[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council 16th regular meeting September 30 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Present. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming. Councilor Scapelli. Councilor Tseng. President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: 7 present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. The records of the meeting of August 5th were passed to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, how did you find the records? On the motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. The special records of the special meeting of August 19th, 2025 are passed to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, how did you find those records?
[Justin Tseng]: I find them in order and move approval.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion, Councilor Tseng to approve. Seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor? Councilor Callahan?
[Marie Izzo]: Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. Councilor Leming. Yes. Councilor Scapelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Pierce.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Records of the meeting of September 9th were passed to Councilor Callahan. Councilor Callahan, I do find those records.
[Anna Callahan]: I found them a bit sparse, actually, and if I may ask, I know that we are short-staffed currently in the clerk's department. The notes used to be a little bit more fuller with some information in them, but I found that they not only did they, I think the thing that really got to me was it would say five in the affirmative and two in the negative, and it never even said who voted which way. Normally, those notes and records had even said things like what statements city councilors had made for the reasons that they had voted in certain ways.
[Zac Bears]: That's usually for committee meetings, not for regular meetings for the verbatim transcript.
[Anna Callahan]: I do think that the who voted which way is part of the regular. Yeah. Just if we can add, there was at least one where it was not unanimous, and I do think that that's important information. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Do you want to table them?
[Anna Callahan]: Sure. Let's table. And if that bit of information could be added, that would be great.
[Zac Bears]: OK. On the motion to table by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Councilor Leming? Councilor Scarpelli? Council it's saying, President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative and negative. That is tabled until the next regular meeting. 25126 petition for a common pictures license T bar nails and lashes to we have T bar nails and lashes here tonight. Great. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then we'll come to you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Welcome. I know we're, before I get going, if you could just, it was an interesting read because it's such a interesting concept. So if you could just give us a little synopsis of what the business is and then I'll jump in.
[SPEAKER_06]: Oh, we are, we are, I've been doing this for so long time, over 30 years in business. And I have so many nail salons around the country. And we are now serving bubble tea drink for our customer and civilian around the neighborhood. So I want to add in that in my business. But we have separate space for my bubble tea business.
[George Scarpelli]: You get to do your nails and lashes, and you have your bubble tea. So I think that it's going to be great for that neighborhood. And I see everything in order, Mr. President. I would move forward for approval. At least my fellow councils if they have any questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli. Do we have any questions from any other members of the council? Seeing none on the motion to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Tseng, President beers.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, then the negative emotion passes. Congratulations.
[SPEAKER_06]: Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Good luck.
[SPEAKER_06]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: motions orders. You're good. You're good. motions orders and resolutions. 25127, just a reminder, 61 Locust Street, that's where you can find the T-bar and nails. Motions, orders and resolutions, 25-147 offered by Councilor Leming and President Bears. Whereas workers at Medford Rehabilitation and Nursing Center are the lowest paid workers in 1199 SEIU with the average CNA making only $17 per hour with employees with more than 35 years of experience in the facility making no more than 2289 per hour. And whereas the housekeeping and dietary department makes only 1637 per hour with no pay scale, and where bargaining has been going ongoing since June with the workers fighting for adequate pay raises. Whereas Medford rehab and nursing has listed over 64 CNAs who have been hired. and then left into under one year. And whereas a significant portion of the workers are Haitian refugees working under TPS who send what little they can back to their struggling families in Haiti, leaving even less for themselves. And whereas the workers at Medford Rehab and Nursing Center are holding a picket on Thursday, October 2nd, from two to 4 p.m. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we stand with the union workers at Medford Rehab and Nursing Center and offer our full support to their efforts to win a fair contract with strong compensation and benefits for the essential work that they do. Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you, Council President Bears. So I remember I visited Medford Rehab and Nursing a few months ago with Councilor Callahan to celebrate a woman's 104th birthday. Very, very pleasant event. There was someone playing a harp there. The woman asked me to give her my tie and I gave her my tie. and had a very nice interaction. She asked Councilor Callaghan for her jacket and well, it was a nice event. So it's a good facility, but it's also very hard work. I remember years and years ago, my mom, she went back into the working world for a little bit and she took up a job as a CNA. She worked at a nursing home and she quit after a couple of months because the conditions were so difficult and so nerve wracking to deal with. And right now we have a lot of the workers at Medford Rehab and Nursing who are in, have been going through negotiations for months to get fair compensation. A lot of these folks would have a difficult time finding work elsewhere. A lot of them are supporting families who are abroad and just trying to make a better life for themselves here. And like any union contract negotiation process. It's a struggle. It's a back and forth. And so I'm bringing this resolution just to offer my support and offer the support of this body to their struggle and hoping that some of my colleagues can join at the picket on October 2nd. So thank you very much for listening and we stand with you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Any further discussion? Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. I do wish there was more that we could do. It truly saddens me that nurses are paid so little in this country, in the state, in the city. The work that they do is absolutely essential. And, you know, I was so impressed with the workers that we met when we were there, incredibly caring despite being paid very little. So again, I wish that there was more we could do, but I certainly am in support.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan, any further discussion, Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you Councilor Leming for bringing this up. Um, as the resolution says you can look at the dollar amounts they make per hour and it's ridiculous. It's not a livable wage in Middlesex County, it's, and we you know, Not only do we want to stand up for union workers and immigrant workers, we want to make sure that people working in Medford can be close to our community, can live in the close to our community, can thrive close to our community as well. You know, I believe this, this paying rate is also lower than not not only our nurses generally underpaid in our country, this rate is lower than what is standard and appropriate in Middlesex County here. And I want to make that really clear as well. With the immigrant part, I think we've talked a lot on this council about how difficult life is nowadays for immigrants, especially those under temporary protected status. And No, this is a little, this is a lifeline for them. Their pay is a lifeline and we need to be supporting them through these very difficult moments of uncertainty as well. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Leming to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. 25-148 offered by Councilor Leming, whereas the city of Medford entered into a new waste removal contract last year, and whereas this new contract created a policy that condominium complexes over a certain size would not receive city-provided waste removal services, and whereas certain townhouse condominium complexes in Medford are more similar to homes with fewer than four units and large residential buildings. Now therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we request an update from the city administration regarding the waste removal contract, and the possibility of continuing city provided waste removal services for residential condominium properties that are laid out as townhouses. Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you. So this is in response to a resident who's recently learned that they'll have to be paying out of pocket for waste removal services. Basically, the city recently signed a contract that would sort of lop big apartment complexes and condominiums in with townhouses that are laid out much like single family homes and just basically put them all in the same category. So people who live, basically in the same neighborhood in the same layout as many of their neighbors who are in single family homes, just are learning that they'll now have to pay for their own waste removal. So this is just a resolution to get an update from the city on this issue and put some pressure on them to reconsider that waste removal contract so that it makes a little bit more sense to the day-to-day realities of these residents.
[Zac Bears]: Let me go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I communicated with the residents who expressed concern about the contract and asked to look over the contract myself, which I did. My understanding from, and other members of this body and The mayor's administration and DPW have understand the contract, much more intimately, because they worked on reviewing it and getting it signed and everything, but that the contract is a 10 year contract, and it's been signed by us already. And then I'm not sure there's anything that can be done to amend it. I'm fine with asking somebody to tell us that more explicitly, but my understanding from talking with Commissioner McIvern was that there may not be anything that we can do about that. And that it's a standard thing to just not include condos as a cost-saving measure. we did not have access to much funding and we were signing a 10-year contract and we needed to make some cuts somewhere. That's one of the places that they did it because it's a standard place to do it. I don't know that I would have necessarily agreed with that were one of the people negotiating the contract, but if we have a 10-year contract and it's been two years, I'm not sure how much we can do about it. That was my understanding, I would be happy to be corrected on any of that. But, and also I'm, I remain confused about why single family white people who live in single family homes would be granted a service that people living in smaller more densely populated homes that cost less money would not be granted that service. Because I think that would mean that probably the people in the single family homes have more money and could afford to pay for a service additionally by some kind of logic. So I'm curious to hear more information on it, which is to say, I would support a resolution that asks for more information that we can know and then we can share with the public to clear up confusion. So I appreciate Councilor Leming bringing this forward. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: President, thank you Council. I'm bringing this forward. I know that I've talked to those residents and There's some misconceptions, that's why I'm happy that we're bringing this forward. I know that I think the public has to understand there was talk that the council was the voting party that made that decision. That's not true. The mayor's office negotiates all the contracts. I believe this council gave the mayor authority to do the best she could with the contract extending, giving her the authority to go past five years. Other than that, You know, I be nice to look into it I know that we know that it's a million dollar increase and we know that budgetary wise we're struggling in that sense. And we had to make some decisions but again this is where the lack of communications to our residents and even understanding maybe. maybe looking at different variables where it's phased in from year to year. So people are prepared for that. Right now, asking residents to go from A to Z right away, especially when you're talking about people that live in five family homes aren't, you know, they're mostly the ones I've talked to are hard working, lower middle class, middle class families that when you when you all of a sudden throw a fee like this on their lap, it really, really puts them in a bad light financially. So I would love to hear it and I understand the limitations, but at the same time, these are the concerns that I have that we need to really start looking at our residents and when we do have to make tough decisions, make them part of the process so at least they understand. Because unfortunately, being an elected official, whether you're the mayor, city council, school committee, you have to look people in the eye and agree to disagree. And you have to stand strong in some of the decisions you have to make, whether they're favorable or unfavorable. So in this situation, I understand the process. I understand the financial ramifications. But at the same time, what I would really like to see is how we got there. And did we look into a phase-out project? Did we look at how other neighborhoods or other classes could assist in that mechanism of payment. So I know how difficult it is. I met with my colleagues in the city that I work in, and in that community, the DPW director is given full autonomy to negotiate the trash contract and it's a little bit more in depth and a little bit more resident friendly in the sense that everybody knows what's happening. So again, I look forward to seeing what the administration presents to us. I know that unfortunately This is, this is, these are one of the things that we have no control over so we can't say, let's not let's vote this down, it's disappears and, but it's, it is, it's out of our hands but at the same time, I think we should start. holding entities to task when it comes to preparing, especially our most vulnerable members of our community, which mostly are senior citizens and veterans and residents with disabilities, that we're preparing them for any financial shifts. Now, you know, you look at those residents, they're looking at, you know, if they own the homes and you're looking at a shift in assessment, you're looking at an override addition, now you're looking at a trash fee. That could destroy your homeowner, that could destroy renters, and that's just not fair. So, thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Anna Callahan]: Thanks for bringing this forward. I don't think those are the only residents or even the only. like set of units that are surprised by this and asking about this. I, I am unhappy that our city cannot do the basic schools roads trash that seems very basic to me and the equity of just deciding what we'll just cut out some people and those people who, again, living in smaller places or perhaps, nobody knows exactly, but perhaps lower income are the ones that now have to pay more. I'm not happy with that decision. So thank you very much for bringing this up. I think having it looked into and seeing if there are better solutions that are more equitable, I would like to see that from our administration. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I largely agree, if not almost completely agree, besides the political points with all the, you know, comments that have been made already. I think it's too easy is it to just cut some people out and call that a solution. And I think everyone behind the rail. would agree, all of our Councilors would agree that we need, at the very least, a thorough explanation of why certain choices are made, and for that to be transparent and open to the public as well. So I support this resolution. I support it because I want to help the residents, and I know Councilors Leming and Lazzaro have been communicating with them a lot as well. And I support it because we want the answers on the City Council as well. Because we, you know, we have a perspective on these issues, we talk to residents that might not get through to the administration that's doing the negotiating as well. And so we need that perspective in the room too.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. We have some residents here, I believe, who want to speak on this issue around trash removal. I have a hand on Zoom. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak? Great. If you're in the room, you can line up behind the podium. The Zoom hand was up first, so I will take Robert Carney on Zoom. Give me one second. Robert, name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yep. Robert Carney, 50 Hicks Ave, Unit 6. I'm one of the two trustees in our 23 unit townhouse complex. We've been lobbying all the city council members and candidates on this topic. So I just want to start with some prepared notes here. So 29 residents from this complex wrote a letter to the mayor expressing our concerns with this. And really what we want to be getting at here is a couple things. So like you said, our units are single family style row houses. We have our own back decks, front steps, garden areas. We were given 60 days to comply with this mandate. I just want to echo previous comments. My wife and I are new to Medford. We bought in 2024, but I've heard from longtime residents that they felt blindsided by this change. Tim McGivern said the goal was to create a system that is fair and does not selectively provide some service to condominium properties and others, but I would say there is still selective service. And I want to give an example. There's a 10-unit townhouse complex in our neighborhood with five two-unit buildings, nearly identical in architectural style to us, that is still receiving services. You can ask the realtor who listed 18 Hancock Ave and he will verify it for you. Why do they receive services you ask? It appears they are still receiving trash services based on the fact that each unit has a different street number. For example, the unit next to 18 Hancock Ave is 16 Hancock Ave. But Tim said our two-unit building, units 22 and 23, and the four-unit building, units 13 through 16, are ineligible for services because they are part of a 23-unit address, a.k.a. 50 Hicks Ave. So a question I'd like answered by the mayor and by Tim is, would we still get trash services if each of these buildings had a separate address? One building is 50 Hicks Ave, the other smaller building is 52 Hicks Ave, et cetera. Ask yourself, is this really a fair system? I also want to echo the previous points about tax bills, our unit owners pay. They're comparable and actually sometimes higher than some single family homes. 2024 property tax bills for units in our complex range from just under $5,000 to $6,300. A small home behind our complex, 260 Willis Avenue, has a property tax bill of $4,223 and will still receive services. I ask you, why should residents who pay more than their neighbor on Willis Ave receive less in services? Echoing the point about increased costs, many residents supported an override that promised enhanced DPW services. The median assessed value of a townhouse in our complex is less than a single family home. Is an override tax increase for reduced city services at Fountainhead Estates the way our city wants to thank the owners in this complex who voted yes on this override? So those are some points there. And if I still have time, I also want to mention, okay.
