[Zac Bears]: 18th regular meeting, Medford City Council, October 21st, 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: President Pierce. present, seven present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. Records. The records of the meetings of October 7, 2025 were passed to Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Lazzaro, how did you find those records?
[Emily Lazzaro]: I found the records in order and motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Reports of committees. 25-138 and 25-139, offered by Councilor Lazzaro, Public Health and Community Safety Committee, October 8th, 2025. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. We discussed two resolutions offered by myself and Councilor Tseng regarding some work that, the first resolution was about some work that the Health Department is doing, and we were able to get a wonderful update from the Health Department on the services that they're able to offer our residents. And if anybody is curious about special services that are offered by the health department's social services coordinator and our outreach coordinator manager of outreach and special programs and the director of the health department. I encourage you to watch that video on YouTube on the city of Medford's YouTube page. It really highlights a lot of the social services that our residents have access to within the health department, especially if somebody might be losing some federal services. So that was nice to get that review. We also discussed a resolution about assisting families of people who are arrested by ICE.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a motion to approve the report? On the motion to approve the committee report by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by? Seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Communications from the Mayor, 25105, submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Amended values aligned local investments ordinance. Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I have a motion to table this until our next regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to the table by Vice President Collins, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes. 25.155 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, authorization of a five-year contract with Adam Matthew LTD, DBA AM Quartex for digitization of the library's local history collections. Dear President Bears and City Councilors, I respect the request and recommend that the City Council approves the following five-year contract with Adam Matthew LTD, DBA AM Cortex. As the Council is aware, Mass General Law Chapter 30B, Section 12 requires City Council approval for a contract that exceeds three years. agreement authorized the city and the library to enter into a five-year agreement under the Bloomberg Digital Innovation Grant to support the digitization of the library's local history collections. This initiative requires two specialized vendors, one to handle document scanning and another to develop and maintain a digital web platform to host the digitized materials. This contract pertains specifically to the vendor responsible for the creation and ongoing support of the digital platform. Given the complexity and long-term nature of this project, a five-year service plan is essential While the platform will undergo an initial build, content will be added on a continuous basis well beyond the initial term. Local history materials are inherently complex. Unlike standard print materials, they include audio-visual content and oral history recordings that require specialized support for proper integration and presentation. This platform will serve as a vital and evolving community resource. Ensuring a longer-term vendor support is critical to maintaining the platform's functionality, accessibility, and growth over time. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. It looks like we have the library director, Barbara Kerr, with us. If you want to share more, Barbara, and then I have questions from a couple of Councilors, but I'll recognize you, Barbara.
[Barbara Kerr]: No. So it's pretty much what it says. This is part of our digitization. And we are all set with the people who are doing the scanning. But this is the company that's going to build the online digital asset management program, or DAM, which is an entertaining anagram, but it's not an anagram, initials. So we like the idea of the five-year because this is gonna be, it's not gonna just get one bunch of images. This is gonna be ongoing and growing and sort of a living website, we hope. all sorts of stuff. And we're doing an oral history project now, and getting those recordings up is good. But that's a little complex. So having helpdesk and the company available for the long term is really important to this project.
[Justin Tseng]: Questions? I'll go to Councilor Tseng. Thank you. Thank you for the work you do. I know this has been in the pipeline for a while and people are really excited about it. When we think about accessing our local history right now, there's an amazing space in the library for it, but outside of going to that space, I think a lot of residents are looking for that extra step and this would provide that extra step of accessibility. I know some, I've been talking to some city staff who are, you know, view this as an opportunity to maybe digitize some of the records that we have in this building that are also local history related or could pertain to our local history. I was wondering if that would be possible under this agreement or if it's just restricted to what's in the library.
[Barbara Kerr]: The Bloomberg agreement is specifically what's in the library, but there's no reason we can't digitize other stuff down the road, there are other grant options out there, and we actually purchased a large format scanner so we can do some scanning ourselves. We actually have a Simmons archival intern for a year so that's going to be very helpful. But there's a lot I know that I've heard rumors that there's a box of photographs somewhere in this building that no one has ever seen. So there's a lot of potential to get things digitized. There are we'll look into other grants too. But the Bloomberg agreement is specifically for our stuff.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I guarantee you there's boxes in this building that people would be happy to give to the library.
