they all came through 30 years later? They were worth nothing. And unfortunately, that fund, which was supposed to take care of perpetual care and your budget, was down to nothing when we took it over because there were no 15, 20% bonds out there. So it was a process of investing. So I think you really need to have some serious, I'm very happy to be available to you and go through this as to what is needed, but you need to have a serious consideration. Now I did recall the other night that somebody mentioned the main divestment. I went and looked it up. The main divestment ordinance, and I read it very carefully, it doesn't sound like this at all. In fact, it makes a very specific, and they mean it, they're talking specifically in this case about the retirement pension funds. And they make the point very clearly that in the process of doing it, that they measure time, benefit, risk, in terms of the process of how they unwind and what they do. Now, you may not realize that most of the time these ESG funds have been invested by private equity, because your average fund can't do that. Private equity funds are very risky. They have what we call a J curve, which means, oh, think of the steward hospitals. That's another example of a private equity. So when you first invest, they collect money from other people, and they invest it in, hopefully, in things that will return an investment. The J curb goes down which means it's not making any money and you have to wait for the tail to come back up to make it and then they throw all the money out. So it was really clear from reading the main the main divestment that they were waiting because they had to wait because they did equity investments they were still waiting till 28 to unwind that. We as commissioners And with our investment managers, we make decisions every single quarter, sometimes more often, particularly in 220 and 221 and 222, because of the needs to adjust what you need for your budget, what our trusts need for their trust, what they're going to distribute money for. We make those decisions. We are not a public fund. I do believe you need to reconsider the verbiage of this and not have any, there is problems with the verbiage in this. I think we need to have a table so we have, and I'm very happy to talk with any of you at any time, as are my members. Thank you very much.

[Zac Bears]: Thanks Judy, just if I could for one second. I've been trying to meet with you through the administration for several months, and I didn't get connected.

[Judy Beatrice]: I work for the city. I'm sorry. I know. But that's why I sent it. But feel free to call me. Yes, I don't. I didn't get the message.

[Zac Bears]: I spoke with Judy today, Judy Johnston, and we're going to set up a meeting with you to talk about something.

[Judy Beatrice]: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Is there anyone who hasn't had a chance to speak yet who would like to speak in public participation? going to go to Zoom and then I'll come back to the podium. You've raised your hands at the same well, period at the same time. Going to go to Meryl Pearlson, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.

[Meryl Perlson]: Hi, I'm Morell Carlson I live at 97 be Boston Avenue. I actually did not prepare to speak on this tonight I too was coming to just hear what was going on with the zoning amendments and, but I feel compelled to speak about the values aligned ordinance. and which I just hurriedly referenced and read through. And let's not kid ourselves about paragraph D. The language in there is clearly intended as dog whistle words copied directly from BDS organizations that have been at least honestly more explicit about their anti-Israel agenda. Hearing that there's been no change since the last public discussion on this is disheartening. Mr. Kesselman expressed that those arguments, those arguing against the ordinance are perpetuating a false equivalency between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. But this equivalency is something that every Jewish person, including myself, lives with every day, regardless of our political stances. It's been thrust on us. And please know also that as a parent, I greatly sympathize with your fears, with your concerns. In fact, When my son went through Medford public schools with several members on this council, he experienced anti semitism, and I don't want us to kid ourselves that it can't happen here. So I. and I also am aware of many recent incidents in other communities. Aside from the disguised agenda, the vagary of the language is clearly problematic as we're hearing from people who have expertise in finance and investment. And mostly I just want to say that I think there's so much great going on in Medford and I think there's also a lot of needs that Medford has to have addressed and this just seems like it is coming from an external agenda that maybe we need to take care of more business at home first. So thank you for allowing my impromptu remarks.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I'm going to go back to the podium for anyone who hasn't had a chance to speak yet. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.

[Nate Merritt]: Name Aaron, 373 Riverside Ave. I too am disappointed that you're actually not taking like actual comments for this tonight. I know this is public comment period, but it is kind of cowardly. So I'm gonna second that. This ordinance does not align to my values as a citizen for a number of reasons. So I'm sorry if that bores you all and you've heard it all before, but it's more than just subsection D. This is a trash ordinance. And again, you've divided the city. This whole thing should just be tossed out. You have a Councilor here who's in the Navy, and I don't understand why defense contractors that make defensive weapons are bad. Is it because the military who uses them? Is it the fact that we don't defend ourselves with bubbles? I don't understand. Do you not invest in DJI, which is a drone company, because those can be used as offensive weapons? There's a company called Raytheon that some of you may have heard of. They have offshoots in Cambridge, so that's kind of a local company, as well as North Andover. In fact, they pay for the schools there. Does everyone who works at Raytheon, are they a baby killer? Most of you weren't alive in the 70s when folks like my dad were coming home from Vietnam. He didn't want to go to that war, but he was spit on and called a baby killer. He was a medic. He saved lives. You don't know the consequences of what you're writing in here. And if your values are so hard up on that and it's because this government for whatever reason does anything offensive and not strictly defensive, I don't know. I mean, put your money where your mouth is. Maybe one of the councilors should resign his commission then if he really feels that strongly about this and that's his values. This whole thing is not the values of the city, just a subset, a select few of you that decided to take this up and divide the city. Congrats, it's still working.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We're gonna go back to Zoom. We have been near Germanus. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.

