[Unidentified]: Test one, two. Kevlar did
[Zac Bears]: City Council February 3rd 2026 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan, Councilor Leming, Councilor Malayne, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, Vice President Lazzaro, President Bears, present, seven present, none absent, please rise to salute the flag.
[Zac Bears]: Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. Records, the records of the meeting of January 20th, 2026 were passed to Councilor Mulane. Councilor Mulane, how did you find those records?
[Liz Mullane]: Good.
[Zac Bears]: Did you find those records in order and move approval? I did, I found them in order. Didn't realize I was up.
[Liz Mullane]: Hey, when it comes to me next time, I'm going to give you one of these. That's right.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to say that for parliamentary purposes, that doesn't count as a motion. Yeah. Great job. You're doing great.
[Liz Mullane]: I'm hanging in there. You got it next time.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Mulane to approve the record seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes. Reports of committees. 25-054 and 25-149 offered by Councilor Leming, Planning and Permitting Committee, January 28, 2026. Report to follow, Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you. And the Planning and Purbaning Committee, myself and Councilor Tseng, who did most of the legwork on it, went over a proposed vacant building ordinance, presenting it to other members of the committee as well as city staff. We motion to continue it to another regular, another Planning and Purbaning Committee pending more public feedback. I motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: The motion to approve the committee report by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Refer to committee for further discussion. 26-031 offered by Councilor Callahan. Resolution to require law enforcement identification and protect fourth amendment rights. Be resolved by the Medford City Council that the Public Health and Community Safety Committee meet to discuss ordinances, orders, policies, and resolutions to protect residents and secure basic constitutional rights on the following matters. Law enforcement identification and public trust. A law enforcement officer shall not wear a mask or personal disguise while interacting with the public in performance of their duties except for medical masks and as part of gear necessary to protect their faces from harm during the performance of operations. Fourth Amendment protections. All Fourth Amendment agencies exercising their authority within the city limits of Medford shall abide by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Specifically, no law enforcement officer shall seize prisons or property without a judicial court-ordered warrant, and no law enforcement officer shall enter a domicile or a privately-owned building without either permission from the property owner or a judicial court-ordered warrant. This is the first one we've had this session, but this is the refer to committee for further discussion section, so if you want to say, 30 seconds, and then we will move this to committee. That's kind of how we prefer to handle these, because the discussion will happen in committee. Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. First, I have to apologize, because when I sent this in, I really should have, I believe, listed Councilor Tseng as a co-sponsor. Let me just double check in that you would like to be a co-sponsor. Thank you so much. He was very helpful in this as well. And really, the purpose, I think, will not be a surprise to anyone. We want to ensure that our residents feel that their city is protecting them. And the first section on law enforcement identification and public trust is really pulled from some state legislation, and we expect that to become a little bit more full. We'll probably have some definitions and other things, but that will be worked out in committee. The last, the second section really is simply reiterating our constitutional Fourth Amendment rights, and I look forward to discussing this in committee.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to refer this paper to the Public Health and Community Safety Committee by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President Lazzaro. All those in favor?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. 26-032 offered by Councilor Tseng and President Bears, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we meet in Committee of the Whole to discuss the implementation of our new city charter passed at the November 2025 election and now in effect. In particular, to review the sections of the new charter affecting the city council and to determine how the charter differs from past and current practice. Councilor Tseng, same quick summary to you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. We met late last year with city admin leadership, school committee leadership, and with KP Law to talk about how we implement the new charter. Our recommendation at the end of that meeting was that we meet in the committee of the whole to look through the city council parts of the charter, things that would affect the city council, and see what we thought should be affected right now.
[Zac Bears]: Great. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to refer to Committee of the Whole, seconded by Councilor Callahan, I just want to say one thing. One of the things that changed is appointments, and I'm currently going back and forth with the administration. I believe that appointments, basically, if the Council does not object, then appointments are implemented. My interpretation of that is that the These should go on our agenda and people should have, councilors should be able to object in session. The administration has suggested that they email all of us and none of us email them back, that that counts as an objection. I'm going to try to get everything on our next regular meeting agenda that we've received so far. I think we can't, I think we have to do that in session. So on the motion of Councilor Tseng seconded by councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Hearings 26-025, petition for grant of location, National Grid. North Andover, Massachusetts, petition for a joint-owned pole at 57 Swan Street. National Grid Plan No. JO31197488. You are hereby notified that by order of the Medford City Council, the City Council hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hazlett Drive, Medford, and via Zoom on Tuesday, February 3, 2025, at 7 p.m., only to be posted no later than Friday, January 30, 2025, on a petition by Massachusetts electrical company DBA National Grid for permission to install a new joint-owned pole at 57 Swan Street. We're for a request that after due notice and hearing is provided by law be granted the location and permission to install a new joint own pole at 57 Swan Street j.o. Number 3 1 1 9 7 4 8 8 originally dated October 30th 2025 and received and filed in the office of the city clerk on December 12th 2025 and available for inspection in the office of the city clerk Medford City Hall room 103. 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, MA 02155. The following recommendations from the Engineering Division. Honorable City Council, the Engineering Division does not recommend the approval of a grant of location request submitted by National Grid for the installation of a new 40-foot joint utility pole at 57 Swan Street. The proposed installation does not appear to serve a clear public need and would introduce additional private infrastructure within the public right-of-way. The engineering division has concerns regarding the impact to existing utilities, vehicular accessibility and overall streetscape aesthetics as the installation is intended to support one private service rather than a broader public benefit and is not an appropriate use of a municipal right-of-way. Accordingly, the engineering division recommends that this not be approved. All right, we can hear from the petitioner and then we can hear from the, City Engineer, if he has anything, and we can also hear from Councilors, and then we can open the public hearing. We have a petitioner from National Grid. Thank you for being here. If you want to present on this paper.
[Cam Hansel]: So yeah, this job is to install a pole on Swan Street approximately 15 feet away from the existing pole 6724 and approximately 100 feet away from pole 716. The customer at 58 Swan Street. has a service with a voltage that does not currently exist anywhere on that street or that area. So the new pole is needed to install transformers to give him that voltage. And all the existing poles on that street are currently occupied.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the presentation. Do we have any questions for the petitioner? Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: The resident is going to affect this.
[Unidentified]: was in front of the area.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I think we're on. Motion to reconvene by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Mullane. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. All right, I'm going to go to Owen if he's still with us. I'm not seeing him now. Where we left off, we had heard from the petitioner about the proposed grant of location. I'm recognizing the city engineer. Oh, and were you able to hear any discussion with the petitioner from National Grid?
[Owen Wartella]: No, but I have nothing to add. It's ultimately your decision anyways. So, and I apologize that I couldn't hear them, but I provided a recommendation to you to not approve this. It's up to you all to do what you want to do.
[Zac Bears]: Could you provide a little bit more context on to why you made the recommendation?
[Owen Wartella]: I feel that there's enough poles on Swan Street for them to use either their own structures or to provide use on private property, which they haven't done. They are going for the less expensive option for using public parcels and having a pole 15 feet away from another pole. is not optimal for the businesses that are there or for the private uses. They need to come up with a better decision. That's all.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Do we have, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Can the petitioner explain to me what is the business and what is the purpose of the transformers and why does it need to be exactly here and why can't it be on one of the current poles?
[Cam Hansel]: The business is a auto shop, so they're gonna have equipment for that. And all of the other poles along Swan Street already have equipment, or national grade equipment on them. But none of them are the voltage that the business needs for their equipment.
[Liz Mullane]: And just kind of following up on the statement from Owen, what exactly, like what part of it on the private piece of it would it not be able to fit? Is there a reason why it can't be more on their property then for the business? Why does it have to be more on the public side?
[Cam Hansel]: Well, the pole line is on like the opposite side of the street of 58, like the pole line is like along 57 and the business is on 58, so we really couldn't have a pole on the 58 property because the pole line is on the other side. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Is there another way to install this transformer and not on a pole and somehow on their building or on their private property?
[Cam Hansel]: No. The cans are all pole-mounted. There's really no other way where to put them. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I guess I'm just, personally, I'm just caught between understandings here. It seems like our city engineer believes that there's an option that would have less public impact than what's been proposed. So, Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: We only have the input of our city engineer and the petitioner. Is the business owner here to speak for the, okay. And we'll have the public hearing after this, so we'll have to hear from if there's anybody in favor or against it, and that's what we'll have to use to decide. It's, usually these are very cut and dry, but this one is a little bit less. So I'm sorry to be like talking this out. It's literally never been like this confusing to me before. So that's all. I appreciate your perspective. I appreciate the perspective of the city engineer. So I'm fine with just going with that.
[Zac Bears]: I see Councilor Scarpelli but can I ask one question. Engineer Wartella, what is the cheaper or what is the option that requires less impact on the public way that isn't being executed here? And you indicated that was a more expensive option. Could you just explain what that is and why?
[Owen Wartella]: So the way I understand this is that they put structures, their structures, their equipment on the public property public right of way because it's free. There is no fee that we charge for a grant of location. We just go through a process with approval from you. If they decide to put equipment or a pole to feed this service on private property, they would have to pay for the use of that private property. My only, Swan Street is already riddled with multiple, I think there's like six, maybe seven poles already and putting one 15 foot away without exchanging one that's higher because right now they're 30 foot poles. They can install 40 foot poles along the way without a grant of location. They just would need to swap it out. It would take time because they're all joint owned. They could build up higher on the grant of location that was already given to them. They're choosing not to do that. They want to install another structure on the private, on the public way because it is the least expensive option for them. in my opinion.
[Zac Bears]: And so if we were to deny this grant of location then they would have to use an existing pole, replace an existing pole to provide the service.
[Owen Wartella]: Yeah but it's also joint owned so that means it would and you I mean it would be a long time for them to swap out the pole, put in a new pole, put in the thing. I mean it's it's a process. But, you know, I don't know. I'm sure there are other quicker options for them. I'm not an expert with, you know, electrical conduits and transformers. I do know that the poles that are right there right now cannot support the transformers due to like safety concerns, like you have to have transformers certain away, like they have to be a certain type of pole to hold the equipment that is there for safety reasons. However, if they need to add a pole, they could add a pole that is not on public property. They're just choosing not to do that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for, like I said, to get more clarity on City Engineer. I mean, we could go through the process and the table list and then get a better understanding because, you know, I don't think we've got clarity from National Grid and I think that our engineer is giving us a pretty detailed answer that there are options first. again that I didn't realize is 115 feet away. And that's a piece that I didn't realize in the documents. So I wouldn't support it, but I would table it so we can revisit it again once we have a little bit more information. And then maybe the business owner can chime in to see if there are alternative locations. I know that one option would ask if could you put a ground transformer in, but then again that would create more congestion in that 15-foot area that I wouldn't recommend. But yeah, so I would go through and then wait and see what we should do next, Mr. President. This is a tough one.
[Zac Bears]: If I could just go back to the petitioner, what would National Grid do if we did not approve the grant of location?
[Cam Hansel]: I mean, I don't think the business wouldn't be able to open Because, again, there's no voltage that supports their equipment in that area.
[Zac Bears]: So National Grid wouldn't replace an existing pole with one that could hold the transformer?
[Cam Hansel]: Well, no. All of the other poles already have either existing transformers that are different voltages or other equipment like capacitor banks on them. So we couldn't add additional transformers to those poles that already have our transformers on them.
[Zac Bears]: But you couldn't replace one of the existing poles with something, a taller pole, and then put it on that?
[Cam Hansel]: Well, no. Even if we were to add a taller pole, we wouldn't put an additional transformer on a pole that already has one on it.
[Zac Bears]: OK. Or a capacitor bank. So you can't use the existing infrastructure to? No. Even with a larger pole or something? No. OK. So there's no other option but putting another pole in?
[SPEAKER_18]: No.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[George Scarpelli]: Again, this is a slippery slope when you're talking about the business commuter and the open storefronts. These are things that we're like, there's got to be other options. And if our city engineer is telling us that there are options, but they're more expensive, that's why I'm a little confused with the petitioner. Do you understand what the engineer is saying? Are there other avenues that National Grid can work with the petition, with the business to say, we're not going to put another pole on, but we can support a transformer if it was done this way?