[Zac Bears]: Robert, your time has expired, but we'll come back to you after we've heard from the other residents for another minute, if that's okay. Thank you. All right, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Nick Giurleo]: Good evening Nick Julio 40 Robinson Road. I am in favor of this resolution and I thank Mr. Carney for bringing this issue to my attention. I think it very much being the public interest to get some sort of update on why we're seeing this unequal treatment here doesn't really seem fair to me. And I think regardless of whether or not there's a contract in place I think everyone would benefit, just at least from a little more information to kind of understand the rationale behind this so I think. Councilor Leming for bringing this very local issue to the council's attention. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[SPEAKER_12]: Laura Lafferty, 50 Hicks Avenue, Unit 18, part of the Fountainhead Estates. I have two points that I wanted to make on this in support of the resolution. Thank you for raising it on our behalf. One is that the city is not following its own policy. On the other side of the fence from Fountainhead Estates is the Willis Avenue development, which is owned and operated by the Medford Housing Authority. Those are townhouse style units. They are some that are even larger than what we have at Fountainhead Estates. And yet, from what I can see looking over the fence, they're still receiving city services. Now, it shouldn't matter who owns the property. And so in my mind, this is creating a do as we say, not as we do double standard by providing services to those residents when we, in the exact same type of structure, are not eligible for those services. Second point I'd like to make is that in all of this, it would have been nice if the precedent that was set by the Commonwealth would have been considered. Many of us in the development have taken advantage of mass saves, and I'm sure everyone's familiar with mass saves, they actually have a what's called a townhouse loophole. And so where there are structures where there is a single resident or a single group of residents, if you will, who live in a basement to roof structure, they define that as a single family home and we are eligible for single family home rebates and services through mass saves. And so it seems to me if the Commonwealth can define our type of structures as a single family home, why can't the city of Medford? Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. name and address the record, please. You have three minutes.
[SPEAKER_24]: David Plishevich, 50 Hicks Ave. I understand how this new waste management contract didn't make sense for some of these massive complexes owned by corporations and to your point, I was informed by Tim that the mayor has the ability to make exceptions to this this contract or this policy. So, potentially, that's ultimately what we're seeking is an exception from the mayor here. So, I live in a row of attached single family homes. We're not a large complex. Most of us chose the style of home because it's more affordable than a detached single family house. Yet we remain full fledged homeowners were paying the same property taxes, as others have stated, as other homeowners in Medford. responded to our emails and explained that we've been receiving waste services because quote, someone within knew the prior administration. So it was very unfair, end quote. What's truly unfair is despite paying the same tax rates, we are being penalized because we share walls with our neighbors and a shared wall is an arbitrary distinction. It's an arbitrary boundary. It shouldn't make a difference if there's a space or a wall between you and your neighbor. And again, Medford just raised the taxes to increase municipal services, and here we are, higher taxes for increased services, and we're being stripped of these services. So kind of to some of your points, targeting these smaller, less affluent areas is quite an egregious inequity. Some of my neighbors are on fixed incomes, and this is another financial burden being placed on them. We're all owner occupied, we are healthcare workers, we are veterans, we are teachers, we're all involved members of the community. And I understand our city faces budget pressures, but depriving a segment of our homeowners isn't a way to help bridge that gap. We are single family homes and we deserve to be treated as such. That's what's fair, I think. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address record you have three minutes.
[Patrick Clerkin]: Patrick clerking 14 Bennett place, step back the camera go up. So, to Councilor Lazzaro's point this doesn't, this, this doesn't quite make sense and to Councilor Scarpelli's point there were a lot of people who are part of the decision process. I just wanted to bring up so I also received an email from probably the same person that you all received the email from. And I'm in that neighborhood now. And to me, as we try to figure out as a city where higher density makes sense and where it doesn't make sense, this seems like an adverse incentive for people to increase their density or be willing to get on board with increased density. So I just want to make sure that we get the incentives in line. And I think it's really important that we figure this out early on, because it certainly, even though it seems like a relatively minor thing in the scheme of things, it largely impacts people's views on density and views on changes to the city with zoning and development and whatnot. So just wanted to say that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak on this matter? Robert, do you want to speak again? Are you going to put your hand down? Yes, please.
[SPEAKER_13]: Really, I think the other thing I want to encourage the mayor to be thinking about and the city council to is sustainability. I understand that's you know a big initiative in the city of Medford free compost services for example. That's another thing we're not eligible for. I just want to you know underscore that as a trustee I can tell you firsthand it has been very difficult To, you know, research providers and try to piece all the options together. And so I fear with this policy that we're going to see lower composting rates, you know, in the, in the multi unit buildings, so I feel like that goes against the principles. of our city government with respect to sustainability. And also too, within your master plan, you've talked about precincts 5-1 and 5-2, which 50 Hicks Ave falls within as being areas that need more attention, you know, due to the demographics of underprivileged people who are more likely to live there than some more affluent areas of the city. So again, just, you know, want to encourage the mayor to take leadership here and look into this as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, appreciate your comment. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this matter? Seeing none, do we have any further comments from the council? Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: I'd just like to thank the residents who came out to talk about this. I think that even if we Even if, as some of my colleagues are saying, we may not have the ability to change the contract, I'd still like to get some... Oh wait, I see that Tim McGivern has just raised his hand on Zoom, so.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'll go to Councilor Tseng and then Commissioner McGivern, Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: Well, I was just going to say something similar in that, in thanking the residents for speaking up and for bringing up the points that increased service, especially here, aligns closely with the goals of our city, with equity, with our equity plan, and with our sustainability plans as well. And that's something that I think is important to reiterate to city administration.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Council Member Ayuda as well.
[Matt Leming]: No, I'd like to, I mean, I would, I was going to give concluding remarks but I would like to hear what BBW director McGovern says.
[Zac Bears]: Recognize Commissioner McGovern, Commissioner McGovern.
[Tim McGivern]: Hello, thank you very much for allowing me to speak. I noticed this was on the agenda and I listened to some folks talking. I'm sorry, I'm Tim McGivern, I'm the Commissioner of Public Works. So I just want to make a point to respond to a couple of things. We did have a solid waste task force that was quite involved in putting this together, and that was the first thing. It wasn't done in a vacuum. preparing the whole contract. I believe this council was briefed on it multiple times as well, as well as someone on the council was on the task force to help create this contract. One of the things that I haven't heard come up is the condo properties in Medford that have been paying for their own service for quite a long time. Um, the, the, one of the points here was to try to, um, get everybody or all the properties on equal footing. Again, um, we have, we have properties that are condo townhouse style properties in the city that already pay for their trash service. Uh, and some like 50 X Avenue don't, they're somehow on city service. Uh, the norm out there in the world is for. condo facilities, condo properties to have their own services. The municipalities surrounding us have a cutoff as far as how many units they will service on the municipal contract. So a lot of thought was put into this, a lot of planning. And I just wanted to make sure that those two points were clear. We weren't trying to cut service for folks. We were trying to equalize service or put all condominiums on, all eligible residents on equal terms in the contract, which didn't exist prior. In the prior contract, some properties received service, others did not. So, and I could go on with examples, but I don't think we need to do that. So I just wanted to get those few points across. I'm happy to answer some questions if I'm able to as well.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you to Commissioner McGiven. I appreciate what you're saying and I know that this council, some people were on the committee that negotiated or designed the contract, but my point specifically, was that when we make changes where the where the residents that were going to be affected by these changes were they prepared because again we've heard it over and over again they were given a 60-day notice that they were going to be they were going to be dropped from from this process and then find a way to then shift their financial responsibilities to now have to collect robbers. So I think that that's one of my major points. I didn't hear that. I want to make sure you understand that as we move forward, I think what we're seeing is a lack of information gathering and then sharing to our residents when we're making these decisions because small amounts of increase in finances can really affect our most vulnerable members of the community. I don't want that to be lost in the translation for what I just heard. So I think that's very important. I understand that there's some limitations that what we have and if there's a way that we can revisit this and look at a more equitable process, you wish that could be the answer, but I don't want, I want to make sure as we move forward that we as a community, we as a leadership team, look at really sending the message so our neighbors and residents are protected and they are prepared. And I think that we're seeing it over and over again when it comes to, well, let's pass this on to the residents. We have an issue here. Let's pass this fee on to the residents. And it's hurting our residents. Again, our most vulnerable residents. So I'm not being confrontational in any way. I just want to make sure that these points are brought across so as we move forward, I know that where we are with this situation, I hope we can revisit it. Maybe after this meeting, the mayor will look at it. And if you've discussed this with residents and told them that the mayor has an option where she can give special dispensation, great. But with this situation, I wanna make sure as we move forward that we really take ownership and understanding that when we make these decisions again, that people are informed and they're there. They are protected in the process, especially when it comes to financial, uh, risks. And, um, and again, some of the calls I did receive from senior citizens that the smallest fee affects them, and we're adding a few fees month after month. So again, I appreciate it. And thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilors Caraviello, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming, Mr. McIvern, your hand is still up as well.