[Barbara Kerr]: Well that's it. Well then that like you know Digital Commonwealth, that's the state photo repository, they've run into some trouble. some of the major content on there might end up with us, but we don't know because right now they're, Microsoft shut down their site. So you can't see anything. So this is a great opportunity to get started because we have the largest collection of stuff. So I want to get the stuff. It'll be good to get the stuff so you can see it. Right now it's all somewhere in like Maryland, but not all of it, but 12 boxes of it.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of city staff are looking to use some political history in their work, some of the documents there to inform their decision making policies, look back to see what actually pertains to the city and what doesn't, conversations that we had back then to help interpret the policies that we have now. And so maybe there's a path down the road somewhere where we build out the program, or where some of those documents make their way to the library so that they can get digitized.
[Barbara Kerr]: And this, you can get it, you'll be able to get into remotely too, which is nice. Because the newspaper microfilm is really the main body of information about 20th century Medford. And the only way to search it before now was we have a card file, we still have one card file. But this is going to be or optical character recognition. So you can put in a name and it will pull them out of wherever they can find them. So this is going to be a huge tool for all sorts of research and history. I wish we'd had it when I was doing research.
[Zac Bears]: I'll miss the microfilm machine myself.
[Barbara Kerr]: We're going to keep it.
[Zac Bears]: We're going to keep it?
[Barbara Kerr]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Cool. It's fun. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Again, thank House President again I just want to just. I remember the dark days when we were talking about just getting enough trash barrels to go into different rooms to collect the rainwater coming through our ceilings. That was a bad weekend. Just the fact that we're here and we could celebrate what you've done for us before you move on to some enjoyable time in your life, I think that, again, I just wanted make it public that we, you know, we're thanking you for everything that you've done and where we are today. So I would support this initiative and more if needed. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. Just a quick question. It does say under the Bloomberg Digital Innovation Grant, and I just want to check in that that grant is going to pay for the entire five years of the contract? Yes.
[Barbara Kerr]: Okay, yes, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for being here to speak to us about this request. And I think I echo what all of my fellow Councilors have said. I think this will be really useful operationally for members of city staff. But even more so than that, I think that there are a lot of stories in these right now, still analog materials that will be so positive for Medford residents or non-residents who visit the library and people like us. who are investigating the city just to be able to find these materials in various formats. I just think that'll be so important for people thinking, you know, stories about Medford, past and present over the years.
[Barbara Kerr]: Sorry, the oral history project is going to be about collecting Medford memories.
[Kit Collins]: Exactly. And having those accessible in every contemporary format, I think will be such a gift to future library patrons. So thank you for your work on this. And I have motion for approval.
[Zac Bears]: The motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. I just have a couple questions. Yes. Will eventually library staff be trained to manage the database, the repository at some point?
[Barbara Kerr]: Yes and no. I mean, we're going to be doing a lot of the building of it, but the It's a cloud-based thing. They're going to be doing the maintenance and training and help desk, which is what we're most concerned about. But we'll know how it works. It's going to be not on site.
[Zac Bears]: And so is it going to live on the library website, or will it be like a link to some other?
[Barbara Kerr]: I'm not sure. I think definitely linked to our website. But it's not going to be part of our website because it's going to be much bigger. But if you want to see sort of a sample, the Cape Ann Historical Society and the Peabody Essex Archives use this company.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I just want to make sure we retain the long-term ownership. I mean, we're going to keep the physical files, right?
[Barbara Kerr]: Yep. And we're getting drives from the scanning company.
[Zac Bears]: OK. There'll be drives as well. OK, great. Awesome. On the motion to approve all those in favor. Opposed motion passes.
[Barbara Kerr]: Thank you. And we should have something up at the beginning early next year. That's the plan. So probably the microfilm. I hope. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: 25156 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, donation acceptance, Beacon Bank for Medford Bicycle Advisory Commission, bicycle safety equipment. I respectfully request and recommend your honorable body approves under Chapter 44, Section 53A, a donation in the amount of $500 by Beacon Bank to the Bicycle Advisory Commission to help pay for bicycle safety equipment. A member of the Bicycle Advisory Commission plans to attend to address the council. Come on up. How you doing?
[L5Dn-1_BzKM_SPEAKER_24]: I'm not sure what's being asked of me, but it was suggested that someone from the commission attend this meeting. For the last few years, I have been supplying bicycle light kits to all the children in Medford through the five public schools and our events that have been sourced from overseas at extremely low cost and had been trying to attract patrons to offset those costs. And that has been bureaucratically problematic, I think, in terms of ensuring that payments are made to the city of Medford, passed through me, and then submitted to the development office, who doesn't know what to do with them, and sticks them in the general fund, and eventually reimburses me, like over a year later. That's not the issue. But there has to be some more automatic means for the commission to take payments from patrons that we ask for support to be credited to some account within the city to acknowledge that that is happening. As well, we have a very limited budget of only $1,500 a year. That's approximately the cost of the 500 bike-like kits that we supply each year to the kids. We're going to be starting a campaign now to try to get bicycle helmets on all the children in the city. This is going to be a larger expense and I'm hoping to attract more corporate patrons for that activity and ramp up in the next year. So we have to have some means of taking donations given to us to be credited to us somehow through the city. So I'm not sure what the proposal is for you on the floor or how it works. This seems to be a little bit more of a bureaucratic boondoggle than anything that we in the Humboldt Commission understand.
