[Unidentified]: Test 1, 2. So, okay, that's good.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan? Present. Councilor Leming? Present. Councilor Malauulu? Councilor Scarpelli? Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng?
[Krause]: Present.
[Marie Izzo]: Vice President Lazzaro? Present. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Present. Six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. Almost. Mine's not working? Oh. Great. Six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. Councilor Scarpelli let me know that he's not able to attend tonight due to a family matter. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. The records of the meeting of February 24th, 2026 were passed to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, how did you find those records?
[Justin Tseng]: I found them in order and moved to approve.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Records of the special joint meeting of March 3rd, 2026 were passed to Councilor Leming. Councilor Leming, how did you find those records?
[Matt Leming]: On the records in order and moved to approve.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor? Wait, never mind.
[Matt Leming]: We're good.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to approve, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committees, 26-053 offered by President Bears, Committee of the Whole, March 4th, 2026, report to follow. This is a Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss litigation strategy and executive session. Is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Hearings 26-025, petition for a grant of location, National Grid, 57 Swan Street. This was, we heard from the petitioner that they in fact did not need this grant of location. This was the one that we talked about and said, can you not? And they didn't, they don't have to. So they have withdrawn it. Yeah. Is there a motion to receive in place on file? On the motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Second by Vice President Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Motions, orders, and resolutions 26-054 offered by Councilor Leming. Resolution requests no clearance solutions on roadways outside 553 to 569 Winthrop Street. Let me read it. Whereas the, or Councilor Leming, just.
[Matt Leming]: Council President Bears, indicated to many of the petitioners interested in this that we would probably get to this around 730. Respectfully, we have never gotten to this section of the agenda quite this fast. So I did want all of them. I did want folks to be present. That being said, I am seeing that one of them literally now, as I said, this is entering the room and I do see Aaron and Timothy on Zoom. Never mind. Okay, so I can read it? Yes. Okay, great.
[Zac Bears]: Whereas the area outside 553 to 569 Winthrop Street is an extended area of road that is technically a driveway, whereas the Department of Public Works no longer plows driveways, though it will plow public and private ways, whereas the residents of 553 to 569 Winthrop Street have made every effort to secure private snow plows though the angle of their roadways have discouraged all private contractors from taking up the job. Whereas this recent lack of clearance on this extended roadway and the inability to secure private plowers has led to safety issues for the residents living there, be it therefore resolved that the City of Benford request calculation, clarification on the following options from legal counsel, the Department of Public Works, and our Honorable State Delegation on three paths forward. One, guidance on the residents on the steps required and costs of reclassifying certain areas of their driveway to a private way. Submission of a home rule petition allowing the city to plow any roadways of certain length. and revision of the city's contracts with snow plowers to allow residents to secure the same services during a snowstorm. Be it further resolved that the representatives from the Department of Public Works and interested residents of 553 to 569 Winthrop be invited to the city council meeting to discuss this issue. Councilor Leming, and then we'll hear from the DPW commissioner and then we'll open it to the public. Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you. I'm going to share my screen. Really quickly just so that we can it's much easier to visualize this on on Google Maps So this is this is an interesting situation and it's it's one that Most of the many of the residents of this stretch of road right here have been I'll say frustrated by for quite for quite a while essentially, there's essentially the city use in previous years used to plow a lot more stretches of road than they do now. This here is a private driveway off of Winthrop Street that serves many different houses, which is very extensive and very difficult to plow. very difficult to plow without a pickup truck or some sort of a professional vehicle. And in recent years, the city has decided that they're going to stick with what is written in the letter of the law and no longer plow any private driveways, This stretch of road here is technically a private driveway, even though, in effect, many of the residents drive across it. It's a very extensive private driveway. It's really more like a private way. Now the city still does plow private ways. So basically what's happening here is that this is a group of residents who have who used to receive the service from the city. And the city in recent years has been just going a lot more by the books and no longer is plowing private driveways. And I do know that this group of residents has been bringing this to council's attention for a while. They have made a lot of efforts on their own to, for instance, book private plowing companies to come to their house during a snowstorm. and plow this stretch of road, which of course has been a bit of an issue lately. The issue is that many private contractors are refusing to do it because the incline on this driveway is a little bit too steep. Most of these, a lot of these private contractors are just not willing to specifically come out all the way to Medford during a snowstorm just to clear one stretch of road, especially when they can likely get a lot more business elsewhere. The residents don't have the option, due to the way that city contracts are written, to hire the same contractors that the city is using. So for instance, if