[Tim McGivern]: No, I can, I can lower it. I think, I believe I've said what I need to say. And Neil, I guess just in response to Councilor Scarpelli, the letters that went out did give 60 days, but I've been very direct and have reached out to everybody who received the letters at this point, I believe, or at least all the properties. I have the ability to grant extensions to that 60 days, which I have in multiple occasions, including 50 Hicks Avenue. So I'm more than happy to work with folks to also help arrange service. There have been scenarios where I have helped arrange service. So we're trying our best not to leave people in the lurch and to provide a transitional period as well as grace periods, because we are aware it is a change. So I'm more than willing to help out. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'm gonna go to Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming, then Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I have so much respect for the people that are doing work across the city that I may not even be aware of. I know about the Solid Waste Task Force and the work that went into getting ready to do a new contract for trash collection. And I think a lot of good was done there. I think that the breakdown in my understanding of this is that there is No, there seems to be nothing in the contract that differentiates between an apartment building that may be managed by a large corporation and a six unit building with individual owners or small landlords where the tenants or individuals have to drive their recycling to James Street and have it compacted like every time they fill up a paper bag or pay for their own garbage. We are all paying for garbage pickup actually, which is not, I mean, it's a technicality, but when Commissioner McIvern said you have to pay for your garbage, like we are all paying for our garbage and all of our residents are paying for our garbage to be picked up and taken to Saugus. That's what's happening now. It's just that some of our residents are also paying for their own garbage individually. So I think that the logic is breaking down in that we might be asking some people to, pay more, which I did not, again, I didn't negotiate this contract. It just doesn't make sense to me that somebody that may have less money is paying more for the same service or paying twice. We can't renegotiate a contract that was made for 10 years. And we cannot necessarily give special deals to certain PB, Lisa Smith-Miyazaki, she-her, hers. going forward when we're negotiating things like this. We again, city council does not negotiate anything. We just hear from our residents about what things are working or not working, but the mayor's office negotiates contracts and we should not be prioritizing people living in single family homes for more services because they're in single family homes. That doesn't make sense to me. as a person living in a single family home. I don't deserve more than somebody else who's living in a condo or an apartment in the city. People should have the services that everybody has equally. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, I'll go to Council I mean then Councilor Collins and Councilor Callahan Councilor let me.
[Matt Leming]: Yep. So I just have a point that I want to make and then I have some specific questions for for Tim. So, this, a lot of this actually relates back to goes goes back to proposition 2.5 and I'm pretty in some pretty weird ways so like. Proposition 2.5 you know we had the first ever override for that this this past November, which went towards the school system as well as the, as well as the DPW but basically it means that the amount. Barring new growth, the amount of money you're allowed to take in from property taxes can only go up 2.5% every year, unless either you have new growth or you have an override, which the residents vote on. Now, inflation is usually about 3.1%. So that means that over time, the value of the budget gets smaller and smaller. It and it compounds it compounds exponentially. And so when the budget gets smaller and smaller, that means you have weird situations like this where it doesn't actually end up saving residents money. It just ends up distributing. It just ends up redistributing these fees in in in different ways. In this case, the point that Councilor Lazzaro was making was that everybody is paying for everybody's trash. But the folks in condos and townhouses are also paying for their own trash on top of them. So this is a systemic issue like so many things that we experience in City Hall. And I don't want anybody to make any mistake that this is systemic. I don't think that there's like one party that you can blame. It's the current system that we have in Massachusetts that's causing these unequal offsets on to on to certain residents and that is that is unfortunate. But the questions that I had for DBW Commissioner McGivern were first, if you'd be so kind to answer them. Just to clarify because one resident brought that up is, is there a legal means in a contract from to distinguish between a townhouse, like the residents were talking about and a condo I just want to, I just want that to be very clear. And was, was that a, was that an option. when the contract is being negotiated and what and the second question if you have this number off the top of your head is what approximately is the ratio between townhouse like the number of townhouses in Medford and the number of condos and I don't I don't expect you to have that number off the top of your head but if you did it would be it would be helpful for the for the conversation so if if Tim is still on.
[Tim McGivern]: Yep, I'm here. So the 1st question, I'm sure there is a way to do it. You know, contract is just an agreement the way this current eligibility is written is, I believe I don't have in front of me, but it's something like condo facility or condo property. And. Sure, I suppose the type of building is distinguishes townhouse style condominium property. to a high-rise building, condominium building property. Those are two different types of buildings, but they're both condominium properties with a master deed and individual deeds for each condominium. So I believe the legal arrangement are the same between the townhouse condominium property one building high-rise property. So I guess that's the answer to that question. When we were discussing it, we were discussing them as condominium properties. We have different types of condominium properties in Medford. We have a townhouse style, like 50 Hicks Avenue and Amaranth Place is another one that the people are familiar with. Uh, and then you have condominium buildings that are, you know, many stories high. And then you have condominium buildings that are four or five or six units. Um, some that are two units. So there's a wide variety of condominium, um, condominiums in Medford. And, uh, what was your, what was your second question again? I'm sorry.
[Matt Leming]: Um, what approximately is the ratio between, um, town townhouses and uh, condos in Medford. And I don't, I don't expect you to have those numbers off the top of their head, your head, but like how many, about how many of our, uh, 26,000 plus units are townhouses like the ones that residents are describing and about how many of them are condos.
[Tim McGivern]: I don't know. Um, I don't know the answer off the top of my head and I'm not even sure I have the answer in my office. Um, We did try to look at the assessor's data to see if there was an easy way to distinguish between the different styles of condominiums, but there really isn't. It's just a condominium property with the different units listed and the square footages, not whether or not it's a, what type of building it is. The information I'm sure does exist. We just don't have it or I don't have it. It could probably be determined maybe through the building department information on whether or not a condominium property is one type of a building or a different type of a building. So I know we have lots of condominiums in the city though. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate Councilor Leming for bringing this up today. And I also want to thank the residents for communicating their concerns to us. And thank you to Commissioner McGivern for being on the line to talk about this with us this evening. I just want to say at the outset, you know, if I were in the position of these residents who are having their long standing waste removal service revoked. I feel your pain. If I was used to getting service for no additional cost and now there's an additional cost I'd be extremely frustrated. So I feel for you and I'm glad that we're having this conversation. At the same time, I was also the Councilor that served on the solid waste task force that Commissioner McGibbon referenced, where we were talking about the principles that we wanted to go into this new contract. As we prepared for a contract that would hopefully last us a long time and be as efficient as economical as possible. It's in this environment where there's ever fiercer competition for limited city resources and trash specifically is getting really, really expensive year over year, which I know we we've seen in every operating budget for the past several years. As I remember from our conversations on the Solid Waste Task Force and when the output of the Solid Waste Task Force was brought to this council, if I'm remembering correctly, and the task force was two long years ago, but I'm sure that Commissioner McEvern can correct me, if I'm mischaracterizing anything, there are some logistical reasons that multi-unit buildings like condos, it doesn't make as much sense for them to be in the same trash system as the rest of the city. For example, sometimes, Properties that are set up like this don't use barrels at all. They use dumpsters. It's a separate system. But I think we all agree here that we need parity in who's getting what. And we don't want some condo dwellers getting service and others getting not. It seems to me that the operative issue here is the communication and that sense of a lack of fairness. some residents observing that they're having their service revoked while they're looking across the street and saying there's a unit that seems really similar to mine that gets to keep its service and it's really not clear what that algorithm is that's making the distinction. So you know I really appreciate Commissioner McGibbon's perspective on this and I think that you know this is a unglamorous issue with a lot of growing pains but we all want to get to a place where as a city we can afford our extremely expensive waste contract and as individual households everybody is getting what they need and not paying through the nose and I think a really important place to start is getting some better communication from the administration to this council with clearer broken down information on why Some units are seeing their service revoked, while others that seem really similar are not. And if there are cases of unfairness where this, I think, a policy that was conceived with the best of intentions is hitting some snags, then I think we should move that conversation forward and see how can we make some targeted tweaks so that people who deserve equal levels of service are not inadvertently getting left out. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: Thanks. I know that this contract is already signed in the next few years. I always like to look at what other cities have done and what creative solutions they have come up with. And I hope the administration can think in that way as we look toward future contracts. I'm just going to mention some that I literally looked up right now that we, you know, perhaps could have been more equitable. There are ways to determine between corporate-owned multifamily and owner-occupied smaller condos and townhouses. There are also ways to serve these multifamily units that are cheaper, having curbside service allowing them to pay for city curbside service instead of then having to use a private hauler that makes it cheaper for them. Another idea is using shared roll carts or dumpsters for these multi-unit dwellings. They are provided by the city but they're shared and so it makes it a lot cheaper for the city to be able to provide that service. And then there are pay as you throw programs, which means you get a certain amount of trash volume either in bags or in bins. And above that amount, that's when you have to pay. And that can be applied either to only the multi-unit dwellings, or it can be applied across the city. So there are a number of ways that I think as our trash services grow in cost, that we might be able to limit those costs. while also being equitable across the city and making sure that we're serving all residents equally. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I do see one person who'd like to speak, who hasn't spoken yet. And Robert, I do see your hand on Zoom, but every resident has three minutes and then one minute of follow-up. So you've already spoken on this issue. You can speak again during the public participation section of the meeting for another three minutes. And I do see a hand for someone who hasn't spoken yet. So we'll start at the podium, then we'll go to Zoom, then we'll come back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. One second, yes, Joan. You'll have three minutes.
[Gaston Fiore]: Thank you very much, President Villareal. I think this is a very unfortunate situation. I just wanted to clarify something related to the misinformation that I keep hearing since last year repeatedly about the Proposition 2.5 on inflation. So as I said, it is a complete misinformation that Proposition 2.5 implies that cities cannot increase revenue fast enough to account for inflation. So proceeding two and a half excludes from the limitation tax level increases new growth and I have the data from last year since I already talked I don't have the updated data but I'm going to mention it in fiscal year 25 the amount of property taxes collected for new growth was estimated to be 2.5 million dollars Together with the statutory 2.5% increase, the total fiscal year appropriate tax revenue increase is approximately, or was, 4.3%. The August PCE, which was the Fed's preferred measure of inflation, was 2.2% annual change in last August. So as a result, the city is increasing or was increasing property tax revenue by more than 2% above inflation. It is a complete myth that cities cannot keep up with the rate of inflation. And Councilor Leming mentioned that the average rate of inflation was about 3.1%. That is also misinformation. The average annual rate of inflation in the United States, for example, between the year 2000 and 2019 was 2.1%. I believe 3.1% might have been the latest monthly for this August. But as you can tell, for example, between 2000 and 2019, it was 2.1%. So without even considering any new growth for 20 years, just by increasing the statutory 2.5%, we would have beaten inflation. So I don't know why it keeps being mentioned that we cannot raise revenue faster than inflation. That is not true at all. We just need to grow and that should be a priority. And even in some years that we don't grow, it's not necessarily true that we will be below inflation. Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Zoom. Emily Schwartz, name and address for the record of three minutes.
[SPEAKER_01]: Hi, Emily Carney, 50 Hicks Ave. I want to respond to the point made by Tim that this contract made Medford more fair, which I see how that was the goal. I agree that it was a problem if services were distributed unfairly. What I disagree with is that this contract landed on a more fair solution. I actually think it made inequalities worse rather than better by drawing a arbitrary line to decide who receives services. So I just ask how is a five-family house any less deserving than a four-family house? Thank you Councilor Callahan for mentioning some examples of potential solutions modeled by other towns. I want to mention a few that I know of. Neighboring towns that do not service condominiums such as Everett Malden Somerville in Boston all offer residential tax owner occupied exemptions that are structured in a progressive manner where those with lower property tax bill receive a higher percentage discount on their taxes. And so I would just say that it is an oversimplification to say that Medford is simply doing what most other towns are already doing. And then, lastly, regardless of your opinion about how condominiums should or should not be serviced. I just want to reiterate an earlier point by Laura Lafferty that. Townhouse style homes are defined by some as single family homes. So regardless of how you feel, we at 50 Hicks Ave are not able to put a dumpster on our property like a large condo building is, and in many ways don't resemble a condo building like some of the larger ones. We should not be treated as one, nor should any other townhouse style residences in the city. 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.
[Nate Merritt]: State Mayor 373 Riverside Ave. I do want to thank Robert Carney for reaching out to me as well about this, you know, brought some awareness and obviously he's done that for the rest of you so thank you to him. So a couple of questions through the chair, cause I'm confused in this. Do we have any idea of the magnitude of the cost quote unquote savings by the change? If you look at 50 Hicks Ave, I'm spitballing here, but it's probably on the order of $40 a month, which is, you know, just up just shy of $500 a year per building. So when you net that up 50 Hicks Ave comes out to roughly, you know, $11,000, give or take. What is the magnitude of this change I think that's an important question in terms of dollars, where all the time energy pain. If you're saving only 20 grand is it worth the 20 grand to pick this fight. Right. So I think that's something that hopefully you guys can get answered. as well as I keep hearing single family home versus condominium. So would this policy apply to a two family, would a two family condominiumized home? So it's only a single structure and that happens a lot, right? Where someone buys it up and they sell each unit as a separate condo for a million bucks a piece. Will they now not have city trash services as a result of this?