[Zac Bears]: Well, thank you. It often is. So this is to accept a donation from Beacon Bank for $500?
[L5Dn-1_BzKM_SPEAKER_24]: Yes, which they've been giving to us for the last three years and has been credited to the city and somehow It disappears. It has sort of nothing to do with whether I get reimbursed or not, or that our account, which is loosely regarded, is credited to. Right. So that donation's not going to the line of... Yeah, the donation isn't going to us specifically. To the line of... We don't care. We just need to know what to do. Because we are being careful that any donations given to us are to the city. The checks are made out to the city. I give them to Alicia Hunt. She doesn't know what to do with them. They end up in the general fund. And then it comes time to pay the piper for the product, and she has to scurry for funds. So that's something more internal to the city's bureaucracies that, frankly, the commission doesn't care about. But we want to make it easy. for us to continue to exist and to buy supplies for our activities, especially for providing safety lights and helmets to the children in the city.
[Zac Bears]: Well, that really shouldn't be as complicated as it is.
[L5Dn-1_BzKM_SPEAKER_24]: If you have a line item, it's pretty ridiculous. I don't really know why we're here.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Well, this piece of it is that the state law requires that we approve all donations to the city, which I think we are more than happy to do. But I think it has also advised us that I think continuing ongoing problems of why, you know, there's a line item for the Bicycle Commission. That means there's an account in the system for the Bicycle Commission. They should just put this in there. That would make things much easier, wouldn't it?
[L5Dn-1_BzKM_SPEAKER_24]: Yeah, I'm not aware that there's an actual account. I know that we're bequeathed $1,500 a year. Yeah. There is a...
[Zac Bears]: There is a line item, doesn't mean there's a bank account, but there's an account within the city's chart of accounts for you guys, because we see it every year. So it shouldn't be that hard to use that number when they deposit these funds. So would anybody be open to putting an amendment on this paper to just request confirmation that this donation was placed into the Bicycle Commission's proper account? Councilor Tseng moved to amend, seconded by Councilor Callahan. I'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for being here. And in addition to the small donation that we've called you forward to discuss, I think it's I think we're all very appreciative to know that there's a bit of a bureaucratic Yeah, the acoustics are pretty bad. I just wanted to say thank you for giving voice to this bureaucratic issue that you've been having. And I'm glad that we can try and raise this to the administration to make future donation acceptances a little bit easier for the MBAC and hopefully for other commissions as well in the future. Again, this shouldn't be hard, and especially when you're talking about taking in donations so that you can buy helmets for kids, buy safety kits and distribute them into the community. I think we all want to make that as seamless as possible. So thank you for raising that as well while you're here. And I'm glad that Beacon Bank is helping out a little bit getting more safety supplies into the community would really appreciate all of the work that the Bicycle Commission does to not just raise the profile of cycling in the city but also make people who are cycling doing it more safely, every year, much appreciated. I would motion to approve.
[L5Dn-1_BzKM_SPEAKER_24]: Oh, sure. It's Ernest Meunier, M-E-U-N-I-E-R. I'm in the commission, obviously, and so for yours. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve as amended by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. And the amendment is to get confirmation that this gets deposited into the Bicycle Commission account. Great. All those in favor? Opposed? Well, it's general law. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scapello? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have an affirmative, none on the negative, the motion passes. Probably we should. Could you motion to reconsider? There's a motion to reconsider paper 25155 by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. And now someone. The motion to approve 25155 by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scapelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I think affirmative. No, the negative. The motion passes to 5157 submitted by Mayor Brandling occurred Community Preservation Committee appropriation request you you church historic window preservation. Dear President Bears and city councilors on behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following recommendations of the Community Preservation Committee. Requesting the appropriation of 9,000 from the CPA Historic Preservation Reserve to the Unitarian Universalist Church of Medford to fund the East Window Preservation Project. The project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund. The CPC recommendation letter is attached and incorporated. CPA manager, Teresa DuPont, will be in attendance to address the council. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Mayor Brianna Leopard. And I will recognize you, Teresa.