[Rich Maidman]: Hi, excuse me, it's taking me a bit to unmute.

[Munir Jirmanus]: I'm not sure I agree with some of the comments that I'm hearing. This ordinance does indeed reflect our values. And if somebody is nitpicking about one part of the ordinance that happens to, in their mind, apply to a specific state, that is something else. This applies to any state. And the values that are reflected in all the parts of this ordinance are indeed values to be commended. And we should not necessarily just follow the leads of a government that just happens to make decisions that are based on how much money they're gonna make out of the weapon manufacturers. Okay? It's a fact, and you've heard it in the news, that even some of our elected officials are making money investing in these weapon-producing companies, okay, based on the playing around of the stock market that's happening. I mean, come on, see the light and act upon it. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone who hasn't had a chance to speak yet who would like to speak either in person or on Zoom? I see Mr. Castagnetti. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes, and then we'll go back to... One second, Andy. I gotta turn on your microphone.

[Andrew Castagnetti]: Yes, sir. Go ahead. Yes, sir. Being of Castagnetti, Andrew, Ace, Medford. being of Ginju blood since 1492, yeah, and Columbus too, by the way. I wanna quote the Bible, Genesis chapter 12, verse three. Whether you believe in God and the Bible or not, I must quote these verses. I will bless thee who blesses thee. I will curse he, her, or it. who curses thee." The translation is, if you go against the Jews, you will perish. By the way, I'm afraid history is repeating itself. Mr. Bloomberg, Sr., believed in the 40s, bought a house in West Medford, but he was not allowed, as a Jew, and how to use a strong name. Are we repeating history? This is insanity. Be nice.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I'm going to go to Eileen Lerner on Zoom. Eileen, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.

[Ilene Lerner]: I am a Jew. I love my people. I love Judaism. I love the culture. but I am for this ordinance. I feel it reflects the Jewish values that I was taught. I want a peaceful world. I don't want a world where children are being torn apart by bombs every day. I don't want a world where people are starved to death and we have to stand by and watch it. I'm sorry. I don't want a world where crazy people can get guns and come into schools and kill. kids and go into supermarkets and go to music performances and kill people. I mean, we have a death culture. And if we keep going on the way we're going, we're just going to blow up the world inevitably. To me, this this is a reflection of the desire for peace in the world. for peace everywhere. I mean, look what's happening in the Sudan and in Congo and in other places around the world. And we have our hand in it because it's our tax money that's paying for a lot of these weapons. And I just want to congratulate Jason, who brought this forth, and Zach, and the city council for even considering it. And it definitely is not anti-Semitic. It's anti-war. It's anti-killing people. It's anti-starvation. That's what it's about. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone who has not spoken yet in the chamber who would like to speak? Seeing none, I'm going to go to Josh Eckart Lee on Zoom. Josh, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.

[Josh Ekhart-Lee]: Thank you, President Bears. I urge you all to vote favorably on this. As I said at the last hearing, I drastically live on Main Street. I also serve on the city's Energy Environment Committee. The committee sent a letter to this body strongly urging you to be in favor of fossil fuel divestment. And I also as a resident urge you to be in favor of this ordinance that does divest us from the fossil fuel industry. As the previous speaker said, the fossil fuel industry and these investments in destructive industries are not in line with our values, and we really commend the City Council for Bringing what power they can to the finances that we have in destructive industries, like some of our portfolio in Chevron. And I'm really grateful that this is being considered and want to recognize the interrelations between the climate crisis that we face and the way that it exacerbates conflict around the world, that it drives people into prisons and other detention centers. And of course, all of that gets multiplied as impunity for human rights violations goes. unpunished. And so we really commend City Council for recognizing the interrelation between these various social harms. And I'm grateful to see you all acting and investing in our futures and investing in alignment with our values. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comments. I'm going to stay on Zoom unless there's anyone who hasn't spoken yet who'd like to speak in person. Seeing none, I'm going to go to Dina on Zoom. Dina, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.

[Dina Alami]: Hi, I'm Dina at 3780 Mystic Valley Parkway, Medford. Thank you, President Bears and for the city councilor for giving us this opportunity to speak on this and bringing this ordinance forward. I encourage you all to support this. I've spoken multiple times, but for me, this is very personal. We've heard from many other people in terms of divesting from fossil fuels and prisons and weapons manufacturers. But for me personally, as a Palestinian who has family in Gaza, it's really important that we invest our city money in not killing my family members. And it shouldn't be controversial to say that we don't want our tax dollars to harm human life. So I just, again, I encourage you all to think about how this impacts human life. Thank you so much.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone in person who'd like to speak for a second time for a minute? And I see two hands of people who've already spoken as well. So we'll go to the podium. You'll have one more minute. Name and address for the record, please.