a snowplow is going through Medford, then they, then the city's, the contractors that the city is using can't just like kind of go off to one of these side roads just to quickly do a plow and then get to the rest of the city just because the, all of the. plows that the city uses are exclusive to Medford until the entirety of the city is plowed. So this has just led to kind of one of these unfortunate incidents where it has, you know, I think it is appropriate to sort of have a public conversation between many of the residents who I think have rightfully gotten frustrated, and the DPW commissioner who is following the letter of the law, which is something we'd like to encourage in doing this. I have tried to come up with three potential paths forward, each of which is flawed, but it is a legal option to do this. The first, which I've corresponded with Representative Garbally over, is the potential to put forward a home rule petition which would allow which private ways are governed by the state as you, like the laws around them are governed by the state. And so potentially we could allow an exception to, a legal exception to enable us to use city resources to plow some, to plow certain types of private driveways. The commissioner, Tim McGivern, said that that would be a violation of the state constitution. Rep Garbally has said he will look into that. The second is just to offer some guidance to the residents on converting this driveway into a private way and offer some sort of clarity on the process, costs, and legal entities involved in doing that. Commissioner McGivern has offered me some guidance for that in practice, some guidance for that over email, I think it would be appropriate to offer, to sort of lay out for residents who may often be lost in the legalese of this how to do. how to do that and what the cost and effort would be if they did want to convert this stretch of road into a driveway. And the third would be just to, would be to come up with a revision of the city's contracts to allow the residents to pay, to allow a clause in which residents that own certain types of driveways could pay the city or could pay these contractors to plow certain types of driveways during a snowstorm just so that they don't have this issue of having to hire a completely separate contractor to drive out to Medford and clear this out. I think either way it is helpful to have a conversation between the DPW commissioner and many of the residents who live there at this juncture just to sort of hear what both sides are saying. I will say that I understand where both are coming from and I just essentially want a situation where the residents on the stretch of road can in effect get their driveways plowed during, get this extensive set of, get this pretty extensive driveway cleared during a snowstorm. So with that, that's a presentation of the issues. I would love to hear from my colleagues. other folks who live in the area as well as Tim McGivern on this issue. And I see that one is raising her hand.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I appreciate Councilor Leming taking this up. I hesitated because being copied on these e-mails I was very aware of the issue. I'm also I don't think I need to recuse myself from this because I don't benefit from any outcome monetarily, but I'm close friends with a few residents that live on these roadways, driveways. I've driven on these driveways and parked on them myself before and after snowstorms, and I'm very familiar with what it's like. The driveways are very steep. There is something that happens with some frequency in Medford that I respect our DPW commissioner for wanting to correct, which is that there were deals made between certain people and maybe city councilors or mayors at certain times over the years, where things were done for people because they knew people in City Hall. And when that happened, maybe those people got services from the city, and then those services just continued. Maybe those people sold their houses, maybe those services continued, and then our current administration or our department heads are noticing this stuff and saying, like, well, that's not correct, that's not legal, that's not right, that's not something we should continue doing. Wanting to correct those is rational and legal and I understand the impulse to do that. However, the residents that live on these roads are in a position now where, especially this winter, they've had numerous severe snowstorms and have asked repeatedly for assistance. They've offered to pay for plowing services. They've just asked for even the names of plow services that they could reach out to, which was not given because then those services would be removed from the Medford roads that are serviced by the city. It put the residents in a really uncomfortable position, a really impossible position, where they couldn't leave their, they weren't able to drive out of their homes. And in the situation that these residents are in, because they're on steep driveways, if somebody has a disability or somebody's elderly, it's not possible for people to get out of their homes. It's not possible for emergency vehicles to access These driveways and it's dangerous and all of these things are. than necessary for the city to address, I believe. So I really appreciate Councilor Leming bringing this forward. I do think we need to have a more robust conversation about what it means when we remove services from our residents. And also it is the responsibility of city council to do constituent services to this level. We don't have anybody else that does it at a city level. So I think this is the correct forum for it. And we may need to come up with some creative solutions around this. And I appreciate Councilor Leming having three concrete opportunities for us to discuss how we can, if we're correcting uh, sweetheart deals that were given to people in the past. What are we replacing them with? We can't just say, okay, that's it. You don't get it. And, and also we will make it then impossible for you to find a solution in the future and offer you are for you nothing. And, um, you know, pull the rug out from under you with no future solution. So, um, I am, uh, I don't believe anybody is trying to make anything more difficult for anybody else, I just think we need to try to work together to find something that does work. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callaghan.