[Theresa Dupont]: Good evening and thank you, Mr. President and esteemed members of the council. I'm here before you tonight to ask for your support in the CPA appropriation request of 9000 dollars of historic preservation funds to the Unitarian Universalist Church. This will see the completion of restoration efforts for their East elevation window, which is. as you're driving up High Street towards Winthrop Circle. It's the big, beautiful window you will see on the east side of the building. It has geometric shapes, no religious imagery whatsoever. The committee supported this unanimously, and I'm here tonight to ask for your support. I'm happy to answer any questions.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any questions from members of the Council? Seeing none, is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan? Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Councilor Leming? Councilor Scarpelli?
[L5Dn-1_BzKM_SPEAKER_24]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Tseng? President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. I'm not seeing solicitor Foley and we need him for the next one. Can we take Councilor Scarpelli's under suspension resolution? Take that as a motion from Councilor Scarpelli on 25161. I can't find my copy. There it is. Motion to take paper 25161 from the table by Councilor Sperpelli under suspension. Seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 25161. Whereas the voters of Bedford will vote yes or no on a ballot question on November 4th, 2025 regarding a new charter for the city, whereas the proposed charter was formulated by an 11 member resident committee after extensive review process with public engagement research interviews with city officials and guidance from the Collins Center for public management, whereas the charter was then reviewed by the city council mayor, state legislature and signed by the governor. And whereas the ballot question is the final step in implementation of Medford's proposed charter, be it resolved that Medford City Council inform voters of Medford about said ballot question, how to find the text of the ballot question, and where to read the proposed charter. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think This is, I think, a resolution and an initiative that I think is something that our city is starving for. With so many issues and concerns that divide this community, here's a resolution and here's a cause that was done the right way. It was done with an organization that was put together with a multiple diverse group of people that went out and spoke to every different corner of the community and sharing the opinions of how people felt and what they wanted to see in the city's charter, something we haven't done in many, many, many years. followed up with the call-in center, the professionals in the field, and making sure that we followed all the bylaws and rules that were needed as you move forward with this charter. As we can see in the election year, you see, for me, the biggest piece is how difficult it is to have an election when you have seven at-large seats and you have 14 candidates running at-large. It makes it very difficult to people to get their word out. It makes it very difficult to have a more diverse council. And this initiative speaks directly to that. So I'm excited for the fact that this is on the ballot. but I would ask my colleagues to join me in solidarity of all seven of us moving to unanimously support the charter initiative like we've already have and then move with motioning that the mayor does everything possible. I would recommend a robo call to every resident, letting them know where they'll find the ballot question. um uh maybe a synopsis in the ballot question and we do our due diligence to make sure that our residents are aware that this isn't just an election for city council and school committee but for an initiative that will truly support our community that that has seen a lot of division and use uh this this uh initiative to really bring this city together and I think um voted in I think it's an initiative that would really polarize Medford for many many more years in in such a positive way that we can now focus on having representation in every single ward and precinct so people know exactly who they can go to when they need help and there are no questions and no confusion because we see it as we we walk the streets and and ask people for our votes today and we across the whole community. It's not an easy thing to do, and some people can do it because they have a lot of money, and they can get their message out. They can mail four or five mailers to 20,000 people, and it resonates. That helps. But when you're talking about a fair election, fair process, you're looking at board representation, really making our council a more diverse group that really represents our community in the truest form. So I thank my councilors for your support. And again, we would motion for the mayor to not once, maybe a few times send out a reverse 911 informing our residents that this initiative is on the ballot to really come out and vote in favor of this initiative. I know possibly not in favor or against it, but just to inform everybody that this is what the question is. This is why we have this option and to come out and vote for or against it. But represent that vote that you have for something, like I said, that we haven't done in, oh, many, many years. And again, I say it again, for Melva McDonald and her team, I think many thanks go to that because Melva crossed many different lines and she brought a lot of people together for a cause. Whether you believed it or not, it was an avenue where people listened to each other and then agreed to disagree or agreed to agree. And to me, I think that's what we're striving for in the city of Medford. And this is a great way to kick off a new initiative. So thank you, Council President.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Thank you. Thank you. I support this. I second the Councilor's motion. I think it's always better when residents know what's on the ballot and have more information about it. This is certainly an important question for our future.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli to request that the mayor do a robocall and other means to get information out about the charter ballot. Website, robocall. Got it. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. I think we have solicitor Foley with us. 25158, submitted by Mayor Brannon O'Kern. Approval of funding for law department claim over $2,500, safety insurance company for $3,000. Law Department file 25-5, date of accident, July 2nd, 2024. Date of settlement, September 25th, 2025. Amount of request, $3,000. Going to the claimant name, Safety Insurance Company, ASO Angelo Fiorentino v. City of Medford. The claimant, Safety, a subrogee of Angelo Fiorentino, initially sought reimbursement of damages of $5,341.19 paid to its insured Angelo Fiorentino for damages to a motor vehicle as a result of an incident involving a Department of Public Works vehicle at the intersection of Bradbury Avenue and 3rd Street, Medford, MA on or about July 2, 2024. City DPW confirmed the accident and the liability of the Medford DPW. Safety has agreed to accept 3,000 total to resolve the claim. The necessary lease will be obtained from safety. And I will recognize the city solicitor should be able to turn on your video, Kevin, and I'll ask you to unmute.