[Sharon Deyeso]: Sharon Diesso, corner of Mass Ave and Circuit Road. Long time resident. Thank you. I'll make this brief. Does anyone here want to present a strong definition of BDS? I didn't know about this until early this morning. Somebody who's my long, long time friend and learned about Catholicism in Catholic food, in Italian food at my house, made sure from Israel that she had someone get in touch with me to let me know this was going on tonight. I think it's kind of sad that Medford is an international known for things like this. Anyway, boycott, divestment, and sanctions. And this message, too, is for those who said earlier this evening that you're implying that Israel is part of this. This is how they define themselves. Boycott, divestment, and sanctions, BDS, is a Palestinian-led movement promoting boycotts, divestments, and economic sanctions against Israel. Its objective is to pressure Israel to excuse me, meet what the BDS movement describes as Israel's obligations under international law. There's a lot of paradoxes that are created in this definition. I don't have to begin to tell you what they are. And I'm going to go to the end because I don't have time for the middle because I have a minute. From what I understand during the last few weeks, especially with the distinguished Netanyahu meeting at the White House, I don't care what you think of the White House administration, there has been a stability now brought for at least a decade because of what we had to do. So I do not see in these peace talks that this coalition has anything to do with anything that you could move forward and spend our money on. This is an international issue at the present time, and you're rekindling the fire again. Let the real experts work on the peace. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you for your comment. I'm going to go back to Zoom, then I'll come back to the podium. I'm going to go to Micah on Zoom. Micah, you'll have one minute. One second, I just have to reset the timer. Requesting you to unmute, name and address for the record. You'll have one minute.

[Micah Kesselman]: Sure, yeah. Micah Kesselman, 499 Main Street. We have a minute, so. But look, I will say that for those of you who have understandable financial concerns, do understand that similar ordinances in other cities in Michigan and elsewhere in the country have gone into effect and their portfolios have just done fine, if not outperformed their non curated counterparts. So financially, this isn't that big of a deal for the city's municipal funds. So don't like so. You look at the data, it just isn't. But the concern is understood. For those of you who are concerned about this dividing the community, again, this is coming from a substantial portion of the community. So if you guys who are definitely not just hungry, hopeful politicians are concerned about dividing the community, then perhaps you should be looking at trying to bridge that gap that you perceive in the community and talking to maybe that portion of the community that you, I guess, don't talk to for some reason. I don't know why that is. You know, weird. But for everyone else, like, you know, what pains me right now is that, you know, my grandparents used to say, There's so much fear right now about this being anti-Semitic and this being somehow against Jews and attacking the interests of Jews, even though it nowhere refers to Jews or Judaism. At most, it is targeted towards Israel at most. you are feeding into this narrative that to be Jewish is to be loyal to Israel first and foremost. And I cannot say how, I cannot understate how incredibly dangerous it is to facilitate, enable, and actually espouse a narrative that Jews are Israeli and Jews are to Israel before they are to the U.S. or to their local communities. That's crazy and dangerous. You need to think about that. Religious leaders, I urge you to maybe try and talk to the different parts of the Jewish community and have a conversation to address that fear. Because right now, you're just fostering it. You're mongering in that fear rather than actually trying to alleviate it, which as a leader is important to do for the Jewish community. Micah, thank you. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: going to go back to the podium and name and address for the record. You'll have one minute.

[Roy Belson]: William Ellison, 2500 Mystic Valley Parkway. You have a great opportunity. Bring people together, bring people together in small groups, bring people together to talk to each other and talk with each other and understand the history of the Middle East. Understand the tensions, understand all the peace treaties that were broken and not gone forward. So we can basically have a really good understanding of how to go forward. A performative ordinance that's going to get knocked down by legal issues, financial issues, and other things like that, doesn't really bring people together. Try to find ways so people can sit together and talk. I can tell you that last year or the year before, we had a book club at the temple, and we invited the imam from the cultural center. Great discussion, great discussion. We're as concerned about Muslims as we are about Jews. We understand that any number of people can be discriminated against. the way to bring things together, the way to build community, is not to put something out there that fragments, but to put in place processes that enable us to talk with each other, share viewpoints, and come to new understandings that allow us to move forward as a community. I appreciate your understanding, and I hope that you'll take that advice. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. You haven't spoken yet, so you will have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.

[Patrick Clerkin]: Patrick Clerkin, 50 Princeton Street. So I wanted to address two particular sub-issues on this, and the first is related to the wholesale divestment from particularly the fossil fuel industries. I think that people don't realize the ripple effects of the fossil fuel divestment. There are other industries, the chemical industry, the plastics industry. I have critiques of all of these industries, and I think that there's substantial negatives to them, but there's also substantial positives to them. A lot of what we have that we take for granted are clothes, eyeglasses, equipment around us, medical equipment, vehicle equipment that reduce vehicle weight and that reduce vehicle emissions. A lot of good things come from the fossil fuel industry and its byproducts. And so I'm concerned with the wholesale divestment, first of all. And the second thing is, I think there are other industries that equally have downsides to them. So looking at defense, we're focusing on how the defense industries have more of an emphasis on war rather than defense and peace. I understand that criticism. You could add to the list media, which tends to emphasize getting people profiting off of getting people to hate each other. You could focus on the pharmaceutical industry, which often focuses more on sickness rather than on health. I think it's easier to focus on defense industries and fossil fuel industries when they're located geographically in say Texas or the or the south of the United States and not focus on the pharmaceutical industry which is in our own backyard which has jobs and money flowing through the veins of Massachusetts more so than these things that we're trying to divest. And I think it's very specific and odd to focus on just several of these things and wholesale divest from them. So I think if you look at the broad systems level perspective, there's tradeoffs everywhere, and I think it should be looked at more piecemeal. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak on public participation who hasn't spoken yet?