[Anna Callahan]: I really do want to commend Councilor Leming for hearing about this and really digging into it deeply. You know, some folks were asking me, they were reading through this motion and saying, hmm, wait, isn't this the administration? Shouldn't the administration be solving this problem? And, you know, we, I think that our administration works very, very hard. And unfortunately, we are still one of the, you know, lesser funded per capita cities in the Commonwealth. We have very small departments. We have staff who are doing, you know, Herculean tasks. And it is, you know, difficult to find solutions for things that are not already something that is on the many, many things on your plate. So to have a Councilor who is willing to go the extra mile, talk to, you know, state delegates, you know, dig deeply into what other creative possibilities there are. I really do appreciate the time that that takes. I really want to thank Councilor Leming for this. And they sound like, you know, reasonable solutions. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Director McGivern, would you like to talk about this issue? Commissioner McGivern, my apologies. That's okay.
[Tim McGivern]: Can you hear me?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: You know, I can answer questions. I do want to note my exception to the way that Councilor Lazzaro described kind of what happened with my interactions with this whole situation. Just to kind of clear the record, we gave plenty of notice. I realized we were plowing a private driveway and didn't put a stop to it immediately because we didn't want to remove services, pull the rug out from under them. We didn't want to do that. So we did provide a lengthy transition period, an educational session, and communications, pretty robust communications thereafter, pretty consistently. And I've been offering myself up for advisement consistently. So there's some serious issues with Councilor Leming's plan. This is a pretty clear-cut thing. These aren't unusual driveways. These are just shared driveways. They're on private land. You know, this city shouldn't be spending public money on these private driveways. And I, you know, I truly understand the whole issue of not being able to find plow services. That's difficult. but they also have two access points up there. So, some of it is, yes, difficult to plow, which goes more into the reason of the city not plowing it because of liability issues. This is clear-cut private versus public type stuff here. So, whereas I can appreciate the suggestions, there are ways to formally lay out roadways for real reasons, and the law does allow for that as well. So, there may be opportunities here to explore, legally, but I don't think they lie with the city plowing someone's private driveway. So I'm more than happy to answer questions on the process, the process to make roadways, the difference between a driveway and a roadway, how easements work, land rights, et cetera. More than willing, as usual, to answer any questions like that. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. Looks like we have some of the residents here. Councilor Leming did invite them in the resolution. So we're going to hear from them. I'm not going to put the timer on, but just do ask that we remain within some time. But other than that, I'm just going to unmute you, Aaron. And if any of the other residents who Councilor Leming invited would like to speak, I will unmute you as well when you raise your hand on Zoom. And is there anyone in the chamber who wants to speak about the Winthrop Street driveway snow issue? All right, seeing none, we'll go to Erin on Zoom. Hi, Erin. Hi, everyone. Could you just give your email address for the record, please? Thank you.
[SPEAKER_12]: Yes. Hi, I'm Erin Glavitz. I'm at 569 Winthrop Street. And so with that, I'll actually add a little bit of slight modifications to the faxes laid out, which I will again echo. Everyone who had complimented Councilor Leming's work.
[Zac Bears]: Hi Erin, we're having a hard time hearing you. Oh, I'm so sorry. I don't know, it might be something distanced to your microphone. And Shane, if you could just turn on the captions in the chamber, that would be helpful as well.
[SPEAKER_12]: Sure, one second. Is this any better, everyone?
[Zac Bears]: That is, yeah, a bit better. It should be okay.