[Kevin Foley]: Mr. President, members of the council, can you hear me okay?
[Zac Bears]: We can hear you. Hi, Solicitor Foley, good to hear from you.
[Kevin Foley]: Thank you for having me. As you mentioned, this is a case that preceded a claim that preceded my time in the city of Medford. I want to credit KP Law who came to this arrangement and this resolution, which is a great deal lower than what the damages were. So I'm hoping that the council will act favorably upon the request to allow this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, solicitor. Do we have any questions for the city solicitor? Seeing, oh, go to Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, I have no questions for the solicitor, but this seems reasonable to me and I would motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming. Councilor Scapella.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Tseng. President Pierce.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 70 affirmative, none negative. The motion passes. Thank you, Solicitor Foley.
[Kevin Foley]: Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: All right, we have public participation. We have a petition from Andrew Castagnetti to the Honorable City Council. The undersigned respectively pray for stopping geographical discrimination in East Medford, Massachusetts. Petitioner name, Andrew Castagnetti, October 16th, 2025. And I will recognize Mr. Castagnetti. at the podium for three minutes. All right, Andrew Castagnetti, the floor is yours.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. Good evening, City Councilors. I'm Andrew Paul Castagnetti. of Cushion Street, East Medford. First, let me start on a positive note. Must thank whoever is responsible for repairing our Crystal Campbell Marathon Memorial Water Fountain at the Senior Citizen Center on Riverside Avenue. Thanks. Number two, thanks for the DOT, I believe it's Department of Transportation, for cutting down those wild trees at Roosevelt Circle. It was a major, major safety problem at the worst intersection in Medford. Number three, after 24 years of fighting Department of Recreation, DOR, and eight condo owners in court. We finally have our Clippership Connector bike path all the way to Medford Square. And I am pleasantly shocked they did it the right way within 20 feet of mean high tide as required by riparian rights law from a colonial law in 1641. Kudos to all. We thank you a lot. And now tonight I'm starting on my fourth mission to help out all of the East Medford residents by stopping geographical discrimination in East Medford Mass. One, in 1960, you may recall the Department of Transportation built Interstate Route 93 by Eminence O'Maine. Route 93 split the city in half, destroyed many homes and the old cemetery, et cetera. First, I must thank State Rep. Paul J. Donato Sr. for installing one sound barrier on the west side of Route 93. But we the people also need our own East Medford sound barrier to stop us suffering since 1960. The noise is terrible, 24 hours a day and especially at night. And the pollution also sucks as we're sucking in diesel fumes. This is very unfair and unhealthy, in my opinion. For the past 65 years, it's been going on. Please stop our suffering on the east side of town. Build our wall now, or yesterday would still be better still. I am not blaming anyone, because I love everyone. But as you know, I always do what as I please. In closing, I have started a signature petition to build our East Medford sound barrier and reverse, stop the geographical discrimination against all 10 to 20,000 East Medford residents. Amen. We need our barrier. We want our barrier now, period. Therefore, I'm offering you honorable city councilors this opportunity to sign my petition now. And the noise is bad, bad, and the pollution sucks too. Thank you if you're listening. Route 93 was built in 1960. Today is October 21st, 2025. That was 64 and a half years ago. You suffered long enough. Any more time left?
[Zac Bears]: No, you're over, but- Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: If you want to sign the petition, if any of you want to raise your hand, I'll pass it on my own.
[Zac Bears]: This is for the 93 Sound Barrier on the east side? Yeah, I'll sign it.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: I have a lot of takers. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have anyone else in the chamber or on Zoom who'd like to speak for public participation? All right, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes. And then I think there's someone who's having an issue on Zoom. I'll take them next. Time is yours.
[Nick Giurleo]: Nick Gioleo, 40 Robinson Road. So first, I just want to ask a question. I think it's a procedural question. I was just curious why the mayor's veto of the values aligned ordinance was tabled tonight. Was there a procedural reason for that?
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins made a motion to table. You're eating into your time.
[Nick Giurleo]: OK. Does anyone have an answer or no? OK. Also, I don't know it off the top of my head, but I could look it up. I believe the Charter has a limit.