[Angela Murphy]: Hi, Angela Murphy, 16 Carding Street. And I didn't come here to speak on this issue. And I can't speak on zoning, but I will relay that comment another time. I just want to put in a comment that what I'm hearing that this concerns and this fear is actually real for this community. I don't think that you can deny that what they're telling you is something that they've lived through their ancestors in the past. If this is gonna make them not feel comfortable and method, we could lose a whole community of residents who are beneficial to our diversity. and I'm afraid for them, and I'm sorry this is happening, and they have to go through this again. They want to deny what history has happened to certain people. They're trying to erase it, but they can't erase it because it's too prominent in a lot of people's minds and told over centuries and through families. Listen to them. Rethink certain parts. Talk about it again. Go over it and hear their true concerns. I feel for them. I'm Catholic. I was told if a Catholic person goes into a temple, they're going to go to hell. My kids went to a Jewish temple. I did not hold anything against any culture, any religion, anything. And I feel for these people I didn't come up here to talk about this but I wanted to say that I'm sorry that they were going through in this, that you have this right here, and that I hope everybody listens to them, read things whatever is going on because I have no idea but I just hearing a concern for them, and as a fellow resident I've been here 69 years. I want them to stay in the community and feel safe and walk around and not be concerned. And maybe their concerns are valid to some degree, and I'm sure they are. Listen to them. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone else who has not spoken yet who would like to speak? Seeing none, I'm going to go back to Zoom to Maria. Maria, you'll have one minute. I'm going to request you unmute. Name and address for the record, please. Maria, are you there?

[Maria]: Oh, hello. I just wanted to say that a couple of people have asked you, President Bears, what you're gonna do and would you delete that paragraph and would you withdraw this? And you haven't responded, which is disappointing.

[Zac Bears]: After everyone's had a chance to speak.

[Maria]: That's all, thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Going to go to Munir Germanis. For one minute, Muneer, name and address for the record, and I'm asking you to unmute.

[Munir Jirmanus]: Hi, Munir Jamanis, 3 Summit Road in Medford. Again, I guess I'm a little surprised that somebody is bringing up superfluous issues that have nothing to do with this proposed ordinance. An example is BDS. What they failed to say is that BDS is a non-violent, peaceful approach to simply ask the government of Israel to stop the occupation, to end the apartheid system in which citizens in Israel that are of Palestinian origin don't have the same rights as citizens who are Jewish in Israel. simply to end the occupation, then the BDS will go away, just like we did in South Africa.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you for your comment. I'm going to go to Eileen Lerner. Name and address for the record, please. You have one minute.

[Ilene Lerner]: My name is Eileen Lerner. I live at 3920 Mystic Valley Parkway. And I just want to say that the Jewish community is more than the Jews that go to the synagogue in Medford. There are many, many Jews in the Jewish community in Medford who support this resolution, whose values it expresses. And I think it's very narrow minded to only think that the people that go to synagogue are Jews. It's like, oh, are they the real Jews? What about the rest of us? You know, we're Jews, too. What about us? What about what we think? What about what we value? Which goes back to the Bible. You know, if you read the Bible, I don't think, and even if you read the New Testament, I don't think you can have the values that we see operating in the world today. We need to change things. We can't keep going down the same path for the climate, for the children, for everybody. We need to do something positive. And this is a positive thing that is being proposed. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. RM, I'm gonna need to ask you to either message me on the chat with your name or change your initials to a name on Zoom. We've had Zoom bombing incidents and I'm not gonna unmute anyone unless they share their name on Zoom. All right, thank you. Thank you for doing that. I'm gonna go to Patricia Brady-Doherty for one minute. Patricia, name and address for the record. You have one minute.

[Patricia Doherty]: Thank you. I'd like to address this through the chair to the prior speaker. You don't have to be Jewish to care and hear the sadness and how frightened these people are. This resolution cannot affect what happens in the Middle East. In fact, it really doesn't even have a place on the council agenda. I'm Catholic, but tonight I'm Jewish. I feel for these people. This is such a disgrace. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Rich, I'm gonna come to you. Name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes.