[SPEAKER_12]: Okay, I will talk loud. I apologize. I'm without a voice due to a cold, but one... Oh, sorry, Erin. No, that's okay. No, no. One, so Erin Glabitz, 569 Winthrop Street. And actually, with that address, I can offer a bit of a clarification to some of the facts as laid out. But one, first and foremost, I did want to thank everyone. I know it sounds trivial to have driveways as come up as a topic, but I'm so grateful for the way Councilor Leming has showed up for us in elevating this as a bigger Um, context and concern. And frankly, Rep Garbaly's team has been very helpful and supportive in that regard. Um, So one, yeah, clarification in addition to the lengthy, lengthy driveway that Councilor Leming showed, which I believe serves two homes. I'm the owner, part owner of a driveway in collaboration with another neighbor that serves five homes that has a similar steepness. And it is a driveway that is split between two zones or two zoned plots, but five total units have an easement too. And from what I was able to find, I believe both driveways are at a steepness grade that would not be permissible under construction code today, from what I was able to find on city websites. For that reason, we have encountered many, many private plow companies that would actually not even consider taking our phone call, or rather, once they looked up the address, wouldn't take our phone call. We had more who came out and said they could not service it because of the steepness. We, I believe, hired two to three to four officially vendors throughout the snow season, two to three of whom canceled after one service. or told us they were coming and then didn't come and made an excuse to why they couldn't come. That happened during the first major, major blizzard of 2026. I have pictures capturing all of these things, which basically showed plots that snowed in many houses and were not left accessible for many more hours than expected. I will pause there and just ask, am I coming through okay?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Erin, we can still hear you.
[SPEAKER_12]: Okay, great so just just to add some some color there so I'm looking I believe we contacted 25 as far as documented goes and that's kind of where we were left in terms of options. Part of the reason for the drop off in service is that most private plows. Ken did not trust the steepness of our driveways against their equipment. They felt that driving a plow up our driveway would damage their equipment. As such, the only option was snowblowers and hand shoveling. As you can imagine, an industrial scale plow could do the driveway in five minutes. I know that because the one that the city hired until last year did go that quickly. However, having a crew come up manually I think the most recent one, which granted it was a large blizzard, I do believe took them at least two hours, and I think at a cost of $800. Again, this is actually me speaking on behalf of one of the two driveways. I know the other homeowners on that separate driveway, which is much longer and even steeper, have a slightly different dynamic. I will let them speak to that, but I think we feel uniquely bonded in this challenge. I would also like to say that I deeply admire the desire for equity across the city. I understand that it felt, you know, the investigation, these looked like sweetheart kind of handshake deals, and it's not fair that one gets access and the other, you know, others in the city maybe in less serviced or represented communities do not, and I empathize with that greatly. In conversing with the city about that, I did propose, you know, one, acknowledge that fact, acknowledge that we would want, if that's sort of the dynamic, it's against law, it's inequitable, we would pay for the cost of this. The main struggle we had was with securing an appropriately professional vendor who could service us and not cancel on us such that we couldn't leave our homes. That's why I think one of the resolutions is favorable in that regard. And frankly, I'm hopeful that if it's passed, it could help other neighbors, because I don't know how many neighbors struggle with this. And granted, it is our first year. Maybe with time, could have sorted it out. But the reality is that that kind of doesn't matter when you're snowed in your own home, despite your best efforts. And by the way, I'm happy to share the spreadsheet that captures this. So one thing I also will correct, Commissioner McGivern, after a series of exchanges and reminders, had his team share a list of the city hired vendors, but he greatly emphasized that we could not engage with them until after the storm was over. We did engage with a handful and were able to find one that was the one that historically plowed our plot on behalf of the city. They recognized it. They were willing to work with us kind of after the storm had cleared, and they were going to use their plow vehicle, and it was at a favorable price compared to the manual snowblowers and shovelers, as you can imagine. So I frankly, that's just an example of sort of, if there were some flexibility in the policy, I think we could arrive at a solution that is good for all. I think a thing that I have found unsettling about this is kind of treated like we are inappropriately asking for something by just being asking to be able to safely leave our house. houses at our own expense. I also think, you know, there's a broader discussion here that I know some of my neighbors want to speak to of just other ways to address this. But I did want to kind of give that lengthy history of how we've attempted to address this. So while I understand the intent was to give us notice and to provide information, the reality on the ground, I will say, many of these landscaping plow companies aren't thinking about plowing in the spring because it's their landscaping season. So you have to call them close out. Many of, well, Tim McGivern, Commissioner McGivern, excuse me, often told me you can Google it and find a landscaping company. I believe it was 24 of 20, or sorry, excuse me, 22 of 25 companies contacted wouldn't even entertain it with additional few coming once in canceling. So didn't want to just paint that as a color. I hope if there is a change, I do truly want it to benefit all. We are also kind of willing to put our resources financially towards us as we've indicated from the very beginning. And I do sincerely appreciate the opportunity to talk about this and appreciate being listened to on this. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Erin. Are there any other residents who are here to speak on this matter specifically? All right, I will go to JV. Could you give your name and address for the record, please?