[Cam Hansel]: Again, the poles are already occupied. That's a clear practice. That's a standard practice with National Grid, one pole for one piece of equipment. It doesn't matter how tall the pole is. Right.
[George Scarpelli]: So the question is, I don't think we're going to support it because you're talking about adding a pole 15 feet from another pole. So I think it's too congested. I think that's been an issue in Medford for a while. A city engineer has just stated that there are other avenues that National Grid can work with the business to see if there's other options to put a transformer that would not put a pole 15 feet away, but service the customer. If we're wrong, tell us we're wrong. I'm just listening to the professional that we know that's our engineer.
[Cam Hansel]: Oh, okay. No, I mean, there really isn't another option. I think, did you mention the ground transformer? Because that's also like a lot of space that would be.
[George Scarpelli]: Right, that's why it wouldn't work. But that's why I'm saying that maybe our engineer has a better idea. He said there's some options, right?
[Zac Bears]: I mean, could a ground transformer be installed on the private property? Like off the sidewalk? On the roof of the business, or? Oh, no, those have to be on the ground. They have to be on the ground? Correct, yeah. Could they be in front of the business on their private property, in their lot, something like that?
[Cam Hansel]: It could, but in order to support that, we would have to replace the pole. 6724 in order to run overhead line across the street to their property and then from that pole go to the ground transformer. And I don't know if there's space for that. And the other issue with that is that that existing pole, 6724, has equipment on it from a voltage that we no longer carry the parts for. So I've talked to the overhead field supervisor about this, and they don't want to touch that pole because if, like while they're transferring the transformer from that pole to the new one and something breaks, the customer that's fed from that would be out of power because we don't, again, we don't carry that. service voltage anymore.
[George Scarpelli]: That's confusing. So there's an option, but the piece is so old that if it goes down, he's done. He'll never have electricity again. That's how it was presented.
[Cam Hansel]: Yeah. Well, I mean, the customer would then have to redo their entire service in order to
[George Scarpelli]: Yeah, honestly, Mr. President, yeah, I'm sorry.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro, and just before we do procedurally, we'll be continuing the public hearing to our date certain of February 24th, but Councilor Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Sorry, that sounds like a National Grid problem to me. That sounds like that would be really expensive for National Grid to fix that person's electricity and then that would be y'all's responsibility. And that what I'm hearing is that it would be difficult to do something different for National Grid. But it's not impossible. And that this is a request for us to give a free thing to a private business instead of something that should be housed on private property because the free thing is too much for the public to take on and because the company that is like quasi-public but really not public, it is a utility, that sometimes we treat like it's a public organization but is not, may have to replace antiquated equipment, which they probably should be replacing anyway because it sounds dangerous. To me, that illuminates that there are options. I am comfortable with following the advice personally of the city engineer because it sounds to me like there are options. They may be more expensive for National Grid. the business owner, but I think maybe primarily for National Grid. So I appreciate that. I would love to hear, yeah, no, that's okay. I want to hear the petitioner's response, President Perez, because he's got a response to that. And if it's a safety issue, I would want to hear that too. Thank you for.
[Cam Hansel]: Thank you. So it wouldn't solely be on National Grid. As I mentioned, that customer at 35 Swan Street that has that outdated service, they would have to pay to redo all of their equipment. That wouldn't be us.
[Zac Bears]: I do have the name of the business. At 35 at 57.
[Cam Hansel]: JNC Realty Corp.
[Zac Bears]: OK. I guess my only other question is, how many outdated services, like what's that 35 SWAN are in the city? And what is your plan to address that if you're no longer providing electricity to that service? Like what if the transformer breaks tomorrow, what will happen?
[Cam Hansel]: There aren't many. We just don't touch them until the customer either cancel their service and has it canceled, and then we take it down. Or if they want to pay to have everything upgraded, then we'll do that. But for now, until something goes wrong, we won't really touch it. until either, again, they cancel it or they request to have it upgraded and they upgrade all of their equipment on their side also.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I think at the very least we're gonna, sounds like we wanna continue this for a few weeks. I think it seems like it's the preference of this council that an alternative be developed. Is that fair? Yes. So, I don't know if that's possible, but maybe in consultation with the business owners and the property owners in the area, you might be able to go back to them and see if something else could be figured out. I hope that that's okay. I do actually have to open the public hearing before we close it. If there's anything you want to say before I do that. Okay. I'm opening the public hearing. Is there anyone who'd like to speak in favor or in opposition or otherwise to this grant of location? I'm guessing National Grid is in favor. Yes. Yes. All right. It looks like we have someone else who'd like to speak.
[Micah Kesselman]: No, it's Mikey Hessman, 499 Main Street. I don't totally understand why the cost of replacement would be on the customer for National Grid upgrading the transformer to a standard voltage? Or why would it be super extensive? I don't expect you to necessarily have an answer to that, but that's something I think that should be looked at. And also, I just want to point out that National Grid is posting record revenue growth this quarter alone every year, and we can't really do a whole lot to engage with utility companies, but this kind of permitting stuff is the meager way that the city can actually engage and try and get utility companies to work with cities in a reasonable fashion. So it's something to keep in mind.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to speak as part of this public hearing? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to continue this public hearing to February 24th, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Malauulu. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Malauulu? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm in the affirmative. None the negative. The motion passes. Thank you. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers, 26030, petition for a common victualer's license, Lighthouse Cafe. We have the Royal King Corporation, DBA, the Lighthouse Cafe, who has presented a common victualer's license here, and we do have that they have received all of their necessary documentation. So is there a representative from Lighthouse Cafe here in person or on Zoom? If you're here in person, please come to the podium. If you're on Zoom, please raise your hand on Zoom. All right, I'm not seeing a representative from Lighthouse Cafe here. Is there a motion? On the motion to table by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. To the next regular meeting. All right, motion to table the next regular meeting by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? What? Oh, yeah, Vice President Lazzaro. I called Kit Councilor the whole time, too. And Nicole called me Councilor. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 26036, petition for a common victor's license, Sherwood Inc, DBA, Placida, Mexico, tacos. We have location, 49 High Street, Medford, MA. It looks like we have all the paperwork in order. Do we have a representative from Placida, Mexico? Looks like we do, great. If you want to give a short presentation on your business and then I'll turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli once you've made your presentation.
[SPEAKER_10]: Sure, so we're just looking to open our third location of Placita Mexico Tacos. We're currently in Wakefield and in Watertown. And it's a small Mexican restaurant, mostly takeout. Wakefield is 100% takeout. Watertown has some seats, and this is sort of in the middle with about six to eight seats in it. So it's, you know, homemade tortillas, very authentic, fresh, everything cooked, fresh ingredients. I don't know what else you want to know.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: I see everything in order. How many employees will be working?
[SPEAKER_10]: To start, usually about three people in the kitchen and one cashier in the front.
[George Scarpelli]: I see everything in order. There's nothing that stands out, Mr. President. I move forward for approval.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: What are your vegetarian options like?
[SPEAKER_10]: We just today added a vegetarian tamale, but we have vegetable options on everything except the birria tacos. Everything else has a vegetarian option.
[Marie Izzo]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Well, thank you for going through the process, opening a business here in Medford. We're excited to have you in the square. And on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Councilor Malayne. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Kelly? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Malauulu? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Good luck.
[SPEAKER_10]: Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Motions, orders, and resolutions 26-024 offered by President Bears. I really should have put this in refer to committee. So that's on me. Resolution to schedule neighborhood ward meetings hosted by the City Council. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the Council's Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee discuss a plan to schedule neighborhood ward meetings hosted by the City Council in 2026 and 2027. Pretty self-explanatory. Good luck, Councilor Millane. As the Chair, I will recognize you and then Councilor Tseng.
[Liz Mullane]: Thank you for putting this forward. This is definitely one of the things that the committee is very interested in doing and making sure that we're getting out in front of as many different community members as we can. So really looking forward to the conversations and setting these up and meeting with people and hopefully other people will want to join and help us to do this to get the word out. Tuesday, February 10th at 7 p.m. is our first meeting. So hopefully others will join us to have this conversation. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Malauulu and Councilor Tseng. Thank you, President Bears for putting this on the agenda. I'm personally very excited for this idea. You know, a few years ago, something I said and something a lot of other councilors said was that we wanted to bring City Hall to the people and not expect that, you know, if you want something done in Medford, you have to come to City Hall. And, you know, there's a long way to go on that, for sure. But I'm proud that over the last few years, the council has laid the groundwork for neighborhood meetings by having the listening sessions that we've been having at the senior center and with different stakeholder communities around Medford. And as we've gotten more practice with it, I think we've gotten even more eager and excited to get out there into the community and listen to voices who don't get heard, who don't have that chance to come to City Hall, who can't take that time out of their busy workdays or evenings to come here and feel like they've been heard. And it's really important and incumbent upon us and our responsibility to go out there And especially with so many big projects coming up, just getting the chance to listen to people and hear different perspectives, which oftentimes are different to what normal people think, you'd expect to hear from the public. There's a real exciting array of ideas, and sometimes the best ideas that we get on the city council come from them as well. So thank you for this resolution, Mr. President, and thank you for your leadership, Councilor Milley. Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. I want to really echo a lot of what Councilor Tseng just said. You know, in any city, as well as state and national districts, the truth is that really only about 5% or less of our city, or really of anywhere, will ever reach out to their elected officials and show up in City Hall. And we want to make sure that we're representing everyone and not just those people who happen to, you know, make it a part of their habit to show up here. Going into the community to where people already are rather than making them come to us is really, really important. I'm very excited about this. I appreciate your leadership, President Bears. I'm also very happy that we've been doing these over the last couple of years and I've learned some things, so I look forward very much to approaching them in committee and making them as successful as possible. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan, and I'm really glad that we're moving forward on this. As Councilor Scarpelli noted, I'm really trying to work collectively, talk to all of the voices, you know, even across our disagreements and our differences, right? If we can communicate with each other, if we can be open, if we can be honest, if the answer is how do we get to yes, or explain why, or, you know, what are the decisions that we're making as a city and how can we talk about them together? I think that's a really important thing. for all of us to do, and I think we've all tried to do that in different ways, and this is another way to do that even more. So, thank you. It looks like we have some public participation on this paper, so I'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Nick Giurleo]: Nick Jarleo, Forty Robinson Road. So I think definitely with our new city charter we're going to have to rethink how we do politics in Medford. I think everybody agrees on that and I do agree with kind of this ward centric way of looking at it. My only reservation with the system that seems to be proposed here is this idea of the council kind of organizing it and running it. I actually would disagree with that and I think this should be run independently from residents otherwise I think What we're probably going to see is the council becoming or these meetings essentially becoming an extension of city council meetings which I don't think would be the most productive for our neighbors. I think ultimately residents should really be kind of driving them as opposed to elected officials. So hopefully I see it's getting referred to committee here. Hopefully there can be some discussion and debate about that. the extent to which these will be independent versus kind of extensions of the council. And I think if that ultimately isn't an option for independent meetings, I would suggest residents to start their own. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. If there's nothing further on the motion by Councilor Malauulu. Oh, go ahead. Name and address so I can give you three minutes.
[Micah Kesselman]: Mike Acosta, 1499 Main Street. I just want to give sort of like a counter view to what was just proposed. Residents can already start their own ward meetings. This can be done, and I think that's great if residents want to independently start regular ward meetings, which is something I was looking into before I saw this come on the agenda. But I 100% like there should be an extension of the city council having an active presence in individual wards and showing that they're engaged with wards and the residents of those wards from the actual city council and from the city government in general. So what I would actually suggest is that I do hope that should you do these board meetings, however they're set up, hopefully you have them at locations in the wards, preferably at like maybe businesses in the wards too could host them. That would be really dope. And also you make sure to have like city and other city officials come into each and every single one of those meetings, maybe not the same one, but have the city presence there so that the residents can directly address them and everything, because most residents don't care enough to come to this meeting, which is understandable, but they might come to that one. So, thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And we do have someone on Zoom, Robert Carney. Uh, name and address for the record, please and you'll have 3 minutes.