[Zac Bears]: Excuse me? I think it's any building over four units.
[Nate Merritt]: Okay, so, but that's technically not a single family home so when the comparison is well single family home can have this versus a condo. I think maybe condo is the wrong metric, comparing to single family, it really has to do with, I think the way it was worded was the number of units holding the same address, whether that's right or wrong. just when you're asking for your data, I don't think just finding the total number of condominiums is the right metric to go for either, because if you include all the two or three family homes that are condominiumized that still have individual trash services and pay property tax, right, and get those services, it's gonna screw up your math. So maybe I suggest being a little clearer when you're asking the mayor and Director McGibbon for the data that you're seeking.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead, name and address record, please. You have three minutes.
[Micah Kesselman]: Yeah, 4-9, Micah Kesselman, 499 Main Street. I just wanted to point out one thing here because it was mentioned a few times. This contract may have been settled and signed and executed, but you can amend contracts. You can negotiate an amendment to the contract. It's not like this is set in stone and everyone's screwed for the next 10 years. It is the mayor's office and you have to have a competent mayor and staff to do it, but yeah, they can negotiate an amendment to fix this. Just keep that in mind. I just want to make sure that that was clear. said a few times that this is kind of dead in the water because it's signed.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callaghan to approve and request the update from the administration. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callaghan. Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming. Council Scott belly. Council saying President beers.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven affirmative no negative the motion passes to 5149 offered by President Bears resolution to establish recruitment hiring process to the city clerk. Whereas City Clerk Curtabese has informed the City Council that he will resign his position as City Clerk effective December 31st, 2025. And whereas the City Council thanks Clerk Curtabese for his years of dedicated service to the residents of the City of Medford and to the City Council. And whereas the City Council President has worked with the City Solicitor and Director of Human Resources to outline a recruitment and hiring process for the appointment of a City Clerk for the City of Medford. Now therefore be it resolved by the City, Medford City Council that we adopt the following process for recruitment and hiring of a City Clerk. Step one, human resources requisition form. A job description will be created for review and approval of the city council. We have a job description attached tonight and a vote on it. If we vote on this thing, on this item. Step two, advertisement of position. The position will be posted for at least two weeks. interview process. City Council President and Director of HR will review all applications, finalize a list of candidates to interview who meet minimum requirements. Interviews will be scheduled. Initial interviews will be conducted by the Chief of Staff, Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Elections Manager, and a City Council designee. Candidates will be asked the same standard questions. There will be a second interview, which would also include a city council designate the building commissioner and the city solicitor along with the director of HR. Once that process is complete, there would be rankings. The top ranking three candidates will be notified of their selection. And after a reference check, their names would be made public and submitted to the city council for action. So once the city council, once the final candidates are selected, HR will schedule final interviews. The city council, before the city council, and then the city council would appoint one of those candidates by a majority vote. So that is the process that has been outlined. There are two city council designees for the two sets of interviews. And I am wondering what folks think on the council if they want to designate folks here, if they want me to designate them after we approve this resolution. But other than that, I think the documents in our agenda are relatively self-explanatory. And with that, I will recognize Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I can appreciate most of this, but I really think that as the only position that this council is responsible for overseeing and hiring, I think it's important that there should be, I think, a first phase where that all the Councilors are involved in reviewing what resumes and applications that are sent to HR. And then I would respectfully move to have a representative speak in our stead. But I think that it's important that as we go through the first step, I think it's important that all of us that are responsible for this position that we all see the applicants and then we can all share input and what we think. I think that it In all due respect to my fellow Councilors, I think it's important that at least for the first round, I think we should all be together and reviewing the applicants and then moving forward to the next phase, I can understand. And I would respect that the designee would then move the process along with the HR and the city representative. But to full disclosure, this position, in the ordinance is the employee of this council. And I think it's important that we look, we have eyes in all of the first applicants because it might be candidates that when we look at, it's going to be very different than what the HR director sees or what the chief of staff sees and says, this is a better candidate. So I think it'd be important that if we can amend this, Mr. President, that we set up a phase prior to, uh, any, even just the first phase that reviewing all applicants that the council meets to go through that process together. I would make that in the form of a motion before moving on with this. I feel strongly enough that I wouldn't support this unless we have, as a council, the person that's going to be working for us that we see all the candidates. And I would appreciate that respect. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'll recognize Councilor Lazzaro, and then I recognize the HR Director, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I have a couple of notes from the job description that I was reading over. There are a couple of typos. Should I mention that here or should I email that to the HR director?
[Zac Bears]: Are they substantive or just?
[Emily Lazzaro]: They're typos.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, yeah, I think you can just email that along.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Okay. I do think that Councilor Scarpelli's point is valid. I think that it would be valuable for all of us to review the candidates. I don't think that the, since the city clerk is the only employee of the council, I just think it would be valuable, but I know we run into open meeting law issues, so. I'll email the edits, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, you can email this to Lisa Crowley on the job description. Yeah, I'll recognize Councilor Callahan in just a second, but to Councilor Lazzaro and Councilor Scarpelli's point, the question was like confidentiality in some way. If we are meeting, and I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for a motion to amend this, but the initial thinking talking to HR and the city solicitor was that if somebody has to have their name made public to apply for the position that would reduce the pool of people who may be willing to apply for the position. That was the initial thought. Just saying where we're coming from. I'll recognize Councilor Callahan and then Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. I had a couple of points that I was hoping to add to the job description in essential functions. appropriate to bring up here? Yeah. Right. Um and these are basically ones where I I feel uh I just wanna make sure that these are things that are happening in the clerk's office and I I think having them written on the job description is probably good. Um the first is to and I did send this in an email to the clerk and President Bears just now to track and coordinate follow-up actions arising from city council and committee meetings. communicating directives and information requests to relevant city departments, ensuring timely responses, and maintaining records of progress and completion. That's one. Should I pause? Okay. The second one is providing timely and accurate post-meeting deliverables to city councilors, including updates on motions, ordinances, and directives in process, ensuring council members are informed of progress and next steps. Now, maybe those are, you know, a little similar to each other, but I just want to make sure that the follow-up actions are being taken to speak to city staff. That's the first half. The second part is to communicate with councilors about the updates that they that they have coming back to them.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I can come back to you or I can go to Lisa Crowley and solicitor Foley.
[George Scarpelli]: That again, in our rules, I think that the the order of business and the employee that falls under this body to say that there's confidentiality issues that wouldn't pertain to us because we would be the hiring body. This person is working directly with us. It would be simply as we've done in the past when we hired Our city clerk her to bees after city clerk been retired. We would retire to executive session and discuss any confidential information that we keep between ourselves. as we have in the past with very private information that we know that goes on in that room. So I don't think that there is a reasonable answer that I'll hear from the solicitor or from the HR director that will change my mind, Mr. President. I think it's important that this body, this is our responsibility, this person is working for us, and we should be directly involved at least in the first step of viewing The first of the round of applicants that come our way with all of the requirements that are vetted through the HR department that we sit in we negotiate that with them, and then move forward with the hiring process to say that this confidentiality issues, and that this that I don't buy that for the fact that we've sat in that room with the city solicitor, with the law department, with the HR director on some pretty important information that has to stay in that room. So that would eliminate any concerns or issues with open meeting law violations and any confidential concerns. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: I do want to be clear like I did advocate that all the Councilors would be able to review the initial applications. And this is what the solicitor and HR director said so just wanted to state that I'm going to recognize the HR director and the city solicitor. I'll go to the HR director first. There's a couple of items. It looks like there's some amendments that Councilor Callahan would like to make to the job description. A couple of typos that Councilor Lazzaro would like to correct. And then the main question from Councilor Scarpelli, which is how can we amend the process so that councilors can review the initial applications and then move them into the interview process? So go ahead, Lisa.
[Lisa Crowley]: Okay, thank you. Through you, Mr. President to the council. Yeah, we wouldn't have any problem with the Councilors getting copies of all the resumes of those applicants who meet the minimum qualifications. Typically, what my office does will file through all the applications. Some people just apply and they don't actually meet those minimum requirements. So those would not come across to the council unless they wanted to see all of them. But we wouldn't have a problem. Again, it is your appointee if the council is wanting to get copies of all the resumes in a packet before we start the actual process that's been put in front of you tonight. And we'll check on those spelling errors if you send them to me tonight.
[Emily Lazzaro]: I would be happy to receive packets for sure, but I also I wonder if we could do separate meetings with without being in a quorum of Councilors to meet the candidates once they move to maybe move to a certain level or something. I'm just trying to think about a way to not have to make the candidates be publicly interviewed. I mean, obviously, that's not what we would want to do.
[Zac Bears]: The final three would be so that right.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Yeah, right. And they would, I'm sure they would have to agree to that anyway, because this is a very public position. But I mean, prior to that we wouldn't want to lose the opportunity to review somebody that might be eliminated when it could be somebody that would be a good match.
[George Scarpelli]: we can we can do the review of the applications we can review the applications first and then we can go to executive session where it is confidential that we can discuss as a council and what we who we feel that uh candidates that we can then recommend or move forward as our right as as Councilors for this appoints appointee so um I I appreciate that we can view those applications but I think that's important that after we do those applications that we do call for a committee of the whole that then. moves to executive session that we can have a discussion on candidates where it's private. We're not sharing any information that's to the public, but then we can talk as a council. This is our team and this is our responsibility. I think it's important that we share our thoughts on candidates. So I'm going to stick with my motion, Mr. President, if we After viewing the applications that we call for a, a, a commuter the whole that that moves to executive session, and then we could then leave it up to your. your leadership, Mr. President, to then share those recommendations to the HR director and then move forward with that designee as we go on to the interview process. I feel that's a reasonable request. I don't think that that's something that will put anybody's personal agenda public, but I think it would make me feel confident in the person that's hopefully that in November, I'm elected again that I can work with and understand that my colleagues all were part of that process. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Councilor Collins and Councilor Callahan just to clarify Councilor Scarpelli, what you're saying is you'd like for the Councilors to receive all the applications. And then once that has closed to meet an executive session to decide who should move to the interview process.
[George Scarpelli]: Like out of eight, let's say that's a process through us that then we have the system in place where we have a designee. I hope that makes sense, Mr. President. I think you summed it up pretty succinctly, but I don't want to have anything lost in translation. So thank you. All right.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Vice President Collins and then Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, I just briefly wanted to state that I think I agree with Councilors Scarpelli and President Bears on this. I think it would probably leave all councilors with a greater feeling of involvement and peace of mind as we advance potential applicants for this role in the process if we've had a chance to not only review resumes at the beginning but meet once confidentially to discuss them. I know that solicitor Foley is on the line and if there's something I'm missing here for why it wouldn't be possible for us to have that conversation in an executive session confidentially without the names of resumes being published, you know, in much the same way that we have executive sessions on other matters concerning personnel or specific names that are never an agenda and always confidential. I'd like to hear that explanation because right now I think that I would also, it would be nice to begin this process just as a council and be able to discuss our first steps before proceeding. Thank you.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. I would like to ask about the feasibility of having the all of the interviews recorded and having the recordings available to city Councilors to review.
[Zac Bears]: back to the HR director and then also the solicitor if you'd like to chime in. It sounds like the request is that the council review all of the applications and then meet in executive session and decide who to move to the interview stage. And then also there's a request that the interviews be recorded so Councilors could view them. Lisa, Kevin, what are the thoughts there?
[Lisa Crowley]: So, again, through you, Mr. President, like I said before, that would be fine. We could always send those packets out to the council before your meeting. And then if you went into executive session, a lot of these people apply and that's why we talked about confidentiality. And their current employees don't realize that they've applied to a position. So that's why I would like to keep those names obviously confidential. As far as recordings, we typically don't record interviews other than our police force. So it's not something we have the capability of in my office. Typically, we don't record. interviews, but if it's something the council is looking to do, we'd have to maybe defer to Kevin to see if there's anything that he can see that would allow us not to record. But we wouldn't have the technology, so we'd have to figure that out through the IT department.