[SPEAKER_06]: Sure, this is John Hanson. I'm at 553 Winthrop Street. We're the house kind of on top of the hill between the two large developments. I think Aaron kind of laid out the problem with plowing very well. We're kind of facing the same issue here with a very steep road and a dirt road coming to our house. But a couple of things that I'd like to add is that These roads have been being plowed for like decades. And I don't think it's right that it just stops all of a sudden with no good solution to go forward with. And then the other thing is we're flanked in the middle of two, I don't know, huge multi-million dollar housing developments that, you know, the city has oversight over. To me, it seems like the perfect opportunity to do something that benefits everybody and have these guys put in roads that can be turned into private ways or public ways or whatever something that can be plowed or make them include us in their HOAs like this is the perfect storm that's happening here where some city intervention and help could incentivize these developers to do something that's better for the community and its citizens. And I think if we just let that opportunity go by, then the situation is just gonna continue to be bad for everybody. We can't get out of our homes. We can't secure the right kind of plowing because they're tied up doing plowing for the city and don't wanna entertain things. Sure, these are legally considered driveways, but they are extremely long and they act as roadways that the whole city uses. And in fact, two large developments are using with large trucks, damaging the roads. Like there are times that they're barely drivable because there are potholes and the plowing doesn't come soon enough. something needs to be done. And we're kind of at a loss of what to do because we've exhausted all avenues and we need the help of the city that we live in and pay taxes to.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Commissioner McGivern, and I'd like to try to avoid kind of a back and forth. So I could go to the other resident who has their hand up first, or I could go to you.
[Tim McGivern]: I just want to correct the facts really. And just a couple of things. It wasn't all of a sudden, there was plenty of notice. Our equipment out on the streets, our plows that we are hiring, the one that they ended up using, are no different than private contractors out there, the pool of private contractors out there. We're talking about a pickup truck with a nine or a 10 foot plow on it. very common equipment. So, again, I don't understand the issue. Again, private land matters. So these aren't roadways, these are private land issues that typically are resolved amongst the private land parties that are involved. The city doesn't have any rights to any of this land or the subdivision developments that are around it, or have any say in the easement rights that are granted between private parties. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Ishan Gupta. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_25]: Hi, so I'm Ishan. I'm a resident of 563 Winthrop. And in addition to the points made by Aaron and JV and to respond to Tim here, Commissioner Tim here. So he did give us plenty of notice and we did start preparing quite early for this. And Aaron already commented on the scale of vendors we reached out to, the number of vendors we reached out to. I think another thing to point out here is the level of up negotiation we tried to do. We offered them more money, We offered them more favorable terms. The answer was usually a no. We could not get people to come and plow our driveways in a reasonable time frame, more than once, basically. At one point after a snowstorm, my kid was sick, and we could not get to the pediatrician for about four hours. until we were able to get out of the snow. To me, that was a very difficult situation to be in because it was a fairly new experience and it happened despite our best efforts of trying to procure a vendor, trying to pay them whatever they want, and just bailing to get one. It also turned out that many of the vendors we tried to engage with were already engaged by the city. So we could not really hire them during the storm or right after the storm. So we were kind of in a catch-22 situation when caught last minute. But yeah, our situation has been very precarious this past winter. And I just want to drive that point home. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Go to Shreya Bhattacharya. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have, well, just go ahead.