[Robert Carney]: Robert Carney, 56 unit 6. You know, I just have to be honest, I'm echoing Nick G's points. With this council-led initiative, under present circumstances, I'm just skeptical of how much these meetings are going to accomplish. I appreciate this desire to engage deeper with residents, and I've had firsthand experience emailing. in conversing with city councillors on issues of interest, some of which led to a pleasing response from the council as a whole. However, with the exception of George Scarpelli, I honestly question whether all the city councillors truly want to engage with residents of the community on all issues. More specifically, I'm concerned about how the majority affiliation with our revolution may limit open dialogue in diverse neighborhoods. When elected officials are part of a specific policy platform, it raises questions for me about their ability to remain fully responsive to constituent input. I can't help but question statements from councillors that say we want to represent anyone. Is there a way for an Our Revolution councillor to respond to residents who may disagree with parts of the People's Platform? For example, the Our Revolution endorsement process requires agreement to the entirety of the People's Platform. a detailed evolving document that establishes positions on everything from code enforcement officers to emergency response and extends into state and national issues. This means Councilors endorsed by our revolution have already committed to positions on issues like whether they think proposition two and a half You know, he's good or not, there's something about that on the website. Restorative justice in schools, whether that should be favored or not, and rent stabilization before hearing from constituents. What concerns me most is the structural limitation this creates for constituent engagement. If a councillor has pre-committed to a platform position, meaningful dialogue with residents who hold different views becomes difficult. Additionally, residents cannot contribute to or vote on the People's Platform unless they're already OR members who have agreed to the existing platform, creating a closed feedback loop. I respect that councillors have sincere convictions and that many residents share these values. However, if the councillors want to see more meaningful engagement in the wards, I believe they should critically examine how organizational commitments may be perceived as barriers to open constituent dialogue. Greater independence from any exclusive political structure would make these ward meetings more effective in my opinion, and I would feel more comfortable raising my ideas in a more independent format. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We have one more comment on Zoom. Muneer Jermanis, name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Muneer Jermanis at 3 Summit Road. I am in full support of the elected members of this council. We elected you not because you are part of any organization, but because we support the values that you are supporting, and we give you full authority to act on our behalf. Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion, you have one minute.
[Micah Kesselman]: Michael Kesselman, 499 Main Street. Really quick, there's one reminder. You can't ask for the city government and city electeds to have a close relationship to the wards and residents in the city, but then get suspicious and skeptical and pissy at them for trying to have a public, transparent, official way of directly engaging closer to the residents and and residents in the wards. Like, have your cake or eat it, right? Okay. Just want to remind people of that and to like think about this a little bit rationally and less reactively. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. All right. On the motion. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. All right. Motions, orders, and resolutions is to refer to Resident Services and Public Inventory by Councilor Millan, seconded by? I think you seconded it. Yeah. I believe so. I remember. All right. We have two motions on ambulance. Do we want to join them? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to join papers 26026 and 26-027, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. I'll read 26026 and then 26-027, and we'll just call this a co-sponsorship. Whereas the City of Medford has entered into a new ambulance service contract representing significant change in public safety service delivery, and whereas the City Council held meetings on January 6th and January 13th to discuss the transition and submit a number of questions to the Mayoral Administration, and whereas the City Council has not yet received a response from the Mayoral Administration to these questions and has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure taxpayer funds are used efficiently and public safety standards are maintained, Now therefore be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we request answers to the questions submitted by the administration by the City Council on January 13th. Be it further resolved that the City Council request copies of any and all communications sent by the city or received from Armstrong Ambulance regarding the termination of the contract. And we also have here, this is the second one. Whereas the City of Medford recently transitioned emergency ambulance services to Cataldo Ambulance. And whereas emergency medical services are a core public safety function directly impacting resident health, safety, and response times. And whereas the prior proposals for ambulance services included differing levels of transporting resources, supervisory capabilities, and staffing models. And whereas questions have arisen regarding the reduction or modification of transporting supervisory services. The use of Medford ambulances for mutual aid outside the city, the location and staffing of the behavioral health ambulance, training requirements for personnel assigned to Medford, the frequency of quarry background checks, and the availability and review of the full executed ambulance contract. And whereas the city council has a duty to ensure the transparency and accountability. One second. and consistent standards in public safety contracting. Now therefore be it resolved that the Medford City Council formally request the administration provide written clarification and documentation regarding, one, whether and under what circumstances ambulances may be deployed for mutual aid outside the city under the Cataldo contract. Two, the operational differences between previously proposed transporting supervisor ambulances and the current non-transporting supervisory model, including the impact on transport capacity. Three, the physical stationing location of the behavioral health ambulance and the mandatory training requirements, including PAL or equivalent for personnel assigned to Medford. Four, the frequency and contractual requirements for Corey background checks for Cataldo employees assigned to Medford. And five, a full copy of the executed ambulances services contract with Cataldo Ambulance Service, Inc. Be it further resolved that this information be provided to the city council in advance of any further deliberation regarding ambulance operations, performance metrics, or contract amendments, be it further resolved that the city council call for a committee of the whole meeting with city and public safety leadership team to review information requested. And I will note we Was it today or late yesterday received the Cataldo contract? It was today. And I believe we also received an email from Armstrong Ambulance, which I can read into the record. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli, but at some point about. Great. Great. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. And again, I, I've been listening to talking to residents and it's, it seems like, um, There's varying issues and varying thoughts of this, saying that this is the mayor's control and why is the council getting involved. We sent the mayor these questions that were concerning, and to Chief Evans and Mayor Lungo, sending over a connection with Rob White from Cataldo to help answer these questions. That was very helpful. We had about a half hour. I wish we had a little bit longer. And as I told Rob, Mr. White, as we talked today from Cataldo, he says one of the biggest One of the things he wants to make sure we eliminate is any fear-mongering, because he's afraid, what was shared with him through administration is some sort of fear-mongering going on with this council. And I just want people to realize that the key for this, and as I told Cataldo's representatives, this isn't personal with Cataldo. This is truly what we're seeing contractually and us as a city council making sure that our leaders are making decisions, whether it's for the safety and health and well-being of the community or financially or so many other avenues. But I think that I want everybody personally to understand that, and I told Mr. White I would say this, that we are not in any danger because Cataldo is our ambulance service. I think that's something that was expressed in a way possibly with questions that were brought up that might have set a separate dialogue. So I want to make sure we're clear with that. But we had a very deep conversation, and unfortunately, I talked to the representative from Cataldo before I received the contract from the mayor's office. I've been working very closely with emergency response specialists that have shared their input where it's not one side or the other, just having me understand what the process is when it comes to contracts. And as we look forward, and I'll go over some notes real quick so I can share this with you, is that I found this bothersome because we still, I think what everybody asked in multiple meetings is the simple question, why? And we didn't get the answers why. And when you talk to people, whether they want to believe it or not tell the truth, the dialogue that's saying that everybody was in agreement that's decision makers and they have to live with that. And then the dialogue that the mayor put out publicly that Councilor Scarpelli, she can't make a decision because I'm friends with Armstrong. So the point that I tried to make and the reason why I took ownership to was belittled to the fact that My energy wasn't behind what I lived with personally with my mother, but more the fact that this was a dialogue out of friendship. Just to be clear with everybody, I didn't meet the CFO from Armstrong Ambulance until this process came forward. I want everybody to understand that. I have a relationship with one of their employees that happened to be, I was a soccer coach in high school. Has nothing to do in any other aspect. So as we talked to Cataldo today, there was some glaring questions that I had. And we talked about Armstrong and understanding the supervisor's role, what's being offered apples to apples for coverages, and is there a huge difference between Armstrong and Cataldo? Was that the reason? And I'll show you that it really wasn't. The discussion with mutual aid and understanding mutual aid and still having meetings to help us understand mutual aid because what we heard from, I believe, the supervisor from 911, the biggest issue we had was the mutual aid that was going to Arlington. Armstrong came and explained that 98% of the ambulance service, they never use mutual aid. conversations I had with Cataldo. They explained to me the mutual aid is done differently. And he explained that while they've been here already, they've used, I believe, 34 mutual aid calls that they had to share. And I said, so we're taking mutual aid from Somerville. I was curious because they said we take from Malden, Everett to Somerville because that's their partners. That's their communities as well. And he said, no, he said they're on the line. Now, I wish I could get more into that, but I understand what that meant. Does that mean if it's on the line and that person, that ambulance has to go to a separate part of the city? I didn't understand that still. So then the questions about response time. It was great to hear that Cataldo told us that their response time is 3 minutes and 10 seconds so far. which is really good, but it'll be interesting to see as we move forward and how this process goes. Believe me, I've learned so much how to measure response time. Is it out of the chute, that's a phrase that's used in this profession, that when does this clock start when they start creating data? And you hear what Armstrong said, you hear what Cataldo said today, and both sound very good. But ultimately, as a Councilor, I want to go to the state authority that tracks that in the future. So we know what what really what what those numbers really are. I look at Cataldo and ask about housing their ambulances. And that was one of the issues we asked the mayor. We said, are we ready? We asked our chiefs, are we ready for this transition? Absolutely. Well, I shared with Cataldo and the mayor that I've been getting phone calls from private private businesses that said, why is Cataldo Ambulance parked in our lot? Why are they running? And I said to them, it's trivial. I said, are you having a rush? And they were like, no, but we don't know why it's happening. We need clarification. I guess that has to be clarified. Then we talked about, I asked our representative from El Salvador, I said, where are we being housed? And he said it was a shock that it really got his feet knocked out from under him because he assumed he was going to go into our fire stations. And they've been trying super hard to find locations, but through the building department, they, locations haven't been cleared. to be capable to have ambulances in those locations. So they did share, they have a three-person bay in Middlesex Ave. And then they have, they're looking at a spot somewhere on Mystic Ave closer. The issues that I still have is as I talk to my, the professionals, they talk about response time and what's mandated. Hence one of the reasons why having our headquarters right in that area, it suits response time all over the city. And understanding, do we have a proper response time? The professionals shared, Can they get to the Heights? Can they get to West Medford? And what does that mean? That means you would probably have to leave a running ambulance in those locations 24-7. The other questions that were brought up that you looked at the union issue and say, well, Armstrong stated that if we have something that they don't have coverage, that their ambulance can't go out of service because by their union rules, they have to cover the position. Armstrong said, we cover it anyway. That's their rule. Be secure that they said that they're all set. You don't have to worry about it. As a matter of fact, I believe Mr. White said that he had an issue with an employee that was running late. He actually went and sat in an ambulance during the snowstorm. So they've given me some good input, but There are still a lot of concerns. We talked about the PALS program that was brought up. The PALS program is a pediatric advanced life support care. It's a certification, and Cataldo's response was, it's not mandated by the state. The perception that I got from Armstrong was, this is a higher level of care for pediatric care. When I asked the mutual party, and does it make a difference, the question is, The CATALDO representatives are certified to take care of pediatric care, but that certification is higher. It is a higher standard. We talked about, you know, different, the EMDs that were a big issue and who was going to, you know, the question was the EMD was a grant that the chief has to apply for, through the 9-1-1 grant and then because Armstrong or the ambulance company that services Medford, they would get that money. The grant wouldn't go to City of Medford, get that money. Armstrong said they don't take that money. Cataldo said they won't take that money. You're learning so much, but at the same time, then the question started coming about, okay, so let's look at the, so still questioning, okay, let's look at apples to apples when it comes to the contract. It was broken down very simply. Everything in the contract, in all the areas all the way to K, when you get to L, they talk about Armstrong Ambulance has agreed to do this. When