[Kit Collins]: I said I wanted more time to think about it.
[Nick Giurleo]: Sorry, I had to get into my head. Okay. I believe the Charter has a limit in which the time a veto may be overridden. I don't know. Does anyone know that off the top of their head?
[Zac Bears]: My understanding is that the mayor has 10 days to consider, but that there's not a time limit under general law for considering the response.
[Nick Giurleo]: Okay. Yeah, I can, I could look that up. Anyone could. And then the last thing I'll say is, with Councilor Scarpelli's resolution I don't believe there was a public comment on that but I just wanted to voice my support for it. and say that I think the charter, first of all, I think it's good to just educate the public in general as to what a charter is. My conversation with people, a lot of people don't even know what a charter is as like a legal instrument. So I think it's good to kind of educate on that as well as this process of how we got to this point on voting on it. So I like this idea of educating as well as just what it is. It's a very long document. And I understand that our current charter because it's a planned form of government, you know, it's essentially just taken directly from the general laws. So it's kind of like in several different places. So I think it's kind of hard to understand, you know, what is our charter now and what will it become later on? So I think it's a good idea to really emphasize the differences between what we have now and what will come later. You know, beyond the obvious switch to ward representation, some of maybe the more subtle differences. And I know the charter committee has done a lot of work educating people on that. I definitely praise them for that. And hope they'll continue to do that. And I hope the council will assist with that process as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to recognize on Zoom, Steve Schnapp. Steve, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Steve Schnapp]: My name is Steve Schnapp. I live at 36 Hillside Ave in Medford Square. I just wanna mention in case anyone doesn't know, Gotta Know Medford, the local digital news outlet published a long article explaining about this city charter. It's really worth looking at, very informative. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Steve. I will go back to the podium, then we'll come back to Zoom. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Micah Kesselman]: Sure. My name is Michael Kesselman and I'm at 499 Main Street. I do want to make some quick comments about the mayor's own comments about the values aligned investment ordinance. I'm not gonna get into this sort of litany of gaslighting and revisionist disinformation about the history of the drafting of the ordinance. Right now, I think that stakeholders will put together a packet to provide more detailed information on that. But I did want to take a quick moment to address some of these references brought up in the KP law letter that was submitted in the opinion and analysis in that. So to be clear, the KP law opinion focused on three legal items and a fourth implementation issue. The three legal items were MGL chapter 4455B. The second one was the MGL chapter 4455B. effectively, the Prudent Investors Act, and I'll get into that in a second. And then the third thing when it comes to the legal issues that they brought up was existing Medford ordinances. There are some significant issues with what the opinion said, and that it didn't provide actionable, accurate analysis that can actually lead to something happening. So MGL chapter 455B, or chapter 4455B, it does require, it does put a fiduciary duty upon the treasurers and holders of the accounts. However, in the language itself, and this is something that the opinion glosses over, A lot of weight is given to the best yields reasonably available. And there is no expectation, there can't be an expectation of clairvoyance. So obviously the intention is that within the meets and bounds of what you know about the investments, you have to try and get the best return reasonably available, reasonably does a lot of heavy lifting in a sentence like that. That means that you have to look at what the history of similar style ordinances would be. If you look at ordinances like this across the country, they have performed at least at the same rate as market, if not exceeded S&P 500 by some years double digit percentages. So it is wildly inaccurate to say that there is an inherent violation of this particular mass general law. Moreover, I'm going to go into a little bit about the language around the PIA. I'm keeping this really high level.
[Zac Bears]: So the PIA issue, you've got like 20 seconds. Okay.
[Micah Kesselman]: The PIA was not legally implicated in the ordinance, it is not legally implicated in the draft, it was used as an exemplary language as a reference point. So to state that it is legally implicated without explaining why is more than a little bonkers, and not the greatest lawyering I've ever seen. Finally, existing Medford ordinances, the existing ordinance that was referenced in the analysis, very clearly gives a lot of latitude for investment decisions. So it is, there's no inherent basis to say that this would in any way interfere with that. And then the final aspect that was brought up is that they have stated that it's impractical because it's too vague. However, as I'm sure this council knows, Medford residents should know and understand. A lot of diligence went into the drafting of the ordinance, including talking to staff and ensuring that they were able to actually put it into practice.
[Zac Bears]: So that is simply wrong. We'll take you back at the end, thank you.