[Rich Maidman]: Rich Maidman, 18 Sterling Street. I'm here speaking in solidarity with the Medford Jewish community. This thinly veiled targeting of the single Jewish state is despicable and offensive to members of the Jewish community. And I urge the council to reject it and ignore all the anti-Semitic tropes that we just heard espoused in conjunction with it. We also just heard a little bit about BDS. What wasn't said is that the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist groups are instrumental in the BDS movement. Now, moving on, significant portions of the bill are patently illegal and administratively impossible. It's unbelievable that it has gotten to this point. It almost feels like certain members of the council are trying to induce lawsuits against the city. Those who vote for this bill also demonstrate their commitment to virtue signaling over the community they serve. You can't even hold index funds under it. Whoever votes for this is responsible for any budget shortfalls that result in public parks not being kept up, school infrastructure crumbling, and public safety shortcomings. It's a good thing you are not working for a public entity because your breach of fiduciary duties is colossal. I call on all Councilors considering voting for this bill to disclose all of their investments personally to ensure that they are not saying one thing and doing another. And to many of those considering voting for this ordinance, remember that you were elected to serve your community, not adhere to the purity tests of national organizations.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. going to go to Anna on Zoom. Anna, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.

[Jenny Graham]: Hi, my name is Anna Meyer. I live at 6 Douglas Road, Medford, Massachusetts. And I am speaking tonight in support of the divestment ordinance. I think that this is an incredibly important moment for Medford to take responsibility for the work that our money does out in the world, and to commit our money to doing the things that we know are aligned with Medford's values, including not investing in detention. of immigrant children and families that are being separated, divesting from fossil fuels, from weapons of mass destruction, as well as divesting from any companies that are profiting from any crimes against humanity. And while that certainly would include the crimes that are being committed every day against people in Gaza, the news headlines today just said that 59 children were shot while waiting in line for water. This is absolutely an ordinance that will go far and beyond that to really make sure that we are investing in line with Medford values. I also want to iterate that this is a resolution that was brought forward by Medford residents, and we have been working on it carefully to make sure that it reflects our interests, as well as thoughtfulness in working with the specific definitions that are included in this ordinance to make sure that it is in line with international law that is working to make sure that our money is gonna be invested in ways that support the wellbeing of children and families and the environment everywhere and not investing in systems of harm. So I'm grateful for your support of the resolution and hearing comments tonight. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone either in person or on Zoom who has or has not spoken who would like to speak? Yes, you have one minute. Name and address for the record, please.

[Nate Merritt]: State Mayor 373 Riverside Ave. Drop this whole resolution and instead maybe focus on something that brings everyone together. I guarantee you could get for all the time and energy spent on this and all the negative energy, you could have had one heck of a blood drive. And that would benefit people in your city. That would benefit people in your local area. Pretty sure the Red Cross would take people's blood and use it all over the world. Drop this, do something positive, maybe something like that. How many people here would donate blood? You know what, that's at least 10 pints more than you had. If you're gonna spend taxpayer dollars on something, do something positive for the world. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Seeing no further, would you like to speak, Andy? Yes. You have one minute.

[Andrew Castagnetti]: I'll take a few seconds. What was I gonna say? Nobody's right if everybody is wrong, as the song says, but let's us not forget what happened October 7th, 2023. Innocent people in a concert. That's equivalent to three, two and a half. What happened in New York City, you know, the World Trade Center. That was horrendous. After thousands of years, wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, but that was horrendous. And I cannot watch that video. I don't have a stomach for it.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thanks, everyone. I appreciate the comments that we heard tonight. I have had a number of conversations over the last couple of weeks with people who have questions and concerns about the ordinance. I'm still working to reach out to everybody who has emailed me or otherwise tried to contact me about it. The reason there are no edits in the version that was on the agenda tonight is that I did not have control over the process. This was tabled from last meeting, using a council procedural rule that required it to come up again at this meeting, I am planning to propose amendments to the ordinance and I am planning to communicate with many of the people who have spoken tonight about the content of the ordinance, I don't think that we will all completely agree on everything that ever happens in this chamber, but I am working to have conversations to address the concerns that have been raised tonight, concerns that have been raised to me outside of this meeting, so that we can create a product that reflects what I think are shared values in this community, and also respects and listens to, I think, the very real fears that people have shared with me in person, in this meeting, and in other places. I would ask folks to look at what I said at our last meeting. I gave two what I think We're very honest and direct remarks about why I propose this ordinance and my feelings about the comments that were shared at the last meeting. And I do want to apologize to folks that we haven't had the chance to meet or talk yet or that the edits weren't made yet, but there will be changes. And we're going to work through this to create a product that, and an ordinance that addresses as many concerns as we can. So I just wanted to say that, but I wanted to give everyone a chance to speak before I did. I'm going to recognize Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I'll keep this brief because the paper has been tabled. We have other items on the agenda still to get to. I shared a lot three weeks ago about my reasons for supporting this ordinance, and I will not repeat all of that tonight, especially because this will be coming up before the council again. for both councillors and members of the public to comment on in a future meeting. I just wanted to share before I make a motion to revert back to our regular order of business, that as Medford's first and only Jewish city councillor, I hope that our future conversations on this ordinance contain less anti-Semitic language than what I heard tonight. And by that, I mean, I will say every time it happens, how offensive I find it as a Jew, when anybody purports to speak for the Jewish community as a monolith. We do not all support this ordinance or ordinances like it. We do not all condemn it. We do not all feel scared by it. Some of us do, apparently. Not all Jews feel an inherent link between the nation-state of Israel and the Jewish people. The Jewish community is an incredibly religiously, culturally, ethnically, ideologically, and politically plural community. To say that the Jewish community is a monolith, to purport to speak for the entire Jewish community, and I'm speaking to people who do not identify as Jews, as well as people who are, on this ordinance, on anything else, I find is anti-Semitic. And I sincerely hope that when we continue our productive conversations about this ordinance in future meetings, people can speak for themselves. They can speak for people that they have personally talked to. They can speak for groups that they represent. And I fervently wish that people will not be so offensive to the Jewish community to report that we are a flat monolith with one opinion on any issue. It is extremely offensive. Thank you for the time.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the motion of the vice president to revert to the regular order of business seconded by seconded by Councilor Leming, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan? Vice President Collins?