it comes to the behavior bus, now, that was one of the biggest things the mayor put forward to the public, saying, we have a mental health behavior bus, that we're going to have this, correct or not? Was that not stressed that way? Well, there is no behavior bus. We don't have a behavior bus. The behavior bus is in Lynn. And what the representative Cataldo told us, they are now in conversations with the chief of police to start the grant to process that apparatus in the future, hopefully. And if you read the contract, it's very vague in how it's worded and the fact that It doesn't specifically say that it will be done. So instead, what it is, is I've been told, and this is where I need more guidance. Because what Cataldo said, they met with the chief and they would have, if there was an issue right now, they would contact the mental health provider that works with the police department. That person would be called to the scene or with the ambulance. They would go then and treat that resident, which that's a great plan. But go a little bit deeper, the professional put a question to us, said, does that mean we're now taking an ambulance offline to deal with this instead of what was told to us that it was a separate behavior bus coming to Medford? Again, that was something Armstrong shared. That was a process that was asked that they started three years ago working with Elliott and neighboring communities that would be housed here in Medford. The other issues, if you look at the contract, you looked at the services. You had ambulances 24-7, three ambulances, two ALS, one BLS, same thing with Cataldo. Then you talk about the supervisor process. The supervisor process, standalone process, where it's not a transport vehicle. Armstrong's was 16 hours, 365 days. In essence, that was a fourth ambulance, because the supervisor was in that ambulance. In the contract, Cataldo had 12 hours, six days a week. But he said, if there was an issue off time or on that seventh day, the supervisor then will travel from Everett to Medford to cover that position. So again, this was great information to understand that there is coverage. And then it says, and it says designated field supervisor says or fly car. The transporting is a big issue and they wanted me to really understand that. Now Armstrong offer is more transportation heavy. They also talked about having this provider. Armstrong had that person that's worked closely with our chiefs for many, many years, maybe 20 years. This is a new process that Cataldo has to start. Then you look at questions about the CORIs. I'm happy to see that both organizations follow through with CORIs and automatically re-up every year. The process with the AEDs, Armstrong had already donated at least 30, I believe, 25 to 30, and they were either servicing it or making sure that whatever the city needed, they would come, take one that needed to be serviced, and they would make sure that we always had it in place. I don't see that in the Cataldo offer. Then it comes to the funding, and this is the problem. When I asked Cataldo, I said, where is the funding mechanism? So in this contract that says operational funding, and it has a litany of different protocols and different aspects, and I said, okay, so and $75,000, because that's what we're losing a year. And he said, no. He says, in actuality, he said, I believe in the three years, over a million dollars in three years that Armstrong will be providing in oxygen tanks, I believe medical supplies like band-aids or bandages or, you know, and then classes and CPR courses and all that stuff. What was then on the other side, what Armstrong, Armstrong just, they did that. It wasn't written in it, but that's what they did above and beyond all the other things we talked about, which was, I believe, $40,000 a year to community service support. It was confusing to me that saying, well, it seems like we're losing money. Because if you look at the contract, it's very vague on what's being offered. And I asked Mr. White, why isn't that more, why isn't it spelt out? Because these are the questions and these are the issues that I have. And I know he was getting irritated and I was getting irritated. But again, I reinforce, it wasn't with Cataldo. This isn't Cataldo's fault. Cataldos, they're a reputable organization, but the question was, why did we change this contract? What was the need for it? And I hate to say this, it's personal. When you look at these issues and you keep going, moving forward, it's a cost for no The issue, the other one was, remember, having the Armstrong not, the question was, I believe the Chief said, Armstrong said they wouldn't transport our first responders if they got hurt on the job. It wasn't, well, the writing that is in the Cataldo is what Armstrong wanted in the contract. It's all they wanted. They wanted to say that this is what it is, and it's the same piece. Because, again, with all the emails that were shared with me through Armstrong, I shared this with a professional, a mutual professional, which I won't say their names, but They want to really come in and revamp everything in Medford. They want to go to 9-1-1 center, and I love them. They're really energetic, but they shared a lot of apples to apples so we can understand it as city councilors. So again, the no payment or in-kind support may be used to induce a reward referral of patients and purchase a lease order and so on. You could read that. Next is the most important piece, I think, that understanding the data. I think that we talked about that. As we move forward, I told Mr. White that it's going to be important that for one Councilor, I'm going to do my due diligence. But I think that what Council President was saying, what's really bothersome right now is this. And this is, I know I'm winded, but Armstrong sent this correspondence letter, Rich Raymond, the CEO of Armstrong, and I'll put it on the record that says, Mayor Lungo-Koehn, members of Medford City Council, Armstrong Ambulance has had the privilege of serving the City of Medford and its residents for more than 30 years. As a contractual relationship concludes, we remain appreciative of the opportunity to have partnered with the City in delivering emergency medical services to the community. Armstrong will continue to maintain a base of operations in Medford and will remain available to the City as needed. This correspondence serves as a formal request to ensure that both the City of Medford and Armstrong Ambulance remain fully compliant with the applicable state and federal laws, as well as the terms and conditions of the 2022 Emergency Medical Service Contract. That's the issue. All they wanted was protection. Pursuant to Section 10.1 of the 2022 contract, Armstrong respectfully requested the financial documentation detailing the expenditures of the funds paid to the City under the provisions. As the provisions shared with Armstrong by the City's Finance Director of $36,972.30 has been expended to date prior to the end of the contract on December 2025, leaving a remaining balance of $188,027.70. For clarity, the completeness of the record Armstrong made in good faith payment totaling $225,000 in 2025. The first payment of $150,000 was posted to Medford in May 2, 2025, and the second of $75,000 posted November 26, 2025. If the City is unable to provide detailed financial records documenting how the remaining funds were utilized prior to the end of the contract, records Armstrong must retain to defend against any potential federal or state audit, Armstrong respectfully requests that the unspent balance of $188,027.70 be returned to Armstrong. Additionally, in accordance with Section 8 in the Contract 2022, Armstrong respectfully requests the return of the automated external defibrillators, all the AEDs that were provided by Armstrong Ambulance. Armstrong respectfully requests these matters be resolved in 10 days of the receipt of this letter. On behalf of Armstrong Ambulance employees, we extend a sincere appreciation for the opportunity to have served the City of Medford and its residents in the past 30 years. We are proud to care delivered and lives touched and partnerships shared, and we wish the City continued success moving forward respectfully, Richard. Other than understanding this process and why we're doing this, we're seeing a pattern of questionable management of contracts and processes. When you look at what we went through and understanding the apples to apples, because that was a question a lot of people were asking, and why this is a problem, it seems, again, this is the mayor, making something personal and moving forward with hurting a company that's done nothing but support Medford. And I can say that because the people I've talked to over this pattern lied to me to my face and then came to that podium and spelt mistruths. And they hurt a lot of people and their families by doing that. And I'm tired of this happening. What's next? What is next? Because right now it's the ambulance contract. It was the process with the rezoning. It was what we'll talk about later with what's going on with our DPW and snow removal process. We're talking about the trash contract. What else are we missing? So, Mr. President, if I can, I would recommend that we ask for another committee of the whole to answer these questions. Again, the city didn't answer these questions. A representative from Cataldo answered these questions. And I explained to him, this isn't about really about what's on the contract. It's really why it was on the contract and why we made that decision. Because what I read was an independent divide of what happened from one to the other. Because now I want to know how we're going to pay this, bring in this behavior ambulance. Now I want to know what is being offered to us. Now we have to know, how are we going to repay $188,000 if it was used somewhere else? So there are questions now that are very, very concerning to me. So, Mr. President, if I can, I would ask again. I would ask for the team that was part of the negotiations to be at this meeting to help us understand the process. I would ask that we reach out to the former city solicitor who was part of this process. and invite him. I would also ask the attorneys from KP Law that were part of this process and bring them all to the table because I think it's important for this council to understand as we move forward and making sure we make decisions make fiduciary response decisions for this mayor and this administration that we know we're being listened to and things are being done the right way. not being done to hurt people. Because I've heard it over and over again for the last four years, how employees of the city are being hurt, how businesses that give everything to Method are being hurt. And it seems like it's personal instead of what is right. So I apologize for my passion. But again, let me reiterate. I don't know who was the CEO of Armstrong Ambulance. I had no personal relationship with those people before this contract. I never talked or even met this CEO until this situation started. So when the mayor can go publicly and put it out there that this is the reason why Councilor Scarpelli, and belittle the fact why I really did it, because something that really pained me in my life, in my family's life, to be belittled and say that this issue is really coming forth because she can't give contracts just because they're Georgia's friends. Well, you know what? I think it's time that this council puts this mayor feed to the fire, and really start bringing issues to the forefront to make sure that we're getting what we deserve and people stop getting hurt. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I appreciate you working with me to join these resolutions together and just get the answers to the questions that we asked and that residents have been asking. I just want to really reiterate, 21 days ago now we asked for a copy of the new contract. We got that today. City data on EMS response times, we haven't received that. Transition plan on how Medford's gonna be covered for EMS, we haven't received that. Housing, ambulances in Medford, it sounds like you had to call Cataldo directly for that. And we asked for a going forward comparison. with the response times under the previous contract and now this new contract. Requests for mutual aid comparisons over the next year, obviously couldn't provide those yet, but you know, we could at least take a look at the first month, compare, in a few days, we could compare that first month to the month last year. And information on the Armstrong payments, including written opinions or advice of council regarding Armstrong's payments, when invoices were submitted by the city to Armstrong since 2020, documentation to prove the expenses or communications to commit to produce expenses, documentation before Armstrong was invoiced, we haven't received any of that. We did receive, within a day, from Armstrong 10 years of response time data, which showed that 97% of their responses were under the federal average in 2015. 75% of them were under five minutes. In 2020, that was 96% under eight minutes 59, 79% under five minutes, and in 2025, you know, Apparently the response times were going down. It was 95% under 8 minutes 59 and 76% under 4 minutes 59. So all within a range of 1 or 2% for 10 years of service. And it took a day to get that information. We still haven't received it from the city after 21 days. And just to be honest, I'm really disturbed by the city's response to pretty simple questions. Pretty simple questions, requests for documentation. I think the city's spin that Armstrong is George's friend and that's why he's fighting for it was pretty gross. It's pretty clear to me that's not what the issue is. I can certainly tell you this, I'm not Armstrong's friend. I didn't know anyone from that company before a month ago. And that's mostly because I'm lucky I've never had to call an ambulance. And I think, again, you know, I've just heard from a lot of people these statements saying, well, we really just shouldn't talk about this. And, you know, well, we know the data, but we don't have the data. And especially just some stuff that, really, really just made me really sad. That was said to me online for asking some really simple questions from people who represent this city. It just made me sad. I love this city. I know that everyone behind this rail loves this city. I know so many residents love this city. And I don't think anyone, you know, I don't care if it's Armstrong or Cataldo, I just want to understand why. And I never thought an EMS contract would just make me sad. The legal process and the contract process and the way it's communicated, you know, would talk about people's friends and people's family and people's ambitions and, you know, become so personal and so political when It's just like send us the contract and show us the data and let us understand why this decision was made. I really do look forward to receiving the simple answers and information that we requested. I really hope we do. I can't imagine that this council for the first time in my six years would have to use our legal authority to subpoena information. I really hope that's not what we would have to do to just get these simple documents. And I think really just the things that I saw online that made me just the most disappointed about all of this were folks who said, you know, I thought it was a reasonable decision, you know, it could have gone either way, but then I saw how the city reacted and now I have to wonder why this happened at all. And I have concerns and I wonder if it was above board. Right, like that's wild. When you just ask, what happened to the response times? Can we see the contract? What's the transition plan? And three weeks later, we don't know. And people are still wondering why we can't produce simple answers. I really hope that we can get them. I hope we can have another meeting. and that this documentation can be provided, and we can go from there. Obviously, the decision's been made, and it's very clear that this body's position and viewpoint on the issue was not considered at all, but I really, I'm just deeply, deeply concerned that the response was to be personally attacking people. I don't get it. I just don't get it. So thank you for working with me on this and I hope that we can get these simple answers.