[Micah Kesselman]: No, that's it for that, thanks.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'll go to Zoom, then we'll come back to the podium. Go to Robert Carney on Zoom. Robert, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Robert Carney]: Robert Carney, 50 Hicks Ave, Unit 6, offering public comment on the tabled values-based ordinance. I work for a values-based investing manager in Boston. I started implementing values-based investing in my personal portfolio in 2019, and my wife and I both invest our entire portfolios in that manner as much as possible. Since 2014, I have worked in roles connected to asset management slash treasury and have also completed my MBA at Cornell with an immersion in investment research and asset management. My comments today are mine and mine alone and don't represent the views of my employer. Today, I speak in violation to the ordinance and by opposition to the ordinance in its current state. There are many reasons I'm opposed, but I want to speak about my concerns about the practicality of it. Here is one example. It prohibits investing in companies that are complicit in physical abuse, displacement, or other human rights violations. According to Good Jobs First, Home Depot, a store that many of us probably frequent, has paid out over $110 million and wage and hour violations over a certain time period that is listed on Good Jobs First. Wage and hour violations could be considered a human rights violation. Will the treasurer be forced to divest from a company like Home Depot? Don't get me wrong, I don't want to invest in companies personally that don't respect human rights, but we need more specificity on this point. When determining what is considered a human rights violation, how do you distinguish from systemic injustice and unethical behavior versus human error and honest mistakes? I'm also concerned about the timeline of the divestment. It seems aggressive to ask for the treasurer to divest from problematic companies by the end of the year. That's just a little over two months away. Have you asked the treasurer? I've heard this council's concern that what not to do is not as constructive as what to do. To that end, I'd be more interested in considering this ordinance if the word complicit was changed to directly involved and if we had definition of what that means. and that the ordinance listed specific companies to divest from, such as what is done in Portland, Oregon. Finally, I thought Judy Beatrice of the Commission of Trust Funds made some great points at an earlier council meeting, and I want to know if you've taken her up on her offer to speak to her about her questions and concerns. For these and many other reasons, I hope you won't override the mayor's veto and that you will address the mayor's concerns. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Patrick Clerkin]: Patrick Clark in 14 Bennett Place. And I just wanted to talk about something related to Andrew Castagnetti's point and the petition that he was putting forward on geographic discrimination in East Medford. So I just wanted to share some of my experience over the last couple of months talking to people. Basically, the impression that I get is that South Medford and North Medford get a disproportionate amount of the attention in Medford, and that's largely because South Medford is urban, and therefore has a disproportionate amount of the problems you know rodents and landlord tenant relations and various other problems. North Medford has more of the homeowners and therefore disproportionately more of the income and the tax base. And so what I've experienced is people in West Medford and East Medford saying that they feel like they kind of get the shaft that they don't get as much attention. So I think that the charter that's on the table for November is a step in the right direction. But considering we don't know what exactly is going to happen with that, I think it would make sense to consider in both cases. If we do get a new charter, if we don't get a new charter, how we proceed in a way that really brings all the different parts of the city together so that their problems and their concerns are considered fairly. Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Anyone else who wants to speak in public participation? That's a yes. All right, we've got someone for the podium. Seeing no hands on Zoom, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[SPEAKER_07]: Good evening, David Rich from West Medford. I'm here to address the so-called values ordinance. I think the mayor did the right thing. The question is whether you will. Now, I share many of the values that the council is trying to advance with respect to the ordinance. But the thing is, many people in Medford do not share them. It's not my money. It's not your money. It's our money. Our, meaning not OR. our meaning, the taxpayers of the city of Medford. So the responsibility of the council, of the treasurer, of the mayor, with respect to the money, is to handle it reasonably, and to the extent it's invested, to invest it in compliance with state law. And what is the state law? I don't need to hire KP Law, use taxpayer money, get an opinion, and ignore it. I know what it is. The state laws chapter 44, the Massachusetts municipal finance statute, section 54, 55B, it's titled investment of public funds. And it's not ambiguous, it's very clear. I'm gonna read to all of you from the statute. Quote, all monies held in the name of a city shall be invested in such a manner as to require the payment of interest on the money at the highest possible rate reasonably available, taking account of safety, liquidity, and yield. That's the state law. The ordinance that's under consideration that the mayor vetoed is directly conflicts with that law. If you go ahead and pass it, it won't be the operative law. This will be it. The mayor, the treasurer, and each of you must comply with state law. If you don't, If you choose to impose your own personal values on how you use the funds in contravention to the specific unambiguous state law, there are means for enforcement. Those means of enforcement include the mayor or any single citizen of the city walking into the Superior Court and filing a lawsuit, seeking a court order that the individual or