[Zac Bears]: Solicitor Foley, could you comment on the executive session for review of the initial applications and then also the issue of recording interviews?
[Kevin Foley]: Thank you, Mr. President. First and foremost, I want to say to some of the remarks I've heard already that, you know, the objective here really is, um, to find the most qualified individual, um, to fill the position as the city clerk, um, to serve the city council and the city of Medford. And so I think what we've kind of put forward for your reaction is kind of a hybrid of the standard hiring and recruiting process that we use. in city hall now for department heads with some modification, of course, having, uh, the city council president, uh, heavily involved with the, with all aspects of it. And we thought that probably made sense in terms of streamlining the process, trying to move forward on this in a, in a faster manner. Um, with some of the considerations being given to. trying to recruit the highest qualified candidates to serve in the position. Having been involved with this in a prior life as an elected official in my community, I know what happens with some of these recruitment processes when the candidates' names become revealed publicly too soon in the process. Sometimes it creates an effect of people withdrawing from the position. And I don't think that's what you want to see happen. Uh, the most qualified candidates, uh, apply, um, be vetted. Um, and, you know, of course with the city council president, I think that all of you probably trust the judgment of the city council president. Um, although I'm hearing some remarks tonight that makes me wonder how much your trust to city council president, but I think that certainly it's your process. You have to decide what I would want to see from the council is. some sort of a modification in writing. I react a lot better to writing and seeing how this is all going to work. Um, having you look at all the initial applications, I don't see a problem with that. I don't know the answer offhand to the question of, um, going into executive session to discuss all the applicants to the position on whether that will be a proper use or a legal use or a qualified use. I'd have to look into that. I had my cheat sheet with me on that, but I don't have it with me right now, uh, for executive session. So I need to look at that and the idea of. um, um, you know, uh, recording each of the candidates in all of their interviews, um, may create more problems than what it's worth. I think that relying on the people that serve in those on those subcommittees to do those interviews to pull forward the most qualified candidates with a member of the city council there and present and giving remarks to them may be the best way. Interviewing them all and recording them all, I want to tell you, creates a public records issue that all of those recordings now because we have them subject to disclosure under the public records law. And so although we'll ask standard questions, there may be candidates that don't want their interviews to become public record. And I would have to disclose them as the public records officer. So you may have candidates that would be the dream candidate for the council to choose as the next city clerk for the city of Medford, who says, well, now you're requiring me that my oral interview be recorded and be available through the public records law. No thanks. Thank you anyway. So there's my remarks right off the top of my head. I'll have to look into that executive session piece of it. But I would ask Mr. President, through you, if I could have something. I think I have the idea of The council wants to see all the applications. Um, and I think that could be accomplished as Lisa pointed out, but in terms of, um, then going into executive session for the purpose of reviewing those applications with the full council, I've got to check and see if that's a proper use of the executive session. And then you heard my, my most recent remarks about recording all of them. And that might. Might as a practical matter, create a barrier. to finding the most qualified candidate for the job.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Solicitor. Councilor Scarapelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate Solicitor Foley. I respect his opinion, but as one councilor that has already gone through this process, we did go to executive session. We did vet the applicants together and going through the process as the hiring authority, the hiring agent for this position so I would then table table the motion until the city solicitor comes back with his his his legal findings and then we can move forward Mr. President but I wouldn't feel comfortable moving forward with this until again this council I and to to insinuate that that don't trust the city council president. That's not true at all, Mr. President. I fully trust the designee to move the process along as we move forward, but I think it's important that this council puts their eyes on the candidates that are qualified so we can then give our input to move that forward and then fast track the process with our designee. So I don't, anytime I felt that I didn't trust the leadership in this hiring process, but I do trust the fact that this hire is this committee, this council's prerogative. It's not that office, it's this office. So I think it's important that we're part of the vetting process, Mr. President. And again, I would wait for a final ruling so then we can, once it's moved forward, that we can go through the executive session to discuss the candidates that we have already vetted in our own process. through the human resource directors process, then we can then move forward. So that would be my recommendation, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Callahan and then Councilor Tseng.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. Yes, I just want to comment that I really appreciate the solicitor's advice around the recorded meetings. I think that makes absolute sense. That's why I asked it as a question. I did not make it as a motion. So I agree that that is not a great idea. I do think that an executive session, I'm in favor of us having an executive session to discuss. I also just want to reiterate what Councilor Scarpelli said, which is that it's fine to try to mirror the administration hires for department heads, but the administration hires those department heads. The city council hires the city clerk. So I do think that's important. And also, I hope that we do not hear future suggestions of lack of trust when we are in good faith making an effort to do the work that is our work. It is our job to hire this person, this staffer, not the administration's we appreciate all the help that we have from the administration, but it is definitely not bad intent or any lack of trust for us to be interested in doing that work. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: I think Councilor Callahan's remarks underscores my point, which is that if you look through the job description if you look at what the city clerk does and who the city clerk is responsible to it's us, it's the council it's a lot of work that isn't your normal kind of what you'd expect for a normal department head so I would personally favor a executive session, but I also want to make sure that we are not jeopardizing having a city clerk in time. And so my question would be to you, President Bears, and to our Director Crowley, would tabling this mess up the timeline for hiring a city clerk?
[Zac Bears]: I mean, from my perspective, we table it until next week, we get an answer on the executive session, I don't think it's a huge delay. We can also authorize the posting of the position as amended, and then come back next week and make a decision after we know about the executive session piece. I also think, hey, I'm just saying I don't, I don't mind not having to do it all. So, you know, that's, that's a piece of, there's a lot of behind the scenes work of being the president of the city council and this adding on to that. I certainly don't mind having the burden shared with my colleagues. And, you know, if we find that the executive session piece of things is an issue, I think we can also maybe come up with an alternative approach. And I'm just directing this to Councilor Scarpelli of perhaps, you know, if the executive session is an issue that all our resumes would go out to everybody and anyone that any councilor wanted to see interviewed, I would make a recommendation that they be interviewed. That could be an alternative. I personally would prefer that we sit down and, you know, I want to list, the body seems to be very clear that they'd like to have a meeting to say here we've looked at the people, here's what we want to put forward. If that is a legal issue, that would be my proposed alternative. So just want to say that I'm hearing what you're saying. And I feel, I feel fine about the approach. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Motion that we have our HR director move forward as you recommended Council President. And then we revisit the executive session portion next week. and then come to a conclusion whether we move to step one or the alternative.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Okay. So I think it's a B paper that we authorize the HR director to post the job description with the amendments from Councilor Callahan and Councilor Lazzaro. Just writing it down. Giving Rich time to write it down too. So authorizing the posting of the job description as amended by Councilor Callahan and Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Lazzaro, if you could forward, you can make an email maybe with me, Lisa Crowley and Anna and send your typos and you can send your amendments and then Then Lisa can send back an edited document, and we can all make sure. Yeah, I'm saying let's do it this way instead. Let's just go through Lisa directly, if that's OK, whoever wants to do it. You already sent it to Lisa and me. All right, then Anna, you send it to Lisa. You send it to Lisa and me, and then Lisa, you can take them and send us back an updated version. That's fine. I don't, you know, I'm not reading my emails during this meeting. All right. So that's the B paper. I want to recognize Kevin and Lisa one more time. Does that sound, I'll go to Kevin and then Lisa. Kevin, does that sound good? Do you think you can by next week, let us know about the executive session purpose?
[Kevin Foley]: I'd be glad to check in that. I just want to confirm with you, Mr. President. What is the purpose then of the executive session that I'm checking on? Is it to review all applications for city council, city clerk?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Kevin Foley]: Okay. Let me check on that. I don't know that offhand and I don't want to give an answer that's incorrect.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Lisa, on the job description posting, does this sound if with the amendments from Councilor Callahan and Lazzaro, go ahead and post the description, and then we'll make a decision next week on that last piece of the process?
[Lisa Crowley]: Yes, absolutely. We can do that.
[Zac Bears]: Not a problem. Thank you very much. And also just one thing I wanted to state beforehand. Anna, you know, especially you or George, In terms of the designee for the interview stage, I wasn't thinking that would necessarily be me. So if you feel like you want to be present instead of the ability to record, I think we should just, you know, if anyone wants to be part of those interviews, let me know. If more people want to be part of it than one in each interview phase, then we'll figure it out.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All right. So we'll do the B paper and then we'll table the main paper for one week. All right. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Oh, you're good with that. I'm good with that. All right. All right. On the, on the B paper first, which is to authorize the HR director to post a job description with the amendments from Councilors are on Councilor Callahan, please call the role.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Leming, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm affirmative, none the negative. And that was to note Councilor Scarpelli and seconded by Councilor Tseng. And then on the motion of the table for one week by Councilor Scarpelli, the main paper seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Peers?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. Okay. Thank you. There's a quick executive session. Do we want to take that?
[George Scarpelli]: Yeah, no, if I could suspend the rules. If we can have public participation Mr. President, before we go to executive session, I know we have residents that have to be in bed at a certain time, and I think that if we can do that, and I believe, if we can hear the final resolution, I believe, I'm sorry, I don't... The proposed amendment?
[Zac Bears]: Solicitor Foley is here, but...
[George Scarpelli]: I think it's 24-069 and public participation, if we can.
[Zac Bears]: 25151 Salem Street.
[George Scarpelli]: 25151, I'm sorry, 25151.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, let's do public participation. Yeah. And then that, okay. Okay, thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scott Felder to take public participation in paper 25151, suspend the rolls to take them, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan? Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Pierce?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm affirmative. None negative. The motion passes with public participation. The first is we did receive a petition from Sharon Diesso on August 25th. I'm going to take Sharon and then we'll take you for public participation. We've taken votes on them, but we'll take you during public participation. Sharon, do you want to describe your public comment or do you want me to read your petition? Okay. Yes, we can hear you.
[Sharon Deyeso]: Three minutes, Sharon, India so circuit road and Mass Ave in Medford. As you know, we don't have a real public circulation, other than email and maybe Billy Charles older paper that is now online also he is reviewing that and hopefully In the winter will be able to come up with something a little bit more public and left off in popular places. During the last few months, people have approached me we do discuss things we don't criticize all the time we try to move forward and give suggestions. First and foremost, I'd like to remind everyone that when you take an oath, any public official or anyone even in a CEO position, your first and foremost duty is safety of the public. So, I would say without a lot of adieu, that a lot of phone calls and a lot of emails to you were about the condition of the roads in Medford. We're wondering if anyone would take it upon this fine counsel one person who may put it on the agenda for soon future, but people could come and listen to an update on conditions, and the foreseeable repairs and funds forthcoming to help us with these roads that might include some sidewalks I myself had a very bad tumble about six years ago. broke my two fronties and my knee was in a brace. So, included in that may be a visit with the tree warden. I'm if someone would want to include her on that position because it is safety. We have many tree limbs that just come down the dead. Before you accept more grants on new saplings, we would like, which are half dead, most of them place dead road Governors Avenue. We'd like to know who's paying for the saplings and why they aren't maintained. If you can't maintain a service. Don't do it. Next I would like to speak about zoning, moving forward I know that you're going to be halting some of this, and we're very happy with that because it's a big job. As a suggestion for someone who worked in part time in real estate in the stock market for years before teaching. We were suggesting that maybe you could go to already pre zoned areas that really need help. For instance, maybe maybe a block in West method, you could have a meeting and have them come to public meeting here also. the lessees not all those business places are occupied by the owners would they concede to go building up what would it take for them to work comfortably with council that may be a nice short way to start the ball rolling and no abutting streets with single families with lots of privacies would be heard thirdly and lastly i'm trying to keep my tone the same i would have to go over a minute if i could We have been here we have three minutes. Sometimes during the year I know it gets emotional with different topics. We've had to sit here with 15 to 20 minutes of people's Councilman's and Councilwoman's biographies, also interjecting with federal topics. We don't pay you to do that. We see enough, we hear enough, and we would like to be able to make our own decisions. Some of you, I know, have even gone forward and labeled federal people and also people in the community with different labels. In business, This is called steering. It's illegal. I don't know how it gets solved here. I'm not saying that you're doing an illegal thing, but we have to be very, very observant of matters that really concern us. And I'm sure that you'll agree with this. We appreciate your time and a happy autumn to everyone and a safe night. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is this public participation? Can we just take it at the end? Anyone else would like to speak in public participation? I see Gaston. Is there anyone else? I'm not seeing any hands on Zoom. We'll go to Gaston. Name and address for the record, please.