[Owen Wartella]: Appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Leming. Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I would just like to say I really appreciate this coming forward. Councilor Scarpelli, if I may, through the chair, never apologize for your passion. It is an important issue, obviously, but it is personal. It's personal for everybody who has to take an ambulance somewhere, but it's also personal for the people who work at these organizations, and it's personal for the people that we represent to want to be able to trust their city to make the right decisions and the most The just the decisions for good reasons and not for pettiness, not for personal reasons. And that's not how we govern the city. So I appreciate that this is coming forward. I know we've had a lot of long discussions about this, but we just have to keep going until we uncover what we need to uncover. So I appreciate it. I'm glad we're doing it, I'm glad it's moving along, and your continued persistence is appreciated. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Lazzaro. Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: I'd just like to say I think that this body has engaged in these sorts of investigations, lines of inquiry, whatever you want to call them, for political purposes. I don't think this is that. So when people, and I've been pretty outspoken when I think that that's been happening in the past. I don't think that this is one of those times. I think when my colleague is bringing forward and keeping on this particular line of inquiry, trying to get answers to these questions. I just want to put it out there that I fully support him. So, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there any further discussion on this paper, this joint paper from members of the council? Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: Sorry, I just, maybe I missed it, but I'm not exactly sure how they're being merged. Are we just asking for all of the information, or?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we joined the, sorry, we joined the resolution, and we're asking for all the information included in both pages. It'll just be the text of both things will get sent up. Thank you. Thank you. No, Chief Evans is here. I don't know if you want to speak to this, Chief. Cool if, yes, sir, your call. Okay. And I'm not seeing any other representatives from the administration for this paper, so we'll go to public participation. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Nick Giurleo]: So I'll speak in support tonight of both of these resolutions and call on the Mayor to provide the public an answer here on why she didn't respond to the Council's request for information. So, yes, I understand that maybe this request wasn't legally enforceable. She didn't have a legal obligation. to respond. But regardless, just because you don't have to do something doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't do it. Anyway, the mayor has demonstrated, I think at this point almost brazenly, just her complete unwillingness to be transparent here on why we switched providers. And for members of the public who maybe aren't aware, when the CEO of Armstrong spoke at that lengthy Committee of the Whole meeting, he quoted from an email that was sent to the mayor. I didn't see the email personally, so I can't verify that he was reading it correctly or it was accurate. But from what he said, you know, representing to all of you here, he quoted the mayor as saying this, quote, we don't want to go public on the reasoning on why we are going in another direction. To me, that was just so mind-blowing that I had to write it down when I heard it, because she's saying openly in writing, like, I don't want the public to know, which is really appalling when you think of yourself as an elected leader who's supposed to be transparent to the people, to this body, to the whole city. We heard a similar comment from the mayor's chief of staff at the meeting before that. She talked about concern and fear if the public knew, the public would know what's going on here. And at that meeting, sorry, the committee, the whole meeting, the mayor wasn't there, right? You would think other city officials showed up, the police chief, the fire chief, but the mayor herself didn't show up, which is really just stunning, given that we really needed information, and this was really an important topic of public interest. So the fact that you wouldn't show up and comment really, to me, is something to be ashamed of. And we only heard from the city, too, notably, you know, when they're put on the spot, when we called them to come to that committee, the whole meeting, and provide some information. You know, it wasn't like they were going to do this voluntarily. And we did get a few, you know, people show up and give some answers. But still, you know, we're really not seeing enough. Overall, we're seeing crickets. We're seeing radio silence. And it really amounts, in my opinion, to just a dishonesty, a dishonesty to the whole of the public and to this body as well. So I'll call on the mayor. You know, I think it's never too late to change your ways. So hopefully she does that and we get some more transparency here. We see a pivot. We see a willingness to work this out. Otherwise, you're just going to drag on, right? And there's so much else going on in the city. It'd be great to move on to other topics. We're not going there because we're dealing with this. So that's my call. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Micah Kesselman]: I'm like a customer at 499 Main Street. Wow, hell has frozen over. Yeah, I agree with everything that has just been said. I mean, this is sort of wild that it's this much trouble to get some really basic, really, really, really, really basic information, like for transparency purposes. This like isn't even a question of, you know, whether it should, like, all of this information should be given to the City Council and the public. Like, it's crazy. Though, the amendment, I like the resolutions. I do want to suggest that there be an amendment or a call for the mayor to have the administration provide a written and cogent explanation of why they made the decision they made to do with articulable detail and reference to what's actually in the contracts and the history. I think that's really necessary. I didn't see anything regarding an actual written explanation coming from the administration in the asks, and I think that's also a really important part of this. But this is really, this is buck wild. And, I mean, you're seeing everyone who's like, totally on polar opposite sides of almost everything in the city, 100% on board and shoulder to shoulder on this. Like, this is crazy. And from what everything Councilor Scafelli has described, honestly, like, I'm really beginning to suspect that there is, if not malfeasance involved, like, just like negligence involved because of the amounts of money that we're talking about that have just, you know, vanished into the ether and aren't being accounted for. This is crazy and it needs to be fixed. And I mean, yeah, like you have legal authority to explore this. So it's really on the administration to get their asses in gear and actually do their job and be transparent and communicative and collaborative for once in their goddamn career in the city. So thank you for this. And again, I strongly recommend an amendment just to include that ask for a written cogent explanation from the administration so that you have something in detail in writing that you can look at and drill them on and to ask them about. And they have a chance to defend and explain themselves, too, because I do think that that is also owed to some degree.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will go to Jess H on Zoom. Jess, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Oh, Jess.
[Jessica Healey]: Oh, hello. Hey, sorry. So I just wanted to say that I don't agree with you guys a lot of the time, but I do agree with the speaker that was just out. I have to say that I appreciate you holding the mayor responsible for her actions that seem to be, for better or worse, out of control recently with different things that she's doing. So I just want to thank you for holding her responsible and questioning of why a lot of different things seem to be happening recently in Medford. So I just wanted to thank you all for that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Micah Kesselman]: One minute. Yeah, yeah, sorry. I am Mikey from 499 Main Street. So just to Councilor Scarpelli's point about the housing for ambulance vehicles, that was really interesting for me to hear because like just today while I was picking up my kid from daycare down at Little Sprouts, in that parking lot, there is like an entire squad ambulance vehicles just sort of parked wherever the hell they wanted to be across multiple parking spots and everything, and just chilling there, which I thought was really weird, because I'd never seen that before there, and it was very strange. And it was actually... No one's gonna go to that hospital or... you know, go into a panic over it. But, I mean, it actually was inconvenient and not actually safe for the parking lot and the way you're supposed to drive through it. So, like, it was actually problematic and not a good thing. So, like, it is actually happening around the city too. So, I appreciate you bringing that up.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. We have Andrew Castagnetti on Zoom. Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes. All right, we have every person on Zoom.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: I've changed my mind. I have no comment. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Again, I do want to reinforce, Mr. President, to the community that we are safe. Cataldo, you know, I know that that was what Mr. White was expressing to me, that there was some sort of Fairmongering going on and making people uncomfortable. That's not my intention at all. I'm sorry. Cataldo services neighbor communities and they have qualified staff on their ambulances. But again, this issue isn't about Cataldo. This issue is really about the process and why we're here. So again, thank you for everybody for your input and your support with this. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And yeah, I do have Nick to that email. It reads, with that being said, we do not want to go public on the reasoning of why we are going in another direction. But I was not able to get that from the city. And I think it's really, really disingenuous to say that we just want to understand what changed about response times, what's changed about response times, what's changed about response times, and what's changed about response times. how we're not gonna have ambulances parking across parking lots so people can't drive through parking lots and the other basics of the reasoning that you laid out. I think it's really, really disingenuous to call that fear mongering. And at this point, it's not even about the service. It's about the process. And over and over and over again, that's what it's been about. It just hasn't been good. Is there a motion? on the motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by.
[George Scarpelli]: I think it's important we get a true indication of what happened that afternoon through that process. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Zac Bears]: All right. So the motion by Councilor Scarpelli is to submit the questions to the administration and then to call for another meeting in Committee of the Whole, inviting everyone who was part of the negotiations to be present at that meeting, including any former staffs, former city solicitor who was part of that, as well as the ambulance companies. Is that? All right. So on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded. Do we want to put a deadline, a request for response deadline?
[George Scarpelli]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: We'd like a response within by, for the agenda. So by February 20th. All right. On that motion. All those in favor, seconded by Councilor... Opposed, the motion passes. All right, we have now Papers 26-028 and 26-029. A motion to join Papers 26-028 and 26-029 by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? The motion passes. So I'll read 26-028 first. We have 26-028. Resolution requesting for report regarding the January 2026 snowstorm response, whereas the city experienced a significant winter storm event in January 2026 that required an extensive municipal snow and ice removal response, and whereas the severity and duration of the storm resulted in substantial deployment of city resources, contracted services, parking enforcement actions, and towing operations. And whereas transparency, accountability, and preparedness are essential to ensuring the effective use of public funds and the continuous improvement of emergency response operations. And whereas a comprehensive review of the city's response will assist the city council, administration, and residents in evaluating operational effectiveness and identifying areas for improvement. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the city council hereby request the administration prepare and submit a full written report detailing the city's response to the January 2026 snowstorm, including but not limited to one total cost summary, itemized accounting of storm-related expenditures, two, city equipment utilized, three, contracted snow removal operators, four, ticketing and towing activity, five, operational challenges and findings. Six next steps and ongoing snow removal efforts be a further result of the requested report be submitted to the City Council within a reasonable time frame and be made available to the public upon completion. And once we get there, Councilor Schell, I'll let you read the bullet points within that. And then from Councilors Milane and Tseng, we had be it resolved that the Medford City Council expresses its sincere appreciation to the public works staff as well as contracted crews and residents for their responsiveness, professionalism, and around-the-clock efforts during and after the major winter storm on January 25th and 26th, including working extended hours under challenging conditions such as staffing and equipment constraints, limited snow storage capacity, and ongoing communications with city councilors. and be it further resolved that the City Council acknowledges the concerns raised by residents regarding snow and sidewalk clearing during the storm, particularly with respect to the timeliness, consistency, and equity of street and sidewalk clearing, including impacts on pedestrian safety, accessibility, and snow being placed onto sidewalks already cleared by residents in accordance with City ordinances, and affirms that these concerns warrant careful review and follow-up. And be it further resolved that the City Council recognizes that snow and ice removal in Medford depends in part in coordination with state-managed roadways and snow removal work, and the performance and timing of those operations can directly affect local streets, sidewalks, and pedestrian conditions. And be it further resolved that the Committee on Public Works and Facilities work with the Department of Public Works and City Administration to conduct a post-storm evaluation of snow and ice removal operations during this event, including an assessment of service provision, equity, and accessibility, staffing, equipment, and capacity constraints, snow storage and disposal limitations, coordination with state-managed roadways and crews, and communication with residents before, during, and after major storms. and be it further resolved that this evaluation be undertaken with a shared goal of strengthening service delivery going forward, recognizing workforce and fiscal realities, supporting those doing the work, and improving preparedness for future winter events, and be it further resolved that the City Council reaffirms its commitment to working collaboratively with city staff and leadership, using resident feedback constructively to improve public services while maintaining respect for labor and professionalism of municipal workers. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, Councilor Mullane.