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, 70 affirmative, none of the negative the motion passes and we revert to the regular order of business to 5113 offered by Councilor Scarpelli resolve the city council get an update from the health department for rodent issues in the Wellington Glenwood neighborhoods, Middlesex Avenue area Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think we've exhausted so many avenues, and I know that our health department has worked on this, but I think we need to hold a community meeting because it wasn't just the neighborhood from Walter Glenwood reached out because they feel like they haven't been supported, but as that happened, I received phone calls from every other corner of the city of Medford, and I think that we owe it to our residents that we hold a community meeting to really share the concerns and issues that is now turned in to a pretty substantial crisis in the city. And that's the rat infestation. So I would appreciate the council to allow me to make the motion that we call for a community meeting with the health department and the pest company and the city administration to really get a hold of these concerns and issues. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Mr. Scarpelli, is that a motion to refer this paper to Committee of the Whole and invite the Health Department and Pest Control and the administration? Mr. Clerk, when you have the motion, please let me know. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to refer the paper to the Committee of the Whole, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Emily Lazzaro]: President Bears, I have a question.

[Zac Bears]: Oh, sorry. Councilor Lazzaro, before we call the roll. Councilor Lazzaro?

[Emily Lazzaro]: Through the chair, I was wondering if Councilor Scarpelli has spoken to the health department or to what degree has there been conversations?

[Zac Bears]: The councilor just has a question through the chair to Councilor Scarpelli about your conversations with the health department. Sorry, I got to turn on your microphone. Go ahead.

[George Scarpelli]: Sorry. I know that Councils brought up the same issues over and over again. So I haven't done this recently since this, the messages I've received the residents, but I would call for a meeting with all parties involved. I think we have to now try to move to the next level if we can, Council President.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro.

[Emily Lazzaro]: That's fine. Also, thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Collins.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, I'm the affirmative. None of the negative emotion passes.

[Zac Bears]: Paper 25-114 offered by Councilor Callahan and President Bears whereas as part of its 2024 2025 governing agenda and previous resolutions the council has stated its intention to implement the good landlord tax credit in order to help keep rents affordable and support landlords who offer below market rental rates and whereas the state law enabling the good landlord tax credit s 1795 specifically limits the quote qualified residential rental property to any unsubsidized two to four unit residential rental property And whereas the reason the council has not yet adopted this provision of state law is because of an analysis by the assessing department that stated that the tax credit would not be limited to small two to four unit rental properties, and this would provide a significant unintended benefit to corporate owners of large properties and impact the city's property tax levy. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we request that the city solicitor provide a written legal opinion on whether the local adoption of the Good Landlord Tax Credit could be limited to two to four unit properties and provide both the City Council and the Chief Assessor with said opinion and be it further resolved that we request that the Chief Assessor provide the City Council with the potential impact of a Medford Good Landlord Tax Credit on the city's property tax levy based on the opinion provided by the city solicitor. Councilor Callahan.

[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. I know that I am in favor of the good landlord tax credit. I know there has been some investigation sort of behind the scenes about asking the assessor about whether it would in fact be limited to two to four unit properties. And I think that it's just, it would be best for us to have this discussion in a committee where we can all hear the assessor's opinion. It would be great. We have a new solicitor or bigger to have the solicitor, you know, provide legal opinion because really it is a legal opinion on what this state law, whether the state law will actually do what it is written that it will do, or if it will not be upheld to that writing that passed in the past session. And I really want to get to the bottom of whether we can pass this here in Medford because I would like to, and I just want to understand and have the full council be able to understand if there are reasons why we're not able to get this thing passed.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming.

[Matt Leming]: Thank you. I fully agree. I had conversations with the assessor about a year ago about potentially passing the new good landlord tax credit. And he basically said that it was a, well, he hinted that it wouldn't quite have the effect that we wanted because it would apply equally to landlords, like small local landlords who willingly kept their, kept their rents low, as well as larger properties that are usually owned by companies who are, in many cases, required to keep affordable housing rates. There's no sort of legal way to distinguish between the two under state law. But I think it would be worthwhile to have those discussions in public and have a bit more of a formal analysis. So I'd like to thank my colleagues for bringing this forward.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lameing. Councilor Tseng.