[Gaston Fiore]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just was curious why no public comment was taken on the previous resolution. a motion to table which was there done that ends all discussion and has to be voted on so okay so you you vote on a motion to table yeah there was a big paper and then there was a motion yeah thank you so it will come back next it'll be next week it'll be back on next week yeah so for public participation um i studied i have started hearing about the new high school and i just Juan Fernando C?rdoba Marentes?s iPhone 2.0 He or He?s iPhone 2.0 He or He?s iPhone 2.0 He or He?s iPhone 2.0 He or He?s iPhone 2.0 He or He?s iPhone 2.0 too late for the bulk of people to realize what was going on, then those people started becoming public. And then now we have basically backtracked on a lot of work that has already been done, that we have already paid, and that probably will end up not being used, which means that, unfortunately, we're wasting money. So with the new high school, I feel that we're going down the same route. A handful of people have already started doing work on it. I'm not familiar because I don't have kids in the public school system. But my fear is that we'll redo what happened with the zoning. A minuscule group of people will end up making lots of decisions. A lot of money will be spent based on those decisions. And at some point in the future, someone is going to come with some project that is going to be shown to the public at large And at that point, it's going to start getting publicized because obviously we'll need to either vote for an override or something like this. So we'll have to get publicized. And then I fear that people like me, the regular resident, will be against the wall, basically being asked the question, do you support this? or you don't support this. And when we come up with a nuance approach, which is what I like, basically saying, I absolutely most definitely support a new high school, but these things that I see on this project that you're showing me at this late stage, I would actually prefer doing it this other way, or maybe adding something or something like that. And then I'm gonna be accused of like, oh, I can see that you're not for a new high school. So I just beg those responsible right now for starting to drive the process that there has to be a lot of outreach at this early stage so we avoid committing resources both people and financial resources now that will end up being wasted in a future time when a lot of people start realizing what has been done and then they're not happy with it. So I feel we need a lot of community participation now and unfortunately you know We need to push this information to people, because people are busy. They have tons of things to do. Unfortunately, they are not going to seek for this information themselves. I bet you that no one knows that there's a committee for the high school, et cetera, going on. So my humble suggestion is that we try to learn from what happened with zoning, and we do the outreach now. So at least we get a ballpark idea of what we should go for in such a way that we optimize both human and financial resources. Thank you so much, and sorry for the excess.
[Ren Bean]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I have a hand on Zoom, so I'm going to go to Zoom, then I'll come back. I'll go to Ren on Zoom. Ren, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Ren Bean]: Hi yeah, Ren Bean from 37 Woodrow Avenue. I'm just calling in to press for feels like the time support for the overall zoning project. I feel like there's been a narrative that's developed recently that City Council has been working in secret to up so in the city and there's been no public participation and this is being Forced on people, you know, this, this idea of the real Medford that doesn't want it. And I just, I want to kind of counter that narrative and express explicit support for what the council has been doing through many, many, many hours of public engagement at these meetings and others, you know, going into the neighborhoods holding Q and a's. Um, I know through a lot of, uh, you know, just general outreach as well. And, uh, I've attended a lot of those meetings. I've given a lot of comments. Um, I've watched a lot more meetings that I've commented on or were attended in person. And, um, you know, I, I just, I just think the process has been. uh deliberate and thoughtful and has incorporated a lot of community feedback and this idea that we need to blow it up and start over because not enough people are engaged just strikes me as uh you know to echo something that was just said a huge waste of time and resources for something that is pretty well constructed and pretty well built and something that a lot of people did vote for. I mean, the current city council, you know, won their seats in elections and they were pretty explicit about what they intended to do. And now they're doing it. No one should be surprised. I would count myself among a happy constituent to see this important work finally getting done. That's just, you know, been sort of kicked down the road for 30 plus years. Because the city really needs this you know we need to reform zoning to conform with reality. We also need to expand our tax base, we need to get revenue to deal with things like fixing our roads and picking up trash, I mean things that came up in this meeting, and, you know, implicitly. been said that we don't have enough money to do these things that we would like to do. So one, it's not the only solution, but a key part of getting these things that our city needs is expanding our commercial and residential tax base. And we can't really do that if we zone the entire city for single family homes and don't allow additional density for our commercial squares. And yeah, not everyone is going to like that change, but it's important and necessary. A lot of the folks that don't want to see that change also don't want to pay high taxes. And unfortunately, we can't really have it both ways. So I just count myself and a lot of other people who gave comments. If you look back over public participation, there's been a lot, a lot, a lot of comment in support of zoning reform in the direction it's been taking. And I just hope that people listening to this, even if they don't agree with it, can at least acknowledge that there's legitimate discussion to be had here, and this is not something City Council has been forcing on an unwilling public. There's a lot of fatigued people who have been carrying this on, and I would like to see the work finish. And on the Mayor's, I know she was on the docket this resolution, I actually hope the city council will pass it. I'm not attached to this one particular corner, but the mayor has apparently made it a hill to die on, which I think is kind of silly. I'll write her a letter separately. I don't really get what the flex is about, but fine, let her have it. I don't know who she's trying to win over here, but to blow up the whole project and throw the baby out with the bathwater at this stage in the game would be a huge waste. Um, you know, so anyway, that's, that's what I'll say about that particular resolution. And that I hope if the mayor can hear that message from a lot of the constituents that support this, that would be helpful as well so that we can move forward. Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, I'm gonna go to the podium name dress record, you'll have three minutes and we have one more hand on zoom.
[Micah Kesselman]: Cool. Like a customer for nine nine, nine Main Street. I have a couple things that I just wanted to bring up during the general public comments. The first one is really just like a friendly reminder, and I can be friendly. My comments, it's shocking, I know. But as the election season heats up and everyone's getting into their campaigns, You do need people's permission to use their photos and post them online and this seems like a small thing and it's an easy thing to overlook, but there are many people who are very particular about how. Their own or their family or their children's likenesses are used on proprietary social media platforms. And it is not a right that you have to post things without people's permission if it includes their likeness. Every company I've ever been to, every organization that has any consideration of risk management will be very, very careful to get many waivers signed. and permission signed before they use anyone's likeness in photos or video that they post online. So this is just a gentle reminder. I'm not trying to point out anyone in particular, but I just want to make sure that this heads off before it can happen. Keep that in mind. And if you're going to use people's images in your public whatever you want to do, make sure you have the permission. It's just a reasonable common courtesy. And that applies to everyone. So, that said, the other thing I want I do want to bring up and this is where I'm going to be a little bit more pissy. It's been a hell of a week. And, and it's only getting worse probably going forward. I, we are in a situation in our city, where we're seeing more and more people. that are being picked up off the street and taken away from their families and vanished into a system. Some of them literally disappearing. We're not able to figure out what happened to them. There's no contacts able to like find them in the system at all. And this is happening here in Medford, like five, 10 people a week, and it's getting worse. I know that Many people don't think the cops can do anything. Okay, fine. I'm not going to fight about that right now. But what I do want this council to really take into serious consideration and I know there's already some work happening on this front is what we can do to support the people who are left behind after these people are abducted and taken from their families. We have many families that are being financially impacted where their main breadwinner is being disappeared, and those families themselves are now also in living in fear and unable to provide for themselves. The city can and should provide first and foremost as a fundamental de minimis function of a city government, the safety and security of its residents. And that means that the people of these impacted, like the impacted families of the victims, they need support. They need financial support. They need support with housing and rental assistance. They need support with food. They need support getting their kids to school and keeping sure that their kids are getting the education that they deserve. And we really as a city need to prioritize this and this isn't something that we can just sit here and plan to plan about and think about people are being impacted and hurt irrecoverably. Today, right now, and every day it gets worse. So I really, really Calmly urge the council to really take this to heart and make this the biggest priority because this is not some petty little single family multifamily whatever this is people's whose lives are being destroyed in real time. And it needs to be addressed, it is the most important thing happening right now in the city. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to GABA's iPhone on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Gil Gabbay]: Hi, my name is Gil Gabay. I live at 48 Almont Street. I'm calling in for echoing a few other callers what has felt like Over a year now, in full support of the zoning proposal as a young ish homeowner and new resident of Medford. I. want to say that it is it's frustrating walking down Salem Street and other areas that are in desperate need of revitalization of development and I urge the council to continue pressing forward on the zoning proposals and thank you for letting me speak.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record please and you'll have three minutes.
[Ralph Klein]: Ralph Klein, 172 Park Street. I'm here against this new zoning. Everybody's saying it's fine. It's not. Salem Street doesn't have many single family homes. And you're looking at people, LLCs buying the single family homes. I know they purchased two out of about six that I know of on Salem Street. Most of them are two and three family homes. The people who are coming out for this don't live in the area. They're not going to be affected by it. They're not going to look at the brick walls, the back of the building. The facades would be beautiful to face the front of the building when you drive by. Nobody looks at the back of the building. Go to the one up in West Medford. Look at the back of the sink building. It's almost as bad as the front. I mean, this is getting crazy. We have probably 600 units being built in Medford. where the storage facility was on the Fellsway, where Gold's Gym is, they're gonna be building there. Bertucci's is supposedly coming up. 600 units is possibly 800 people. Where were they gonna go to school? The schools were overcrowded. Only one school isn't overcrowded, the Tufts Curtis, not the Tufts Curtis, the Miss Tuck, almost in some of them. The only school that isn't overcrowded. The Roberts has 600 kids in there. I know that because my children go there, my grandchildren. So this rush to rezone and say, oh, nothing's been done. The Wellington Woods has been built. The condos on Park Street has been built. There's seven units out of one going in on Hadley Place. Are we supposed to not look around, look and not see? We're supposed to just hear and not listen. That's the problem. You're not listening to the people who live in the areas you're going to expect. Listen to people who don't live there who say, oh, I want to go to another neighborhood. Don't ruin my neighborhood because you don't want it to come to yours. That's what this is about. My neighborhood is close. And some Councilors made a statement that the area is prejudiced. Four homes on my street, single family. They're owned by all owned by immigrants. Four of the homes. So don't say we're prejudiced, we're all privileged and all this, it's not. These people moved into the neighborhood, why? Because it's a neighborhood, it's not a building, it's not a condo. The condos, there's 20 people across the street from you live in the condominiums, 169 Park Street. Don't see them, don't talk to them. They come in, they go in their home and they leave. That's not a neighborhood. You wanna build neighborhoods, build houses and make it for people. You say affordable housing, well, if you're putting up 300 units, they're over 10, so half of them should be affordable. Don't make them all unaffordable. Change the zoning from not every building that's going up is nine to 10 units. 10 units, you have to make it affordable. Nine, you don't. So how are you making it affordable in Medford? The building in West Medford, nine units. Coffee shop, don't have to do anything there. Not affordable. You want to do it, change your rules for what you build in this city. Don't let these contractors come in and run roughshod over you. Change your rules, not the city's rules, not the people who live there. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Marianne? Thanks for coming.
[Maryanne Adduci]: Name and address record three Mariana doozy to not straight from the August 5 City Council meeting till today it's been nine weeks. And there have been, this is the fourth city council meeting, one of which was not open to the public. And I don't have a computer, so I listen to the city council meetings on TV. So I was listening to the August 5th meeting, which didn't end till 1.24, I believe, in the morning. Now, you people were sitting here from seven o'clock. I wonder how much you absorbed in those last three hours. Basically, the city council meetings are too long. And now you don't know this, because you never know how many public speakers are going to come up here and lengthen the meeting. But I think you seriously need to consider going back to the weekly schedule, because this is not working. It's not working for you, I believe, because I don't think you can make good decisions at midnight. and it isn't working for the public because we have to stay here sometimes until midnight if we want to speak because you put the public comments at the end of the meeting. So before the election and the next month, I want you to seriously consider going back to weekly meetings. But I want to know, and I believe the voters want to know. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in general public participation? Sharon, we'll take you for one more minute.