[George Scarpelli]: First, let me start by saying we should all thank the men and women that work for our DPW for what they had to endure this past snowstorm. I think that making it clear to our community to understand that this storm had nothing to do with the efforts of our DPW team. And I think that unfairly, talking to a few of the members, that they were really beaten up through social media to the point that, you know, that's their job, and they know that's their job. But when you arrive at work at 10 in the morning, day of a snowstorm, and you don't leave for two days later, and you're doing everything in your power to make sure that you hit the marks that this city deserves, it's very difficult. So I want to make that clear, I think, that our DPW crews worked their tails off and did the best they could. Again, this was one of the biggest storms we've seen. There are so many variables when you look at what happened and understanding this storm, and that as you talk to different stakeholders, talk to Mr. McGibbon, express to him that I had 57 phone calls. That's a record. I had 57 phone calls dealing with concerns with the storm. Some more serious than others, but the concerns I have is making sure that people know why and how it happened and what the solution will be moving forward. What are we going to do with the next storm? I think that the biggest cause we received was the impact to the business district and our main streets. A glaring issue was not understanding that there was a huge event at Chevalier that our businesses on the Salem Street, Main Street, and area of Medford Square really count on these nights. And not having the capability to park is damaging to their businesses. So I think what we, what, You know, what people were really upset were those issues. And the other piece was the lack of neighbors. shoveling their sidewalks. Now, I'm not blaming anyone because there are different various levels. I had a neighbor, 86 years old, that had a contractor come out, shovel out the walkway that's a mutual city sidewalk that she's been ticketed in the past, and she was so nervous. She says, George, what am I going to do? And we called DPW, and they said, don't worry. and they came out and took care of it as they could. What I realize is understanding that do we have enough staff in a storm with that magnitude to go out and especially reach those habitual residents that don't shovel out their sidewalks that leave the rest of the community in danger, or the landlords that don't fulfill their responsibilities. And they're not. We have two people that are doing their full-time job and then responding to hundreds of calls, hundreds. Now, the calls I got from the neighbors and friends and residents, I agree, I understand. You had every reason to be upset. You did. You really put out. But I want us to take a deep breath and understand that this was a top-10 storm that we haven't seen in years. And when it comes to staffing, we have had, within the last four years, a huge shift in DPW employees. On my street, I've been there for 27 years. And for 24 years, I've had the same person. He knew exactly how to plow a dead end. He was amazing. And everybody was happy every storm. He retired. We had a new driver come down. My neighbors came out and said, this is crazy. And it's someone that's done that probably the first time in that magnitude of a storm. So I think we have to give a little leeway because of the situation as a community. I think we have to. Now, that doesn't mean that I won't be calling Mr. McGivern and I won't be calling the code enforcement officers and saying it's time to move forward. You know, I see a different variable with this because I work in a municipality and I'm on, I'm the program developer for the Parks and Recreation Department, but I'm on the emergency response team. It's 60 of us. that meet three days before a storm and we talk about everything from programming to understanding any different major events that are happening, weddings, you're talking about parking, you're talking about emergency response, you're talking about the fire chief explaining how he's going to respond and how we send out messages for this type of magnitude of a storm of carbon monoxide poisoning, to the police chief when he talks about ticketing, to the DPW crew that breaks down the plan of a storm. And I know this is going to, I'm piling on here, but there's a difference. What did we all see? If you're on social media, what did you get? You got, please be patient. Shovel out sidewalks. It's a big storm, right? That's the communication we got. In the neighboring communities, you have the leader of this community talking about the storm and talking about the process. The community next door knew what time the plows were coming out, what time the emergency started, when the cars were going to be towed. Then at the end of the storm, everybody knew. what was going first. It was main arteries, it was side streets, then it was this, then it was that, then it was the community path, then there was the bicycle paths, it was... Everything was spelt out, so everybody knew. Understand, this is the process. And it's funny, because people are saying, what a great job they did next door. They... For the most part, it's the same schedule. They started removing snow from their main squares last night. We're starting tonight. So I know we're agitated, and we were definitely put off, and it was difficult. It's been a tough couple of weeks, it seems like. But let's take a deep breath and thank the DPW workers that really killed themselves with this storm, and understand My most important piece of my presentation is I would really love that our team work together with the communication team and put a plan together like we've asked for in our resolutions to what are we going to do next. If this happens again with three inches or four inches of snow, gloves are off, there's nothing we can do. But as a leadership team of this council that listens to constituents, We hear you. I'm not belittling or saying we're not listening to you. We understand. So moving forward, I want to make sure that through the motion that we have a plan in place, not just with our DPW commissioner, but also the communication team, that the message gets out so our residents understand what's going on and what the process is. I was getting phone calls. I live on Salem Street. When is the snow emergency lifted? I need to move my car. I don't know where to move my car and how frantic these people were. I put a 311 in. These are things that we should know ahead of time. So I think that making sure that we have a plan in place and we communicate better, I think it's important for the next step. I urge my fellow residents to give everybody a pass on this one. When I hear nobody's been hurt, I know that, you know, I'll talk to the chief on a different issue, making sure that did we staff our fire trucks with that extra member and would that have helped? I will talk to traffic and parking to ask how that process went to make sure that did we tow people too early, too late? Why are cars in areas that our plow drivers are driving around? Why they weren't moved? There's a lot of variables that we can ask, and I think we put it forth in the resolution, but I think that let's all take a deep breath and say we survived. We appreciate the hard work that our teams are doing. We know we're understaffed. I gather that You know, one of the things that in talking to, I talked to five, five different contractors that worked for the city in the past, but don't want to work here anymore. And I've talked to five contractors that worked the storm and shared a lot of great information. So, you know, and I talked to Tim, Tim was great. The rumors were. You probably heard them, right? That the contract was sent out in September and it was a 50-page contract and the contractors didn't want to complete it. Then it was that the new contract had that anybody that pushed snow for the city as a contractor had to have commercial plates. Then it was The contract stated that they had to get separate liability insurance. It would have cost that contractor an additional $5,000 to qualify to plow for Medford. That's why they all left. Obviously, there is a reason. Five years ago, from what I've been told, we had 94 contracted snow plows or apparatus employees. This snowstorm, everybody, we had 24. And that's not including The newer staff that we have from the city and the fact that this is the first major storm that most people have seen that drive those blue trucks around the city every day. So. That's my that I hope I hope I didn't offend any of the residents that called me because you would listen to we made phone calls. I know DPW try to kill themselves to get to your homes to make sure that your families were safe. And I know they're still going to keep working. I mean, they're they came went home at four o'clock. A couple of guys told me We're going to bed right now, George. We're waking up at 10. We're gonna be back at the city yard, and they're gonna be starting tonight, moving snow from the areas. The only thing I would ask is that that's the other thing people said. Other cities have this melter. The DPWs in three different communities that I talked to said the melters don't work. They're more. They're not worth it. What was shared with me is something that we used to have in Medford was a gigantic snow plow that went in the end of a truck, a snow blower, that took the snow right from the street, right from the sidewalks, right from the curb into a dump truck that they took off. And that eliminated a lot of time and overtime because we're getting contractors come in with front end loaders picking up, bobcats picking up dumping. That's a piece of apparatus that we should ask the city to, and Mr. McGiven to look at if that might be something we can help us as we move forward. So again, I've been very winded tonight and I apologize. Oh, I don't apologize. I don't apologize. My wife just sheltered me too. Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. But thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Malayne.
[Liz Mullane]: I think, first of all, Councilor Scarpella, thank you for kind of highlighting some of this. And obviously, we all came at it in different ways. And I also want to reiterate again, as we said in our our piece as well of how much we appreciate and know the hard work that our DPW teams did over the past several days trying to get us through this massive storm. I think it was the eighth largest storm we've had in Boston, and seeing how much snow came both Sunday and Monday. We felt it, and we know that people were out there working around the clock to try to get this done. So again, I don't want to take away anything from the hard work. that has already been spoken about and mentioned, and I want to definitely highlight that. I think, you know, kind of going off of a little bit more what Councilor Scarpelli was saying, I think for me and the messages and the outreach that I had had a lot to do in terms of the communication, the transparency, what were the priorities, what are the priorities, Where were we headed first? And I think just giving residents that knowledge base, that understanding, alleviates a lot of the stress and makes people understand that there are people out there working. We have a plan. We have something in place. This was unprecedented for us in recent years and that we were trying to make up for it as best as we could. So I think even some of the messaging that did come out if you receive the e-mails or the text messages also you know telling residents you know you need to get out there and shovel again. You'll be fine. At the same time all of the snow is getting re plowed and put on top of their sidewalks. I got a lot of that from people as well. And I understand as someone that was out there shoveling and knowing how difficult it was. So I too echo that we need to have a plan. What is the process. What are the priority streets. even if those messaging through text or emails directs it back to the main website, because I understand that they're out there working. They might not be always able to update exactly where everyone is, but being able to direct to one source so that through social media, through text messaging, through emails, through voice messages that go out, that there's directed to understand here's what the priorities are, here's where we're moving through, and here's what we're trying to do. I think that would have alleviated a lot of that stress that people were going through and trying to figure out what was happening. And additionally, I do think we need to not only, here we are, We've passed through this storm. We're still clearing things up. People are still working through it. What are we going to do for next time? And let's be proactive. Let's work together to try to figure that out and take on that responsibility to say, here's what we're going to do. Here's the response that we've received from the city. Here's some things that they could have used. Here are some things that we can address moving forward. and that we can be proactive, you know, hopefully we don't get another storm like this this winter, but certainly be even more prepared when we come into the next winter as well. And again, I thank all the DPW staff and everyone out there working, all the residents that I know have had to go out numerous times to shovel out their sidewalks, parking spots, but hopefully we can take this information, move it forward, and come up with a better and I think strategic, transparent, and proactive communication plan for our residents to be aware of and that we can all be on the same page moving forward.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Malauulu. Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I very much agree with what my fellow councilors said. You know, I'm 100% with you, Councilor Malauulu. And Councilor Scarpelli, you've been firing on all cylinders tonight. Like the most important thing is to start out with a message of thanks for all the hard workers, for our DPW crews who are really out there for days, who are still out there trying to clear the streets and sidewalks. You know, I was standing outside of my house, and I saw, you know, on one of the main streets, DPW vans going out all night. And I was staying up late that night, and I was just, you know, that is what we need to first and foremost recognize, right? That people were out all night. up until morning hours and the next day, plowing our streets, making sure that residents had a way to drive the next day. And, you know, the result might not have been perfect, but there was a lot of work to do. There still is a lot of work to do. Everyone in the DPW knows it. They've been working hard. And it's been a tough week for them. As Councilor Scarpelli said, in all the, I think. comments on social media to take it one step too far, not acknowledging the hard work that is being done there. That has to be recognized. And I'm, you know, that's why I wanted to start out our resolution with that note of thanks. Because not only is it hard work, they're doing it with so many challenges that they're facing, right? I mean, where do we put the snow? There was so much of it. The, you know, our, We all know that the city is underfunded. We don't have the equipment that we need, the staffing that we need to deal with a storm this size. And even the cities that do have that, you know, faced very similar problems this storm as well. I also want to thank the Commissioner McGivern as well for being really responsive to me throughout this whole process starting on the evening of the storm when residents reached out to me saying that their streets were unplowed and they needed to get out the next day. By the morning, those residents had their streets plowed and what I What I would have to say to residents is, yes, be patient, but also contact us as your city councilors because maybe we can help. And I've been trying my best to get back to all the emails. There have been a lot of emails. And I know DPW is trying their best to get to all of those cases as well. But keep on writing us so that we know which areas to flag. But in flagging those areas, I think there's a real question about, you know, what is the order of service? Which streets are going to be plowed first? You know, that kind of plan has to be communicated to the residents. And I think it's more about just having a plan and communicating it. It goes to a very fundamental underlying problem of trust. People need to trust that our city services are happening, that we are stepping up to the moment, that people are out there. And to have that trust, residents need to know the plan. That's, I think, what Councilor Scarpelli is calling for, what Councilor Mullane is calling for, is us to communicate that plan and to make sure that we fortify that plan as well, that, you know, we do a post-storm assessment. have a good idea of what went right, what went wrong, what could be improved going into the next storm. Because we've all lived in Boston before. This is not going to be the last major snowstorm. Hopefully, it is the last one of the season. But it's not going to be the last major snowstorm we face. Don't jinx us. Well, and even with climate change, it's just gonna get more extreme. We might be trending towards fewer cold winters like this, but when we do have a cold winter, it's gonna be extreme. And so we have to be ready for that as well. Councilor Scarpelli, between the two resolutions that we've now merged, we've posed a bunch of questions that we'd like to get the information for. I know Commissioner McGiven reached out to me. We had a good conversation about it. Just in terms of what we could, what he could provide to us that would be useful for us to know and some proposals going forward. I know he made it known to me that with the scale of everything going on right now, a written report might not be the most feasible, but he would be happy to come to a Public Works Committee meeting and answer our questions there. He also offered that going into the next winter season, holding a meeting in around November in front of the Public Works Committee to set us up to know what the plan is for that, for the upcoming winter, so we can communicate, we can help communicate that to residents as well. But we do, you know, going into budget, even before that November, I think we need to know going into budget season, what do we need for the city? What are the investments that we need to be making in our DPW? to make sure that they have the equipment they need to ply the roads, to make their jobs easier. What's the staffing levels? What are the staffing levels we need in that department as well? And how can City Council be a partner in the process? And I think that's really, at the end of, you know, this whole discussion, what it's really about is us being a partner to make sure that public services in the city run better than they have been running. even in really difficult situations. So I'm not going to belabor the point because there's so many specific questions that we've gathered between our resolutions and more that will come out as offshoots of those points that we brought up. So I think it would be helpful to have a committee meeting on that so we can have that more fleshed out conversation there. But in this moment, I think this is about us thanking the DPW, this is about us telling residents, we not only see and hear you, we're doing something about it so that we can be proactive going forward.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Do we have any further comment by members of the council? I would just really like to thank you guys for bringing, oh, Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: I just look forward to having it in the Public Works Committee. And let me know if I need to specifically request that we schedule a Public Works Committee.