[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I just wanted to thank my fellow Councilors for introducing this resolution, for getting the ball started again. I wanted to refer my support for this. Policy in general, of course, we'll have to look at the details of whether this does exactly what we want it to do. And I know Councilor Leming just brought up a point that I'd like to delve deeper into in the committee meeting. But in general, I just wanted to voice my support.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Saing. Is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public on this resolution? Seeing no one in the chambers and no hands on Zoom, on the motion of Councilor Callaghan, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. This is to approve and send to the administration.

[Anna Callahan]: This is a good letter of tax credit. Asking the city for their opinion and then the assessor for the motion.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Calderon? Yes. Vice President Collins?

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng?

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: President Bears?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. Paper 25-115, submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, requests for four food truck permits for Medford Square Festays at the Clippership Pop-Up Park in August. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully submit to the City Council the following request for a food truck permit in the City of Medford. In addition to City Council approval, vendors are required to adhere to Health Department food safety requirements. Business name, Bono Appetite. Date and time, August 2, 2025, 1 to 5 p.m. Location, Clippership Pop-Up, 75 Riverside Drive, Medford, MA. Event, Medford Square Fest, Brews, Bites, and Beats. About the event, family-friendly with free music, a beer tent, and food. We have for August 9th, at the same time and for the same purpose, Crop Circle Pizza. For August 16th, Bob Cheese Pierogies. And for August 23rd, Bon Appetit Again. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. We have, I think, Nick Belytheau here to talk about it. Nick, I'm going to recognize you if you want to talk about the event.

[Nick Bolitho]: Certainly, thank you. Yes, basically we just want to put on events for Saturdays in August to a bit of an experimental to put something back for the community, Medford Square's a bit it's a little bit quiet these days. And we've seen Arlington and other cities where they have very similar things. So I thought as part of Medford Brewing, what we could try and do is put together something, say we'll offer some music, some fun times, very family friendly, so people can mingle, get to know each other, hang out and have a good time.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Nick. I appreciate that. Any comments or questions by members of the council? Seeing none on the motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Yes. Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. Councilor Leming. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng.

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. 25116 submitted by Mayor Briena Lungo-Koehn, CPA appropriation request, Medford Armory Emergency Facade Restoration. Dear President Bears and City Councilors, on behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following recommendation of the Community Preservation Committee, requesting the appropriation of $37,280 from the CPA Historic Preservation Reserve to the Fonzie Condominium Trust to provide funding for emergency facade restoration repairs. The project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund. The CPC recommendation letter is attached and incorporated. Community Preservation Act Manager Teresa Dupont and representatives from the Fonzie County Minimum Trust will be in attendance to address the Council. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. I will recognize Teresa Dupont, CPA Manager.

[Theresa Dupont]: Good evening, everybody. Thank you so much for making the time. Happy to be the caboose on this evening tonight. We're here today to seek CPA appropriation for historic preservation of the Medford Armory that's right here in Medford Square. Unfortunately, members from the trust could not join me tonight, but I'm happy to answer any questions. This is a quick brief overview. They have done their due diligence as stewards of this historic building. This is a prominent building to Medford. It is our armory. Actually, interestingly, I did a little bit more research into this and it was financed by Samuel Crocker Lawrence. So our very first mayor had his fingers very much into that building here, but it was used as military facility up until it was sold and I believe in the 70s. What they're looking to do right now is they've again done their due diligence conducted conditions assessment of the building once they started noticing some failures of the exterior. And have started putting together financial packages for what that looks like. They're looking down the barrel of an $800,000 project. But what we are here before you tonight is to ask for emergency funding to fix one particular corner of the facade that is experiencing some water inundation that is exacerbating the issues, the known issues with the building exterior. So they have come to us asking for a 50% match on that funding, and the Council has, our committee has recommended that funding. So again, happy to answer any questions.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Manager Dupont. Do we have any questions from members of the Council? Seeing none, is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan, I'm going to go to Mr. Castagnetti. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.

[Andrew Castagnetti]: I just have one question. I thought the armory was under private ownership. Are we allowed to use our public money on a private building?

[Owen Wartella]: I can address that. Yes.

[Theresa Dupont]: It is privately owned. However, this building is on the National Registry of Historic Places. Sorry. It's National Registry of Historic Places, so that is a historical asset. I will say that it is very much eligible under Department of Revenue we're looking at. Guidance. Um whether or not it's necessarily a priority of the Community Preservation Committee. That is one thing we will be looking at our guidelines for future applications as it pertains to private entities. We felt the committee felt very strongly that this is an asset for the city of So we felt that this was a good partnership for the immediate move of fixing this emergency funding.

[Andrew Castagnetti]: What's the total cost?

[Theresa Dupont]: I believe the total cost for the project is somewhere around $800,000. They're intending to phase that in over the next few years so that it's not a huge financial burden to the organization.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any other comment from members of the public on this? Seeing Mr. Fiori, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.

[Gaston Fiore]: Thank you, Mr. President Gaston fear 61 stinger actually Andy basically asked my question so what is exactly what makes this private building, able to receive these funds that is what.

[Theresa Dupont]: Again, as it does have special designation as a, yes, it's a protected building under the National Registry of Historic Places. And again, the committee doesn't wanna set any sort of precedence for private ownership, but under historic preservation, under the Department of Revenue guidance, if it meets these certain parameters, which it does, we are able to fund private entities. And again, it's not something we wanna set precedence for, and we will be reevaluating our guidelines going forwards just so that we can kind of head these off.