[Shreya Bhattacharyya]: Hi, I'm Shreya, 555 Winthrop Street. Thank you, Councilor Leming, Councilor Lazzaro and Callahan for speaking to this point. And my neighbours really summarised this really well, the situation we've been dealing with. And I also wanted to add that 555 and 553, we are sandwiched between these two really large developments. The road, the quote unquote driveway is not owned by us, 555 and 553, it's owned by the developers. In previous years, roads that were owned by developers became private ways. So that is the history of private ways. There are roads of this length all over the city that the city has accepted as private ways, but because Times are different now. Commissioner McGivern said that the city will not accept this road as a private way. However, the steepness, I mean, there's nothing that can change in terms of the steepness and this road. There's nothing we can do. There's nothing that developers will do. But the city will not accept this as a private way. And this makes it especially difficult because now we're it is gonna be a driveway, according to Commissioner McGivern, just because the city will not accept this as a private way. Whereas in previous years, when developers built these developments, their roads did get accepted as private ways. Moreover, there are ways like this, and I can think about like Essex Street, which are being plowed because like a storm drain grows through them and things like that. So the fact that Commissioner McGivern, you're saying that this is illegal, this cannot be done, is not 100% correct in my understanding. And so I'm just not understanding why we are going through this basically. And thanks again, everyone for giving us time to speak about this. That's all.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Rob Carney, I don't think you're a resident of the area. So we will come to you after we're done with all the residents from the area. Are there any other residents who'd like to speak before I go to the building DPW commissioner. All right. Thank you to all the residents from the area for speaking on this and I will recognize the DPW commissioner.
[Tim McGivern]: Hi, thank you. I just want to correct a couple things. Sorry. So these roads or this driveway is not owned by the developers. So it's and actually there are easements rights associated with it. They go over other people's property that the developers are building and making. Roadway law is really clear. Parcel layout for roadways is really, really clear how that works. So just wanted to correct that fact. And, you know, roadway layout versus a driveway are very clear. And I did put all of this in writing and explained in detail and the differences to many of the residents, including Shreya on this, as well as what it would take to create a properly laid out roadway, what that would take and what it entails, which is of course an option, but one with challenges for sure, I can foresee those. So anyway, thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Looks like the planning director would also like to speak on this matter. Director Hunt.
[Alicia Hunt]: Good evening, Alicia hunt, director of planning, development and sustainability. I actually just wanted to chime in. I've been trying to find the files on this. I'm here for another matter tonight. But I was sort of perplexed by this because 1 of the new, so there are 2 developments. 1 is much lower. And obviously, it's very steep and we did. Require that developer to continue to allow access along the very steep road down to Winthrop. As part of the conditions of the plan, but there was just so much we could require between 2 private parties to a private development. The bridal path, however, is the new one that's going in, and that one is supposed to be providing a generally flat bituminous concrete driveway, bituminous like an asphalt driveway that is to provide access to both 555 and, sorry, the other one isn't on this screen, but to the two houses up there on top of the hill, And the best diagram that I have for it is actually one that shows how a fire truck would be able to then get to those and that it's fairly flat up there. And that project, I have to admit, I haven't been up there to take a look to see what the stage is. I do know so, but I think it's fairly well advanced. In fact, the road should be done and there should be a paved driveway up there and we can come take a look and see what's going on with that. That's on the. the side by Headland Way. The reason why Bridal Path cannot be a public way is because it is a Headland Way and the road that it's in Franklin Ave are both private ways and we cannot have a public way all by itself isolated with no access to any other public ways. So if Headland and Franklin were public ways, then we could have had bridal path be one. But because those are private, it's only touching a private way. However, it should be, and I have to say, I have not been out there myself to inspect it at this time, but it should be built to our regular roadway standards because we require that as part of the subdivision process is that it should be built to these standards. So I just sort of wanted to, there should be a flat paved access up there at that height. That does not give you the access down to Winthrop, and I understand that, but it should be a legal safe access that a fire truck could get out, which in my mind should make it rational that private plows would be willing to plow that private driveway up there, even if they're not willing to do the steep one straight down to Winthrop Street. So I just wanted to share that, and I have the plans if it's helpful.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. It looks like we have. Sorry about that. It looks like we have two residents with a little bit. If you could just keep it brief, if these are comments relative to what Alicia Hunt brought up around bridal path. Shreya?