[SPEAKER_08]: I know sometimes these things get on the agendas and then the meeting never happens. And so great. Can I just request that right now? Let me schedule one. Awesome. Okay. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to thank you all for bringing this forward. I know this was an incredible storm in the sense of incredibly snowy. And I know that has had a really severe impact. It's had an impact in my neighborhood and my parents' neighborhoods and all of our neighborhoods. And yeah, I mean, I'm so thankful for our team for doing their best with what they have. really want to look into what it would mean to get them more, more resources, more support, and more communication to our residents. Obviously, it's really difficult to clear two feet of snow at any point, even harder to clear it when we have, you know, hyper-freezing temperatures after the fact. There's no melting. I think today we got to 32. I saw a few drips of water, but I don't think any of those snow piles were budging. So I really understand all of that, but at the same time, if we're having changes to our service, this is our first big storm in a few years, issues getting the equipment, personnel, time that we need to make sure that our streets and sidewalks are safe, we need to do that. four years ago now, this council drew up with then DPW Commissioner Karen's a priority sidewalk clearing plan. We had a map of over five miles, maybe even over 10 miles of priority sidewalks to be cleared. Obviously, that would be adding to an already significant workload for our DPW, but also I think that's really important. We know that, especially in big storms like this, it's really hard for residents to clear out the sidewalks, especially those priority sidewalks that our kids are using to go to school, that people are using to go to work, get on the bus, bus stops. And I'd really like to see us move forward on that. Obviously, that requires more resources. One other thing, if you guys would be so amenable when you discuss the Public Works Committee, I led my first ever ordinance. that I worked on with Councilor Marks was our snow and ice removal ordinance, and we updated that. And one of the things that it notes is that if a ton of snow gets dumped on your sidewalk by a plow, whether that's a municipal plow or a state plow or a private plow, that the code enforcement officers can say, There's no way you could clear that. I'm not writing you a ticket. And then hopefully coordinate with our DPW or someone else, especially if that's at a crosswalk or a bus stop or something like that, to get it clear. It's not reasonable to ask someone, a resident, to clear out an eight-foot pile of snow, because all of the snow from their entire street got put in one big pile, and then fine them for it if they don't do it. And the ordinance reflects that, but I noticed that that was not actually in the snow policies on the city website. Everything else from that ordinance pretty much made it in, but that wasn't on there. So that is in our city ordinances. I swear I might even remember, it's like 74-511 or something. That code enforcement does have the discretion to not find someone if there's been a really unreasonable amount of plow put on their sidewalk or something that they have to replace. Here it is, 74-114. The owner, tenant, occupant, or agent thereof shall not be responsible for removing snow on an abutting sidewalk if an excessive amount of snow is plowed onto the sidewalk by private, municipal, or state vehicles in the course of plowing a public way, which cannot be reasonably removed as determined at the discretion of the code enforcement officer. So I think it would be really good, especially in a big storm like this, for that to be part of our city's snow policies on the website as well. So just a note, when folks talk about it, that that might be a request that we could make. Thanks. Any further discussions by members of the council on this joint paper? Seeing none, we do have a few folks on Zoom who want to speak on this, and also someone in person. I'll start at the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes. Patrick Clerkin, 14 Bennett Place.
[Patrick Clerkin]: So I was driving down Mystic Ave today and got onto the 93 North exit and saw the Great Wall of Snow right near the Herb Chambers dealership. It got me thinking, I like that idea of putting it near the highways, and I was thinking, what if the cloverleaf, unused land, unzoneable land, I don't know if it's owned by the Mass. Department of Transportation or Medford, but what if that became the excess snow lot? The Medford Brooks Estate has a stump dump for old stumps, but what if the lot, the cloverleaf was developed and it basically didn't have grass in it, it was a sand pit, and that could help the snow drift melt faster. You could have gutter systems that directed the water, the melt off towards, I don't know, storm drains, or maybe even into the river. But obviously, you would have, like back in 2014, near MIT, after Nemo, you had a giant snowberg that was still melting in August with parking meters and bikes and everything coming out of it. But I think better put it in one place than dump it in the river, better than leave it on the streets. If there was a designated sort of super collector location, then that might help our needs. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Jess H on Zoom. Jess, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Jessica Healey]: Hi, Jessica Haley, Lock Road. So I appreciate the DPW and all the work they did. Just the issue with our area, Lock Road, Boylston Terrace, it's about eight houses that uses the streets. Um, the residents, majority of the houses are between 70 to 90 years old. Um, and we never got plowed ever. So eventually shoveled snowblowed the streets as best as we could. Um, I did put in a C click fix thing. Someone else did also. Um, and then obviously everything iced over. And my son, who goes to out of district school with the van, they are then calling me because they can't get through. It's all ice. It's all snow. So I'm just not sure. I tried DPW. No one answered. So I'm not sure who to reach out to if we never get plowed or get sanded at all. I'm not sure who to reach out to in that circumstance. I don't know if we email you guys or I'm just not sure where to go from there. Cause it took about over five hours to clear out both streets. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to, do you want to speak?
[George Scarpelli]: I'm sorry. If Jess can share her address, maybe we can, you know, accelerate it. You know, this is what we've been doing. DPW is doing a great job to respond as quickly as they can. So what number lock street is it again?
[Jessica Healey]: It's for lock road. It's okay now, but I'm just saying like another storm if it were to happen, like who should I reach out to?
[George Scarpelli]: Justin saying
[Zac Bears]: I mean, seriously though, we were fielding a lot of stuff. We can get in touch maybe with DPW, you know, that's the best answer I can give it is if you reach out directly to Councilor Tseng, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Mullane, I know they were really on top of it. You just email all the city councilors and someone will respond.
[Jessica Healey]: Okay, great. Thank you. I appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, we're gonna stick on Zoom. We'll go to Liz Doctor. Liz, name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_19]: Hi, Liz Doctor, 17 Greenwood. I mean, I just wanted to touch on a couple of things. One, I think myself and any other folks I've talked to, there's certainly no, There's nothing but adulation and acknowledgement of the hard work of the DPW. No one that I've spoken to doesn't think they've been doing the best they can with what they have. I think touching on the idea that knowing the plan moving forward is obviously going to be incredibly important. caution. I feel like I'm hearing a lot of talking about this as though it's past tense, and it still feels very real to the people in Medford right now. It still continues to be incredibly disruptive. A lot of streets have become one-way streets that are somewhat unnavigable in this scenario. And one of the things that, even though we have a plan, I think there is a plan that is continuing to get communicated. I think what I don't feel comfortable with right now is understanding the standard. There are so many snow banks. This is an unprecedented amount of snow. I use this as an example and not necessarily because I'm specifically asking for my street but I live on a private way which is a whole other situation but we have snow banks and people are already kind of parking illegally across from my driveway and now they've made it like significantly more difficult to even get out of my driveway and I feel like scenarios like that abound in places that I drive through and see every day. They're still like know, just huge piles everywhere. And I guess what I'm trying to get at is understanding the standard of what can we expect is sort of the definition of done, or because I'm not sure like what the even like finalized plan is moving forward.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I'm going to go to Councilor Scarpelli, and then we'll continue with public comment.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. That's a great point, and I think that as we've had discussions with DPW, maybe that's something that sending a message tomorrow and explaining the path. I know that from what I've been told right now, they're going through the major thoroughways in the community, the main streets. to open those areas up and then going to the areas of emergency need. And I think that's where we need some more clarification that maybe the mayor's team with communications, along with Commissioner McGiven, that can really help the path of the next week so our residents can understand. So that's a great point. We appreciate that, to bring it all the way back. I think that's something we missed. Thank you. I think we can do that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'm going to stay on Zoom. I'm going to go to Robert Carney. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Robert Carney]: Yep, Rob Carney, 50 Hicks Ave, Unit 6, really appreciate all the discussion here and also just echo the appreciation for DPW. I think they're really doing the best they can in general with the resources they have. Just like a few other just thoughts for consideration for the DPW here. The first one is thinking about just general pedestrian access with respect to parks that service pedestrian cut-throughs and various other passageways. I'll give you a specific example. Down in my neck of the woods in South Medford, Columbus Park walkways were not shoveled in a timely manner after the MLK storm. I haven't been There this week, but I understand from one of my neighbors that that park still hasn't been shoveled that, for example, the key pedestrian passageway, particularly for those to go to the Hindu tempo on rear mystic app. So, you know, thinking about things like that, to me, those passageways are just as important as the roads of the cars drive on. So I think. We need to be also thinking about identifying those key pedestrian passageways and putting them on the same priority level as we do with any roads that cars go on, particularly for those who are in wheelchairs, pushing babies, in strollers, etc. The other thing too is You know, shovel plowing significant amounts of snow onto shoveled sidewalks like days after a storm, I think, can be, you know, very, very kind of disruptive, especially for people who think, hey, I'm already done like shoveling my my sidewalk. I don't need to do it anymore. Um, and that actually happened, and I presume it was through a city worker, not a private worker, but, um, sidewalk on the even side of Pix Ave right before Main Street, suddenly there was a massive snow pile blocking pedestrian access that I noticed this weekend that just seemed to come out of nowhere. It did get cleaned up after I submitted it on CClickFix, but I just think if we're that far out after a storm, if we're going to be plowing snow off the road, we should just be careful not to where we're putting it. I mean, it was like a five foot high pile of snow that just went over the entire sidewalk. So just a few thoughts there. And again, I really appreciate all the work DPW has done. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thanks again, Mr. Carney. I think that's what we're asking for, because I think those areas are just as important. I think the other thing that we haven't touched upon that will also express to Mr. McGiven and his team is the communication with our state partners, making sure a lot of the streets people think that they're Medford streets, we can't touch. So I think having the communication with our state partners to make sure that's being done. And the other question was to the team about the confusion with odd even parking. and the understanding where the snow was being pushed. I think it sounds simple, but someone that's grown up in Medford and understand the even-odd parking and had senior members driving plows in my street, they understood that. You knew that if you were on one side, you weren't going to get impacted as much, so then you could plan on where to put that snow. in having easier access for parking in the future or a walkable area. And again, that's one thing, one of the things that we did a lot of, at least I did, a lot of calls reaching out to DPW saying, hey, this is the address, the plows have just plowed in an area that's already been shoveled, the person is elderly or irritated, and to be honest with you, they're going down. I know up in the heights, they were up there actually removing snow from those areas that we had some complaints on. So just so you know, I want you to know that that has been shared, and the habitual business owners on the state roads that have been expressed to me that the code enforcement office is finding a way to work with the state to make sure those people are fined. So it hurts a little bit. So they come out there a little bit earlier than what's mandated by our ordinances and rules. So I hope that helps.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Just being really brief, what Councilor Scarpelli said about state roads is really important. It's why we mentioned it in our resolution, because we heard, too, from residents that major state roads had lanes that weren't plowed, including Wellington Circle, and that can be really dangerous for traffic as well. I've heard from city staff that it's gotten really hard to talk to MassDOT because Our contact, points of contact there keep moving on, but we do need to do something better in terms of forming that relationship and making sure that we can communicate this stuff really quickly in an emergency. And likewise, to the residents who've already spoken, you know, I think we all saw problems where certain streets were just fully not plowed, and I think we need to figure out what went wrong there. Why did that happen when they used to get plowed in the past?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. We'll go back to public comment. I'll go to Andy Castagnetti. Andy, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Am I unmuted?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you, Councilor Beres. I just have a few words to say. This storm was a tough one. It made the top 10 list. I believe it came in at number eight. It was really nothing compared to when I remember the blizzard of 1978, which was the second highest total. And the whole state was shut down for two weeks. So anyways, I want to actually commend the DPW workers. It's not the same crew we had 10 years ago, and you can never satisfy all the people. But it was a tough, tough storm. And I think they did pretty good. If I didn't have my neighbor with a snowblower, I'd be in deep trouble at my age, let me tell you. At least it wasn't heavy, and it didn't freeze. So we lucked out on that. But anyways, I say they did a decent job considering. It must have been really tough in the Fulton Heights with all the hills up there. And my last question is, whatever happened to global warming?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comments. We will go next to CB on Zoom. CB, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[SPEAKER_24]: Charles Bennett 19 Martin Street. I just wanted to touch upon some stuff that wasn't spoken about about the proper plowing.