[Gaston Fiore]: So that was my concern. So setting precedent. So how many buildings are under the same condition that then because we funded this particular project could come and say, well, we're in the same condition. And don't get me wrong. I mean, if it's an emergency, something needs to be done. But we could be setting precedent here that then some of the buildings are in the same condition. I don't know whether any. But I think it's something worthwhile to take a look. And again, if there's an emergency, I will approve this tonight, but I think it requires further consideration, given that it's taxpayers' money, right? So, and then the second part is that what are we getting in return after this? So, because it says here, after this gets solved and the emergency gets addressed, which is the priority, I want to re-emphasize that. It says the applicant will work with the Community Preservation Act manager to coordinate one to two public events annually for a 10-year period in which the project building at 92 High School will be open to the public. So if it's a private building, what does it mean that the building will be open to the public? And again, I'm not familiar with the building. So I'm just asking questions as someone that as a resident that is concerned about how our taxpayers money is being used, and knows nothing about this building. And obviously, I want to prioritize the emergency. I'm going to repeat that. But I'm worried about present. And then I'm also worried about is just giving the money and then that's it? Or is this a loan at zero interest? Is this something else? So those are my questions.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I mean, my understanding is this an appropriation, so the money would go directly to them. I don't know if you want to add some information.

[Theresa Dupont]: I just want to clarify the condition of the funding to open up the doors for public events. They will be working through me through the mayor's office on organizing, you know, the coffee and cookies visits with veterans office to open up their doors so that that is being posted there. So effectively, just kind of making the building a little bit, having more of a direct public benefit beyond just having it be an asset of the city.

[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli. One second. Go ahead.

[George Scarpelli]: I'm sorry. I know you do so much work. I know I brought this up in the past and your comment was that community preservation, the, I won't bring up what that location was, but you said it was part of the community and it was historical. So, but again, I think that Ms. Fiora brings up a good point. that as we move forward, I think that, meaning that it's an emergency, and I feel that this is, as a person who supported the Community Preservation Act and understanding that saving these locations are very important, especially in the city of Medford, which is the key, I think that legally If it starts getting into a slippery slope, I think that as we move forward, I just let you know that I'll be reaching out more in depth because I think that Mr. Fiora brings up a good point. If today is one thing, it could be another location with another home and a person can buy a historical home and say, well, I can't afford the windows, let me apply to the CPA and just assume you're gonna pay for the windows. And I know that that's not the intent. So again, I think that that's something that you've been working, you have your due diligence and you're doing your due diligence with that. And I appreciate that. share that with you. So I think the component was the community piece. So yes, thank you.

[Theresa Dupont]: And thank you for your comments. Yeah, but the community is not interested in funding private entities going forward. This was just a very unique situation with a unique building for a relatively small ask. So and again, within our eligibility here. We were very diligent on that. We actually coursed this application over the two meetings just to really discuss it and have some.

[George Scarpelli]: So it's not some thorough. It wasn't so the public knows not taken out of thin air. You didn't just make something arbitrarily. It's in the bylaws and discussion aligns with that. So thank you.

[Theresa Dupont]: And I appreciate the commentary. Truly.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We have any other questions for Councilor Tala and for Manager Dupont?

[Theresa Dupont]: Did I just get promoted? Oh, I'm a councilor.

[Zac Bears]: Well, I just got you two confused. I don't know how. On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Ronnie Dangerfield.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Callahan. You've got no respect.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. I just do what the clerk tells me.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes.

[Zac Bears]: Paper 25117 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, donation acceptance. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves under Mass General Law, Chapter 44, Section 53A, a donation in the amount of $500 donated by the Boston Proud Corp in honor of Pride Month and for pride-related activities. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor.

[Emily Lazzaro]: Motion to approve.

[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. Councilor Leming. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng.

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. On the motion of Councilor Callahan to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Collins.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. Councilor Leming. No. Councilor Scarpelli. No. Councilor Tseng. That's it. President Bears. Say it.

[Emily Lazzaro]: Happy birthday, Justin. Happy birthday, Councilor Tseng.

[Justin Tseng]: Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, for the affirmative, through the negative, the motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. I almost did it.

Zac Bears total time: 31.38 minutes total words: 2783	George Scarpelli total time: 7.76 minutes total words: 863	Justin Tseng total time: 1.8 minutes total words: 141	Emily Lazzaro total time: 1.04 minutes total words: 91
Matt Leming total time: 2.27 minutes total words: 188	Kit Collins total time: 2.37 minutes total words: 238	Anna Callahan total time: 1.76 minutes total words: 162	Roy Belson total time: 5.3 minutes total words: 191
Nick Giurleo total time: 2.83 minutes total words: 33	Melanie Tringali total time: 0.87 minutes total words: 72	Nate Merritt total time: 2.64 minutes total words: 282	Patrick Clerkin total time: 2.27 minutes total words: 191
Jenny Graham total time: 1.98 minutes total words: 127