[Shreya Bhattacharyya]: Hi, Shreya, 555 Winthrop Street. Director Hunt, I really... would invite you to come take a look at the condition of the road that's all I mean it's the potholes it's it's not paved at all I understand they're working on it and work takes time so that's not a complaint about that but the just the fact that it should be paved. I really want to invite you and I'm happy to like show you around but please do come by and take a look at the condition of the road. That being said we don't really have a problem with the developers who are developing it. Our main concern is the the land between Bridal Path and Mary Kenny Road and the fact that we were hoping that the city would accept that as a private way as the city has done in the past for other roads built by developers, but it wasn't. And now we have a very steep driveway, quote unquote driveway, which we don't own. We don't own that land that we are responsible to plow. And also the other problem is our address is 555 Winthrop Street. So we need the access from Winthrop Street because that's what delivery vehicles are using. And if that road, that access is not there, it makes life really hard for us. So that the steep part is the challenging part, not the bridal pathway per se, but the path coming up from Winthrop Street, because our address is literally Winthrop Street. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I'm going to recognize that the two remaining folks, if we could just keep our comments to about a minute. It sounds like we're not going to resolve this here in the room tonight. But I will just let folks respond to the additional information briefly.
[SPEAKER_06]: Hi, John Hanson, 553 Winthrop. Just to kind of echo what Shreya said, the bridal path development, they've started like framing out their first foundation. It's gonna be like two, three years till they build the road that was being mentioned. So we're still, you know, have a problem until then. And I do invite folks to come here and take a look at the conditions of the road. I would invite the fire chief to come take a look at it too because it's even now with no snow, I think it would be very difficult to get a fire truck through there if we needed emergency services. So just adding that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, John. Aaron.
[SPEAKER_12]: Yes, thank you. One, just observation in navigating this with the city since we first got the notice in the spring. We've had a lot of exchanges and in my observation of just even hearing people who are much closer to this, an expert, based on what I've learned, I've even heard in this meeting, driveway private way and publicly way be used what sounds like incorrectly and a little bit interchangeably when they're not in some context. And I just want to point out that to me kind of calls to light the complexity of the situation and for residents navigating this the first time you can imagine how hard that is. Another thing I would observe again I laid out the complexities of my driveway What I feel for in my neighbors in the other driveway is neither of them own it. They are subject to two different developers and it sounds like they have an easement. It sounds like they don't actually have control if the developer just suddenly elects to not do what they're supposed to because I can't imagine a resident with an easement is even legally allowed to hire a plow service to service a driveway they don't own. So that's just another observation. And I think what we're facing here is sort of a legacy of very odd zoning and building decisions that predated all of us. We bought our homes the way they are. We recognize the oddities. I will say when we bought them, the realtors correctly and confidently shared the city service to them. So again, would emphasize that's why it's hard to have them removed suddenly, given that it's just, it's hard for me to hear Commissioner McGiven's characterization, which just feels like, frankly, lacking in empathy. And I have told him that over email before, that we're all just trying to leave our homes safely and get our kids and families to where they need to go. We love living in the city. We pay taxes, we'd pay more services fees if it meant we could do this easily. So just, it's not straightforward. I think, again, I would echo invite, anyone to see the plots, to look at the plot plans, meet with us. It's not straightforward. No one's looking for a freebie. We're just trying to be able to safely enter and exit our homes in inclement weather. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Sorry about that. I'm going to recognize the DPW Commissioner one more time. We're not going to keep doing the back and forth at this point. And it sounds like there needs to be more conversation if there can be. Commissioner McIvern.
[Tim McGivern]: today you'll be quick just one correct things uh... i'd have been actually empathetic in my opinion i guess that's the first judge but i've been uh... willingly communicating being brought proactive in this is the very beginning willing to sit down and show people you know how to do things and what sort of the then rights are and what they mean so i i've been very open and i'm still open and i do that with my colleagues and we're even doing a presentation on it uh... so more than happy to do it then been like that since the beginning and been trying to be proactive and help you guys out. You do own your driveway. You have easement rights. Those rights are very strong. Private rights are strong here in the United States. You have access rights. Read your easements, read your deeds. You actually have, you can pave it, you can do things, put a guardrail if you want, you can do some traffic safety, you can do whatever you want at your driveway. And I just wanted to correct those things. These are really important things. So I'm happy to answer questions and provide additional advisement and I do empathize and I understand the situation. If it comes down to it, and I've stated this as well, the police and fire can always ask us for emergency services and we will respond with first responders. 24 seven and we will plow out someone who's having an emergency for sure. Um, and there are simple stipulations, you know, there are, um, conditions with that of course, but it, it, it is a thing that can happen and does happen. I would believe.