individuals who are not complying with state law do so, that the city comply with state law. I find it very hard to believe that almost every single justice on the state Supreme Court is going to enforce the state law, not the city's ordinance. So I share those values that you're seeking to advance. But strategically, this is the wrong way. It's the wrong thing to do. The mayor did the right thing in vetoing it. Your job is to protect the citizens of the city of Medford, And with respect to money, to handle it prudently, in compliance with state law, and with respect to the adoption of ordinances, not to pass ordinances that conflict with state law. It is what it is. If you want to change the state law, we have state representatives. But this council should not do it. It will be expensive. Because if one of the citizens goes into court to challenge it, and they're likely to be successful, You're gonna have to hire a law firm. I don't think KP Law is gonna wanna do this. They've already issued an opinion letter that essentially says, cutting out all the other stuff, that the ordinance conflicts with state law. They can't defend you. You have to hire somebody else. You can't represent yourselves. You would have to hire a lawyer to do it. And the chances of success for the city are very slim. So I'm not saying the values that you're trying to advance are not important. They are. Not that we agree on all of them. But there are other ways to do it, not with the city's money. You were elected. You have a responsibility. I don't mean to lecture you, but it is what it is. You need to meet that responsibility. You shouldn't put the city's funds at risk. You shouldn't be passing ordinances that conflict directly with state law. As I said, the mayor or any citizen of the city could walk into a court and they will win.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're over time. Thank you. We have one hand on Zoom. Go to Ken on Zoom, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Ken Gareau]: Ken Garrow, 52 Lambert Street. I'm going to change tacks, sorry. This is kind of actually more of a reaching question than anything else. First and foremost, MassDOT's redo of the Salem Street Rotary is amazing, and I love it. I think that needs to kind of be stated. One thing I have noticed since they have done the repaving is apparently their asphalt truck basically left droplets of asphalt from the rotary all the way, actually all the way to Haynes Square, but kind of really substantially all the way up until Park Street where the school is. And I don't know if it's actually possible for us to maybe get them, MassDOT to potentially remediate some of that. I know our roads are kind of in a not great state and it may be a way of maybe taking some of the state funds to get them to maybe fix or do a slight quick repave of at least from Salem Street all the way to the Roberts to the school as as kind of a whoops we dropped asphalt all over your street. No idea if it's feasible but I figured I would throw it out there. I think it's potentially useful if we can get away with it. That's all. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We have one more hand on Zoom. We have Munir. I'll recognize you, Munir, for three minutes. Just requested you to unmute.
[Munir Jirmanus]: My name is Munir Germanis. I live at 3 Summit Road. I will briefly make a couple of comments about the values-aligned ordinance. The objection of the mayor in the form of an email that was sent to a few of the Councilors, came one day before the third reading. And that is after several months, several months of discussion with KP Law and with city officials. So I am a little bit shocked and disappointed that this last minute decision was made just before the final vote was made. This to me sounds like somebody is playing politics. Thank you, that's all I have to say.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, is there anyone else who hasn't spoken yet in public participation who would like to speak? Seeing none, I'll recognize anyone who spoke already for one more minute. Go ahead.
[Micah Kesselman]: Mike has been pouring on Main Street so really quickly just going to briefly reply to this. sort of circular axiomatic reasoning that the ordinance violates the state investment law that keeps being repeated again and again and again. Notice, however, that whenever it's stated, no one has given any sort of actual explanation and set forward a reasonable and codable series of steps for how it actually does violate the state law. it is just assumed to violate state law because it impacts investments. And apparently, what the mass gen law says between the lines, not in the black letter words of it, is that you just can't make any laws that have anything to do with excluding very, very specifically defined stocks from investment. That's not what it actually says. So stop it like provide facts explain your reasoning by the other thing I really quickly want to get to is the mayor clearly engaged in this in bad faith. It is crazy that she provided this at the very last minute like moonier said just a minute ago. You can look at what she's done with zoning and see how it is absurd that she's politicized what has not been a political process until these last few months. And also her continued absolute silence on the fact that we have people being kidnapped off of our city streets. This is crazy. She has been silent and totally ignoring it. That is wild. All I can say is that she clearly is not suitable for her position, and I encourage everyone to vote for literally anything else, anyone else. It would be great if she won by like two digit numbers.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any other comments for tonight's meeting of the public participation? Seeing no one in the chambers and no hands on Zoom, is there a motion on the floor? Motion adjourned by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
|
total time: 14.28 minutes total words: 1396  |
total time: 1.07 minutes total words: 95  |
total time: 1.97 minutes total words: 248  |
total time: 1.67 minutes total words: 175  |
|
total time: 5.42 minutes total words: 121  |
total time: 0.19 minutes total words: 18  |
total time: 1.9 minutes total words: 226  |
total time: 1.47 minutes total words: 134  |