[Sharon Deyeso]: Thank you. It was a little difficult coming out tonight because many of you have seen me walking around with that beautiful white lab he he sadly passed on on Saturday. Thank you. Polo's known by everybody. I did forget something very important and I would be uncomfortable at home if I didn't say this. Some part of conversation that we never hear here, a few words like, in consideration of the taxpayers and homeowners, they're really, those words are very limited in your conversation. And also, regarding zoning with the housing, we hear diversity, density, we hear affordable housing, et cetera. Someone also should call on one of the meetings to have all the definitions, Mr. President, for affordable housing, Section 8, vouchers, federal housing, we don't know. Also, we are in all these conversations is veteran housing. It doesn't mean that they're all recovering alcoholics with different issues. Some of them have been discharged for many years, they're in between apartments and they really need to be addressed to with some housing in the city we'd be very proud to do that I'm sure it's a city. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Sharon Deyeso]: Good evening.
[Zac Bears]: So anyone else would like to speak in general public participation. We have one person on zoom Caitlin. Name and address record you have three minutes.
[Kaitlin Robinson]: I thank you, Caitlin Robinson 31 effort street. And I just wanted to say that I was one of the people who lives in the Salem Street area who spoke in support of the rezoning of Salem Street, and I remember that there were several of us who do live in the neighborhood. just want to push back on the narrative that the people who live in the neighborhood were against it because I support it and I know that there are other people who do. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in the public participation portion of the meeting? Seeing no hands on Zoom and no one in the room standing for it, we'll move on to 25151. Proposed amendments to the Medford Zoning Ordinance, change to the Salem Street Neighborhood Corridor District for referral to the Community Development Board. This is a procedural vote. The Community Development Board has sent us a request from the mayor to amend the parcels at the Salem Street and Park Street node from MX2 to MX1. The council can't vote to do that tonight. We just can vote to refer that to the Community Development Board for them to open public hearing, they would then hold a public hearing, make a recommendation, refer that back to the City Council, we would open a public hearing, and then take a final vote after that public hearing is closed. Are there members of the Council who have a comment or a motion? Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I don't necessarily agree with Mayor Lungo-Koehn's decision to raise this particular zoning of this particular intersection once again. However, I don't think that we should deprive the residents of their another opportunity to weigh in on it and go through the statutorily required multi-step public participation that is required for any proposed zoning amendment. So I'd be happy to make a motion to refer this paper to the Community Development Board so that they can open a public hearing on it and we can take the process forward from there.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to refer the amendment to the Community Development Board, seconded by Councilor Tseng, sorry. Is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Is there anyone from the public who wants to comment on this vote to refer to the Community Development Board? Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Nick Giurleo]: Good evening. for Robinson Road. I strongly support this referral. I think I like others don't believe the six story height maximum is appropriate all for the note and I think it's important to point out the same height maximum. It's a commercial I know there are many neighbors who express concerns about that MX to designation early on so I applaud not only them for voicing their concerns but also for the Community Development Board for for listening and ultimately recommending that MX one designation so of course the Council does have discretion to accept or reject. recommendation of the CDB but I think it's just a matter of principle. It should be giving significant deference to those recommendations. So, it's unfortunate that we're in this position where we have to essentially backtrack because the recommendation of the board was not taken. So, strongly in favor of referral and I'm looking forward to speaking more substantively on this when that public hearing opens. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no further hands on Zoom or discussion on the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to refer the proposed zoning amendment to the Community Development Board. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: President Bears yes it's the affirmative one of the negative the motion passes to 5150 offered by President Bears executive minute session minutes request for executive session I requested the council under executive session or a few executive session minutes from the August 19 2025 special meeting pursuant to general laws chapter 38 section 22 g which states that the public body or its chair or designee shall add reasonable interviews, review the minutes of executive sessions to determine if the provisions of the subsection warrant continued non-disclosure. Such determination shall be announced at the body's next meeting and such announcement shall be included in the minutes of that meeting. Is there a motion to enter executive session? And I want to note that votes may be taken. Is there a motion? On the motion by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming. Councilor Scapelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. We're entering executive session. Jim, if you could put up the note that we will be, we will return shortly.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, oh.
[Zac Bears]: All right, we're reconvening an open session. Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I would motion to take paper 25-105 from the table and approve for third reading.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Vice President Collins to take paper 2515 from the table and approve for third reading, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. The ordinance is ordained for third reading. Is there a motion on the floor? On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Tseng, seconded by. Yeah, this is a motion to reconsider. Sure, give me one second. Yeah. On the motion to reconsider the vote by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: We're first voting to reconsider, which means we'll take the vote a second time. Yeah.
[Marie Izzo]: Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President Villescaz.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes to reconsider. We have a motion on the floor from Councilor Collins to take from the table and approve for third reading, paper 25105, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Is there any discussion?
[George Scarpelli]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: My fellow Councilors, I know that we did receive a response from the Mayor, and if I could just read this, not the whole, I don't want to read the whole response from KP law, but I didn't receive a response from the mayor or anyone.
[Zac Bears]: So, um, is this the third reading? Okay. Do you know, do you know when that was delivered?
[Adam Hurtubise]: It was an email sent. It was sent out via email. It was an email sent Mr. President. I apologize. Um, I mean, it was sent by the mayor. It was dated September 23rd from KP Law, Mr. Chris.
[Marie Izzo]: September 28th.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I never received that email. Go ahead, that's fine. I'm just saying I've never seen it, so.
[George Scarpelli]: Okay, I'm sorry, I did see this email. It was addressed to all the Councilors. I believe it was from 2023. It was a ruling from KP Law on this initiative, the amendment. the amended values aligned local investment ordinance legal review. I will just give you the question that you requested in the legal opinion we got in the current form of the draft values aligned local investment ordinance as proposed and reviewed by the city council at its August meeting. Please note that this legal summary does not include the financial and policy implications relative to the proposed ordinance, which will need to be addressed separately by the city internal and external financial teams and advisors, including bond council. I know this is a four page document. response but I'm just going to read the short answer just to summarize. It says, in my opinion, this is KP Law, the draft value aligned local investment ordinance as currently proposed has significant legal implications regarding the city's compliance with state law. It's fiduciary responsibilities with respect to the interpretation and implementation of the same by the city's trust fund commissioners, treasurer, internal and external financial advisors that warrant significant consideration regarding legal and financial implications to the city and the city council's authority to adopt same in the light of the state law. While it appears that portions of the proposed ordinance are in part based on the City of Boston's divestment ordinance while adding other categories of the prohibited investments, please be advised that the City of Boston is exempt from the rules for trustee investments under General Law 44, Section 54. In addition, In addition, and without waiving the above statutory limitations on the proposed ordinance, the use of the term financial instruments as written in the ordinance is vague, in my opinion, and should also be reviewed in consultation with the Treasury Finance Director and Bond Council to ensure that it does not conflict with the state law and the city's legal and financial documents, including investments, bonds, or contracts currently in effect with the city and third party entities. the ordinance proposal language must be diligently analyzed within the city's financial advisors, treasury financial director, bond council to ensure compliance with the applicable legal requirements prior to the adoption in my opinion. So again, I, I, I brought this question forward, whether there was legal issues from the beginning, this wasn't to, um, um, I bring this forward. Unfortunately, I didn't know you didn't get this I thought we got it so I can forward it to you but again, I would ask the council that we don't vote on this process right now until we get further understanding the fact that you didn't see this as well, Mr. President's bothersome and alarming to me that this, the administration didn't get this to you and didn't vet it properly with you as our president. So, but, um, again, I, I, I would make the motion that if we cannot, that we do suspend this and table this until at least the council president and the city administration review this so it's vetted properly and we're not held in any legal questions as we move forward with this process.
[Zac Bears]: So I apologize and- I'll take a look at it. I didn't receive the email. I don't know if I was just left off of it by accident, but we did request, you didn't receive it either, Councilor Tseng never received it. Councilor Lazzaro did not receive it. Councilor Callahan. Okay. So, tonight.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Marie Izzo]: And I didn't see it until I came in on Monday.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I know it came from Rich Alessio and to the city
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, again, yeah, I'm not saying you didn't. And it sounds like there didn't get to us. I just want to make the point that we requested four months ago, and two months ago. And it sounds like we got something at best two days ago. And then actually, none of us got it. And some people saw it in an inbox tonight. And just as one person, I'm not really a fan of the delay the communication tactic to try to avoid the outcome. So I'm still going to stick with what I want to stick with. If they want to actually do their job and submit amendments, they're welcome to do so. Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. I did have a chance to look this over and essentially there are two points in here. One is that monies that are requested by the donor to be set to a very specific purpose should remain under that purpose. I'm quite sure that that is not what we are talking about. That has nothing to do with this ordinance that we are working on tonight and have been working on for many months. The second one is the one I really want to talk about because what it says is that under state law, the city is required to ensure that the only goal of our investments is profit. Now, Many years ago, I was on a commission in another city. It was the Open Governance Commission. I was on it because I helped to pass a public financing of elections law in that city. It was a ballot measure, and it passed overwhelmingly. The public really wanted this. And as I sat on that commission, We were tasked with updating it. And one of the comments that came to us was that something that the people wanted in our city had been questioned by the Arizona Supreme Court. not our city's law, but some city in Arizona had passed something similar, and their Supreme Court had questioned it because the federal Supreme Court has essentially said over many decades that corporations are people, that money is speech, and essentially, and that Citizens United, of course, has passed as well, and over many decades has made it clear that Their legal opinion is that corporate corruption of our government is perfectly legal. And I remember what one of my fellow commissioners said, and I will never forget what he said. He said, it is not our job as elected people, as an elected body in our city, to uphold legal opinions that go against the values of our residents. And I'm going to say right now that the argument that we should not pass a values ordinance that our people want, that helps prevent harm to our residents of our city, that we shouldn't do that because the state law says we have to uphold profit as the only possible thing that we can have for our investments, I will happily vote in favor of the values of our residents and preventing harm to our residents. And if the state is going to fight me on that because it wants us to value profit over that, then I am not going to be in favor of whatever the state law is that they are talking about here. So I feel quite strongly that neither of the arguments in this particular document are ones that are going to change my view that we should pass this for third reading. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming, Councilor Tseng, Councilor Collins, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I also had a minute between meetings today to look at the letter from KP law, and I agree with what Councilor Callahan mentioned about both of the points but another thing I wanted to note about the state law that says that there's an obligation of municipalities to only prioritize making money on their investments, is that I struggle to comprehend how you can make a statement that this ordinance would not make money, that investing in Lockheed Martin would always make more money than what we're suggesting with this, that values have nothing to do with logical or prudent investments and the assumption that investing in private prisons and fossil fuels and weapons and companies that are profiting off of wars is the only way to do right by your residents. That immediate assumption in this letter is insane to me. just as easily we could assume that you would make only make money by investing in milk or like there's no way to know that there's a diversity of things that you can invest in. It doesn't, the assumption that any of that is necessary is irrational to me. So I see no reason for us not to continue this. We did not receive this in a timely manner. So that's that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Yeah, I think that if this were a serious objection to this ordinance, then it would have been important enough to email us about it when it was received. I'm not, just like Council President Bears just mentioned, I'm not a fan of politically timed moves like this, which we've seen a lot of. say what you want about the Salem Street message that we just got from the mayor through the CDB that we just referred back to the CDB. I don't like the fact that it was announced the day after a preliminary election. And I don't like the fact that this was literally thrown on our desk via paper. two days before when apparently she's been sitting on it for a week it just means it's not it just means it's not really a serious objection that they're just like if this were if this were a serious thing like you know I would have gotten a phone call would have like had the common decency to email actually email this to us instead of just like this last minute thing to try to delay this ordinance for whatever reason. And, you know, we see that pretty frequently as like a bad faith tactic to put off actually doing anything in this body. Like, I remember like a while ago we got, just like prior to a meeting, we got like some email from somebody on a board asking us to just delay this whole meeting that we've been preparing months for just because they sent us a letter. It's not something I take seriously. So I'm not going to comment on the content of it, because my colleagues already have done that very eloquently. But I just want to comment that I really don't. I'm not a fan of this sort of game of chicken and this political timing that we see a lot.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, maybe add in content and countering what I'm counseling said I'm going to bring us back to the content of the opinion. I think if you read through the detailed analysis, you'll find that half of the analysis is basically a policy recommendation. which basically ends up with the recommendation that we talk to stakeholders, which I know President Bears has done a lot of, including too many, if not all of the stakeholders mentioned in the opinion itself. The legal aspect of this opinion, I would want to walk through from a more legal perspective, naturally. Essentially, you know what, if parts of mass general law preempts some of what we do, let that be that. But I think Councilor Lazzaro's reading is correct, that What I think this ordinance will do is help us be more innovative, more careful with our investments. It's going to force us to think more out of the box to make sure that we're not only deriving profit from industries that we think will derive us profit, but to require us to be more innovative with how we make investments. And that, at the very least, is what would happen if we passed this ordinance tonight. It wouldn't be, in my reading of things, on kind of this hill that we can't climb with regards to executing it, it would just be that forcing our city to be more careful with investments and forcing us to evaluate in the future. Actually, maybe these other things that align with our values make up just as much money, if not more money, than we originally kind of are.