[SPEAKER_23]: I know you guys said that there was not as many plowing contractors as years past, but just in the time, I work for a utility company, so I have no days off. I got to get out. I drive a 2004 Honda Civic. They can barely make it in the snow. So I was out there all night previously getting it ready. But during that time, I think I only saw One plow, maybe 40 to 60 minutes making one pass, uh, which is kind of crazy because they used to, the plow would usually go in years past during other storms and, you know, clear out properly and take its time. There was one pass every 40 to 60 minutes. And not only that, but they had the blade of their, I plow sometimes for my work and they had the blade of their plow pushing toward the cars, which made no sense to me. Um, so I have no problem with the DPW, but maybe the contractors need to be spoken to on how to properly plow. Um, my other problem was Columbus Park. Someone mentioned that earlier. Um, my daughter goes to the mistletoe and a lot of times the whole pathway leading up to the mistletoe is never plowed. And that was last year when she attended the school during storms. So I feel like that all those parks also have to be attended to. especially near schools. And my other problem was the parking during the parking ban right in Medford Square there. I passed through there many times in a large truck for work and people are already parked in the middle of Medford Square while there's still a ban. No one was being ticketed to toad and it was pretty outrageous. I saw so many bashed mirrors off. Um, so that's it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there any further comment from members of the public on this resolution? Seeing none, is there a motion? And do we also want to send to DPW? Motion to refer the papers to DPW to request a written report and have a meeting in the Public Works Committee. Seconded by Councilor Malayne. That's a motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Malayne. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Communications from the Mayor. 26033, Capital Stabilization Fund Appropriation Request. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the following appropriation from the Capital Stabilization Fund for the replacements at Engine 5 on Main Street in the amount of $97,500.00. Chief Evans will be available for questions on the above request. Capital Stabilization currently has a balance of $10,231,346. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. Chief Evans, you wanna present on this?
[Todd Evans]: Good evening. Good evening. Yeah, so we were looking for the funding to replace the heating system at Engine 5. Of course, right before the brutal cold rolled in, the heating system decided to give up on us. So we were able to get this company to come in there quickly, and they were actually able to get the job done fast enough for us We borrowed a mobile diesel heater to kind of blow air into the station and try to keep, just trying to keep the pipes from freezing in the building while they were doing this transition and getting this new heating system up and running here. So they came through for us pretty quickly and got us through the situation there. So we appreciate that. So in that, that ended up being the total for the job there. So there's a couple little more tweaks that have to be done there electrically, but the heat is running again. So some, there were a couple community room interruptions also. Engine 5 is where the community room is down there. So some programs were disrupted for maybe a week or so also, but it looks like, Things are operational again.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much, Chief. Any questions? On the motion to approve by, oh, we got a question from Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: I don't have a question. I was going to motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: All right. On the motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Kelly. Councilor Leming. Councilor Malauulu? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative, the motion passes.
[SPEAKER_18]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I know you got one more, we'll try to be quick. 26034, submitted by Mayor Brandon Legal Kern, fiscal 26 CPA appropriation requests are on behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respectfully and recommend that your honorable body approve the fiscal year 2026 recommendations of the Community Preservation Committee. We reviewed these in Committee of the Whole on January 20th, I believe, and we asked questions of the petitioners. We do have CPA Manager DuPont here. Teresa, if there's anything you want to add.
[Theresa Dupont]: At this time, I don't have anything to add. I just want to publicly say, just really quickly, I do have one thing to add that I want to thank the Community Preservation Committee for their tireless work for this to get to this point. You know, they're resident volunteers, and I want to thank and acknowledge their time. And also take this moment to invite the public to our March 10th annual hearing. It will be hybrid here in City Hall, as well as over Zoom. So we welcome members of the public to come and learn more about cpa give us some feedback and share some of their priorities and um but back to this motion here um like you said we did discuss at the committee of the whole and ask i ask for your approval and support thank you theresa i do have a couple questions from the council councillor scarpelli
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Ms. DuPont. I know I'm redundant with this question, but it's come up with residents that, I guess, brought it up on social media, then called me to help them understand again what the CPA tax is and where our priorities fall. And I tried to explain it. I believe one of the questions that we talked about publicly, and you've shared the answer multiple times, but I'll ask you again. The process when a church like the Shiloh Baptist requests for funding for a historical piece of restoration, that falls under the criteria, and that is part of the CPA that was voted in by our community, correct?
[Theresa Dupont]: That is correct. And just to elaborate on that Shiloh Baptist Church, as well as all of our churches across across our great community here are community gathering spaces. This is where folks can gather to to pray, to talk, to support each other. Shiloh has been great in that they are bringing on a childcare tenant that will serve the Medford community at large, which is a great need for Medford here. As well as I want to also share that this past growing season, they held a free food pantry. um for folks in partnership with sanctuary church so yes uh but it is eligible under the historic preservation eligibility under the community preservation act it is a historic building it's significant and it serves a community purpose thank you because i think that that that says a lot miss dupont when
[George Scarpelli]: when I bring that question up, because that's the question that people, well, what happens if a church in Rare Mystic Ave says that they need a new elevator and it doesn't equate? And I tried to explain to them that it's a huge difference when you're talking about an establishment that's been such part of our history and our community. like the Shiloh Baptist. I know the criteria that they'll call and say, well, we do a food pantry, why can't we get a new door or somewhat? But I think that the criteria that you stated speaks volumes and I hope our residents understand that this is what the Community Preservation Act is. The requests are asked, presented by these organizations that qualify under I think it's important for us to make sure that we're doing the right thing and that we're doing the right thing.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Presentation by Theresa DuPont was exceptional this year especially and graphics were on point and excellent font choices and that all of the applications were really, really beautiful and very deserving and I was very impressed with the whole process and I moved to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Lazzaro. On the motion of Vice President Lazzaro to approve the fiscal 26 CPA request, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Kelly? Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Malauulu? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Teresa. Thank you to the CPC and thank you to all of our applicants for your work here in our community.
[Theresa Dupont]: And thank you for your support. Have a good evening.
[Zac Bears]: Paper 26035, submitted by Mayor Brian O'Connor. Equipment acceptance from Leary Firefighters Foundation. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your auto body approves under Mass General Law, Chapter 44, Section 53A, equipment from the Leary Firefighters Foundation, specifically self-rescue equipment having a value of $19,573.00 to be used by the Fire Department. Fire Chief Todd Evans will be available on the above request. Chief Evans.
[Todd Evans]: Okay, so this was some funding. This is actually the Leary Firefighter Foundation that will reach out directly to a vendor that we got them a quote for, in which they will purchase a certain number of bailout kits, basically self-rescue equipment for firefighters that they wear inside their gear. In which case, if the situation arises that they would have to actually bail out of a window and make a quick entry from an upper story level. Basically like a hook and ropes that's inside their gear that they can to attach on to something and actually escape from the building, so I believe this was something around 30-something bailout kits that will go to anybody that's missing any of that equipment right now. Thank you, Chief Evans.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any questions from members of the Council? Seeing none, on the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan? Councilor Leming? Councilor Malie? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? President Pierce.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Thank you, Chief. Thank you. All right. We have public participation. Public participation on any matter that you'd like to talk about for three minutes. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Micah Kesselman]: Councilman 499 Main Street. I actually came out here tonight to give comments in support of Councilor Callahan's resolutions that were kicked to committee. I didn't realize they were going to be sort of punted to committee so quickly. So I just want to say I do definitely support that. But I also want to emphasize that. A DHS internal memo was leaked from January 28th, very recently, that wildly expands ICE's so-called authority to perform warrantless arrests. Basically, by expanding, I mean it just gives them unlimited authority to perform warrantless arrests. It is unchecked. not legally based in anything. It's unfounded, illegitimate, and absurd. Nevertheless, ICE and DHS are operating under the presumption that they have this legal authority, even though it is prima facie bullshit. That is just to say, and I know I'm very sorry. That is just to say that there is incredible urgency actually on the Fourth Amendment component of the resolution for an ordinance to be drafted by the Public Health and Safety Committee, I think, right? Yes. And again, I'm going to just continue to encourage this council to come up with literally creative and effective and any ways to deal with this and engage against this clear, unlawful fascism that is creeping ever closer to our city and every city. And that means, honestly, I really hope that every city council meeting should have at least one thing on the agenda dealing with this nonsense, because it's horrific and awful and abhorrent. Oh, I also wanted to ask, is there on the resolution that went to the PHSC about the administration working to sort of provide a policy, has that materialized in any context from the administration yet or work.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a public health and community safety committee Councilor Tseng? Oh, saying something.
[Justin Tseng]: This is less, this wasn't communicated to the city council, so chair Lazzaro might have more updates, but I do know that the mayor told me yesterday that she is meeting, convening a meeting with the police chief and a bunch of other people in city hall and outside this week to develop a policy that kind of that she says explore the policy, but she definitely said that, she said to me that she supports it and wants to see what we can do about it. Of course, we'll have a role on city council to push her to actually adopt a policy. But that was the update I got yesterday. And Chair Lazzaro might have more.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, sir. I was saying Chair Lazzaro, but then Councilor Tseng pressed his button. Chair Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: I hadn't pressed my button because I didn't have an update. Councilor Tsengha's most recently had a meeting with the mayor. I haven't spoken to her, but I wasn't expecting there to be an update, but I'm glad to hear about that. We will have a public health and community safety meeting soon, and we'll have to talk about Councilor Callaghan and Sangha's resolution that was in the agenda this week. And there's other issues to discuss as well. So for sure it'll be coming up shortly. The intention right now is that public health and community safety will convene about once a month for regular meetings. But there's a possibility to add additional meetings as well as needed. But those are scheduled now through the end of the spring.
[Micah Kesselman]: The monthly meetings. Yes. Okay. And then you can do ad hoc.
[Emily Lazzaro]: We can add additional, yeah.
[Micah Kesselman]: Dope. Cool. That's all I wanted to ask about. Thanks, guys.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in public participation? Seeing no hands in person or on Zoom, is, oh, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Motion to adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Motion adjourned by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
|
total time: 41.13 minutes total words: 2875 |
total time: 4.87 minutes total words: 194 |
total time: 1.34 minutes total words: 110 |
total time: 1.89 minutes total words: 203 |
|
total time: 10.42 minutes total words: 561 |
total time: 45.39 minutes total words: 4708 |
total time: 7.39 minutes total words: 469 |
total time: 3.62 minutes total words: 202 |
|
total time: 1.22 minutes total words: 125 |
total time: 1.5 minutes total words: 119 |
||