[Kit Collins]: Was that to me? I think my internet is shorting out.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, I think I lost audio for a split second. Please let me know if I start to break up. Thank you for the chance to speak. I also didn't receive the letter from the administration. Seems like something must have happened in our email inboxes or something. I won't speculate on that. But I haven't had a chance to review it in detail, but I appreciate Councilor Scarpelli for reading it out loud because I haven't gotten a chance to read it. Um, and I agree with what much of what has been shared in the past several minutes by my fellow Councilors, and I don't want to belabor the point, um, but I would be remiss not to say that in my four years of experience on this body, the, uh, sending a concern at the very last minute before a meeting is a pattern I've seen from Mayor Longo Curran's administration over and over again. Um, and it's, it's frustrating, but I don't think it's something that We need to, on that alone, let it interrupt the work of this council. More importantly, and again, I don't want to belabor points made by my fellow Councilors already, the point shared in the letter that arrived today or yesterday or inboxes, I'm not really sure which, strike me as very similar to points made by the administration, concerns raised by the administration. A couple of months or I guess a month earlier into this process when we were taking earlier votes and having earlier discussions on the ordinance. And of course I appreciate any good faith and thorough participation in discussion of the ordinance and I think that that's fine. I think that raising concerns is fine. It's just that I think that we've already talked about all those concerns that have been raised. I don't think that it is correct to assume the premise that a values-aligned local investments ordinance will lose us money. I think that that is kind of irrationally pessimistic. I think that's pessimistic beyond reason. We have no reason to think that. There's a plethora of profitable industries that we could invest in that aren't things that are anathema to both our values and the safety and the thriving of our residents here in Medford. And I don't think that it is correct or rational for us to make a decision based on an alternative premise. In addition, I think that a lot of the concerns about the difficulty to implement this and the stakeholders that would be need to involved in this, those have been discussed. I want to, again, tip my hat to President Bears for the thorough process that went into this ordinance and making sure to discuss it with everybody who might be involved in this ordinance. And I think the other premise that is missing from the concerns from the administration include that Everything I've heard in these chambers leads me to believe that this ordinance is proactive. It's not like we have to get rid of millions and millions and millions of dollars in ethically objectionable industries, and that's a good thing. So I don't think it's correct to make a decision on the premise that this would be an incredibly difficult lift for us to achieve anyway. I think we can go into this optimistically, and with excitement to say we're already in a pretty good place it seems when it comes to making sure that our investments are aligned with our values and this the structure of this ordinance will just make us give us another tool to ensure that that is the case right now and into the future. So with that I'm looking forward to taking a final vote on this tonight. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: You know looking at this agenda I didn't think this would be the meeting that pushed me over the edge to say what I'm about to say, but like the abject failure of the city administration to effectively communicate with the public and with this council about the basic things that we're trying to do as a city. You know, I've worked really hard to try to collaborate with this administration on a bunch of major initiatives, and I'm really proud that we've gotten some of them done, but like George was right. And, and I didn't think this would be the meeting or the set of circumstances and I promise I'm not trying to kill you. Like, it's just that the amount of time that we spend trying to Pull the administration to do the basic work to effectively communicate about the things that we're trying to do in this community, instead of like doing those things and doing the communication directly. It's, it's, it's, it's what we're always doing all the time, whether it's us whether it's the school committee whether it's the public schools, whether it's city staff, like, and the things that have happened over the last five or six months, like throwing the planning department under the bus, when they worked in really good faith on the zoning, or taking two months, and then another two months to just not respond to our requests about this ordinance, Going back to the overrides like the amount of work that we had to do to try to just get that to happen and then like the just lack of really serious commitment to communicating it about effectively, and then like to what Gaston said tonight about the high school. No, and no and they're open meetings, they're all public meetings, but like the effort is not there from the administration to adequately put communications resources to informing people about these public meetings and making sure people attend. And then when people come and say I had no idea that this was happening we say oh they were public meetings but actually the answer is like we held public meetings we have no control over the communications resources of the city. and the mayor's office didn't put any money into any of it so people actually didn't know and then it comes back to what George says here often which is people didn't inform and want to be involved and you know what like we've worked in good faith to do this well and like I'm not gonna throw away the baby with the bath water and say that the work product that we've done isn't good but all of these threads that people are talking about around all the things that we actually share and want to do are coming back to the same point over and over and over again which is The administration is not effectively communicating with this council or with residents or even inside City Hall, about what's going on in the city, and it's It's the reason that people are not more aligned. It's the reason that people are frustrated. It's the reason that some people aren't feeling heard. And we don't have the authority or the resources to actually do that outreach ourselves. And we can't force them to respond to us. And then they leave us holding the bag. Like standing up here having not even seen this document because somebody forgot to BCC someone and then never had the courtesy to call me about it. I get more than I ever have I think how George and a bunch of residents feel about the way that the city is communicating about the things that are going on in the city. And to be honest, I'm sorry that it took me. I'm sorry that it took me this long to, to say something about it and I'm sorry I'm just saying something about it now but like you try to work in good faith and collaborate to try to make progress for the city. And then this is what you get for it. So I'm sure this is going to cause me trouble for having just said all of this. Whatever. I don't have the time to do this work anymore of making the administration do the bare minimum to try to do their jobs. So thanks. That's my rant. Tried to avoid making a rant. Call me George Scarpelli tonight. Because no. I don't think that I didn't mean to say that, that you're not just like I didn't really fully, I get it, grasp until it comes a couple of the things that have happened tonight. Some of what you've been saying over the last year. So, I just want to I want to say that out loud. All right, I get to go buy him a drink. The motion. We had a motion to reconsider the vote is to take the paper off the table and approve for third reading. I'm seeing no hands on Zoom. You would like to speak? Sure. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Judy Beatrice]: Judy Beatrice 49 Wyman Street Medford mass I'm the chairperson of the commissioners trust funds. The good news is the Red Sox one tonight three to one for those of you that don't know, who've been sitting here just want to, we've been very close on the ninth inning that doesn't count as my three minutes please. We had three men on, they had three men on based on the last of the ninth and we still want so that's a good omen. Mr. Chairman, the reason I'm here tonight really is to clarify the role of the commissioners as we had talked about earlier, and just to have it go on the record so I'm going to read it and then I'll give it to each of the Councilors, the purposes to identify why we exist and what we actually do just will be on the record. The Board of Commissioners of the Trust Funds is established by Mass. Law, General Laws 41, Sections 45 to 47, has granted full management and control over trust funds given or bequeathed for the benefit of the City of Medford or its inhabitants, unless otherwise provided by the donor. Mass. General Laws, Chapter 44, Section 55, provides the Treasury is responsible for the investment of all municipal trust funds in accordance with the prudent investment rule as defined by Mass. General Laws, Chapter 2013. Method ordinances chapter two out of the three division, division three section two sections 181 to 184, the Board of Commissioners of trust funds shall as far as consistent with the terms of the trust, manage control and trust and distribute the income in accordance with the terms of the respective trust funds. I think that's what you were referring to and being separate. Any investment action made on behalf of the municipal trust funds must comply with fiduciary duties, including the obligation to prioritize safety principle reasonableness of returns and donor issues. Mass values assignment local ordinance seeks to impose an investment restriction on city funds, based on political and ideological criteria, including but not limited to prohibitions against certain investments, and for other sectors. Whereas such ordinance also explicitly includes application where it would violate fiduciary duty to pensioners and beneficiaries and the commissioners of trust funds who do not manage pension fund assets or public funds, but rather a distinct pool of restricted and perpetual trust funds under the document and content of how to be done resolve as follows. The Board of Commissioners of the Trust Funds retains the authority to determine, recommend, and approve all investment strategies and instruments appropriate to the preservation and growth of trust funds and consistent with donor intent and fiduciary responsibility. The treasurer shall implement such investments recommendations in accordance with compliance with the prudent investment rule and in collaboration with the commission and shall not be directed by any ordinance or political body to act contrary to the fiduciary standards of the commissioners approval of the investment policy. This comes right out of Medford ordinance chapter 2 article 3 division 3 section 2 181 to 184. Any ordinance or directive that seeks to override the commissioners fiduciary responsibilities by requiring the treasurer to invest in trust assets in politically screened or higher risk vehicles shall be considered incompatible with state and local laws and our fiduciary standards. The Commission therefore reaffirms its duty as trustee of donor-restricted public funds and assets to the commitment of nonpartisan, mission-based investment decisions grounded in expert judgment, legal compliance, and public accountability. So we're just putting that on the record as to where we stand. One of the things I think you brought up, you can't imagine people investing money and not making money. Calipers, which is the largest pension fund, way back when, had invested first. They had a lot of invested their money when it was popular to invest in real estate, and they lost all of it, and they had to change their fund proposal. Recently, as a matter of fact, it was Calipers and another one who had done very heavily invested in what they called then ESG funds. I have actually sold in my day as a private person, social responsibles, and their loss of funds over the past four years that they had to change it, and there was a lawsuit with them and BlackRock, and they had to reevaluate it and they now call it growth funds. So when you get in that area, and this is where you have avoided that by saying by fiduciary duty you have explicitly refused, you know, excluded them from this quote public funds so that I think that is in the favor of the bill itself. The other comment I would make in terms of the public funds, I think you really have to be careful in terms of the things that you use to vet it with. My concern was reading, Councilor Bears, the long list we had of United Nations rules and regulations, and the question I have there is a lot of times people put these in their documents or in their proposals, And those documents are continually being re-evaluated and changed and some of them are being obliterated. So I would caution as you use references to be sure that you've either vetted them or maybe do a more general notification of it instead of listing every single one of them, because I have gone through some of them and some of them have already not even be applicable and that wouldn't be noted. So I think you should, that would be one area you may wanna take a look at in particular to having done it. Other than that, I have a copy for each of them and they can put it on their record. And thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Judy. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yet to take up the table and approve the third reading. Yep. reconsidered motion to Councilor Callahan.
[Marie Izzo]: Vice President Collins. Yes. Council is our Council let me. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears, yes, affirmative one of the negative the motion passes. Is there a motion on the floor. The motion to adjourn by Councilor Leming seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative one of the negative the motion passes the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
|
total time: 30.58 minutes total words: 2454  |
total time: 5.44 minutes total words: 423  |
total time: 8.66 minutes total words: 247  |
total time: 9.97 minutes total words: 615  |
|
total time: 20.73 minutes total words: 1009  |
total time: 9.47 minutes total words: 665  |
total time: 8.67 minutes total words: 604  |
total time: 1.49 minutes total words: 141  |
|
total time: 1.09 minutes total words: 89  |
total time: 2.23 minutes total words: 207  |
||