[Zac Bears]: Uh, so thank you very much. Thanks. I'm going to go to councilor Leming councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you. And I understand this conversation has lasted quite a while, and I think city council is a fine forum for that, obviously. This is a case where I think both sides definitely had their points. There's been some head-butting, and I do respect that. Okay. Still have some audio issues left over from two weeks ago. I'm absorbing some of former Councilor Collins qualities. I'll try to talk louder. I apologize. But Commissioner McIvern, so two questions, and I know that we went over this via email, but I would appreciate reiterating it here. The first is, can you just lay out for us what the process would be if the residents did want to pursue this of changing, legally changing a driveway like theirs into a private way, step-by-step? What office would they go to? Would the city councilors or the state get involved? What would the residents need to do? That's the first thing I'd like to know. And the second is, I think clearly the residents are willing to pay for this, but the impression I've gotten from listening to them here today and hearing this back and forth is that nobody's looking for a free lunch. it just seems to be impossible to actually get a vendor to begin with. So, and I know we've already, again, I know we've already discussed this via email, but what would the issues be with requesting a renegotiation of the contracts to allow residents to contract snow plows that are going through the area to plow driveways that are maybe above a certain length? maybe could maybe cases where residents can prove that they've tried other other snowplows begin with because in my mind it I understand that it's It would be shifting resources slightly away from other roadways, but it does make more sense if residents wanted that to be able to take a snow plow that's used to the area that's passing through to just take two minutes and and plow this driveway. So I see a I see a potential change to the contract with these snowplows as being the easiest, potentially the easiest solution to this. So those are the two questions. The first is just the step-by-step process. And the second is just the issues you see with changing the contract.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, do you have questions for the commissioner? Yeah. All right. If we could just get them in a list and then we'll do that together. Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I mean, I think everyone has said that this is complex, but... I really feel for the residents here. They just want to go home, be able to get to school and get to work. And my understanding is that, I mean, the residents have said that they've reached out to the private contractors that they weren't able to get them because of the grade of the driveway. I think additionally, I recall the residents saying that They've received public services and repairs on that driveway before, so it didn't really come to mind as a driveway. I know that doesn't change what the legal status is. But in terms of thinking of solutions, I'd be curious, and maybe the Commissioner can weigh in on this, if there is a way to adopt a limited policy. To allow the DPW to plow certain driveways, making a discretionary decision that could give us more flexibility under the Tort Claims Act, if liability is the concern here. I mean, we'd probably have to get legal counsel in to really discuss this as a possibility, but is that something that the city's looked at? basically, I mean, is there something in terms of getting residents to sign liability waivers or something like that for the city to pursue?
[Zac Bears]: All right, thank you, Councilor Tseng. Commissioner McGovern, any of those questions from Councilor Leming and Councilor Tseng?
[Tim McGivern]: I'm just taking a note of the question here. I can answer these questions, and depending on how deep you want to go, you probably need legal advisement. So the process, I did type this out, but I can give a real bare bones process. Most recently, the law that controls how parcels of land are subdivided is the subdivision control law. So that would be the guiding document. And that will guide a landowner or landowners on how to lay out the parcels, both building lots and right of ways for building access. So, you know, the parties that are involved are a lawyer that's familiar with land rights who can file all the correct paperwork. There's different processes depending on what you want to do. If you're building new road length or if you're just subdividing existing parcels, then there's different levels of review, whether you're doing, you know, the definitive subdivision or you're doing something else. You know, then you have land surveyor, which is another professional that's involved in this, usually to lay out the meets and bounds, rewrite the deed language, and do all that, prepare the plans, stamp them. So, you know, those laws exist. They're very real. We have plenty of private roads laid out in this city. And we have plenty of driveways in the city. And we have plenty of people who hire people to either snowplow, shovel, or plow their driveway, thousands. And then to residents contracting with our contracts during storms, we wouldn't be able to allow that. It's an emergency response. We're first responders. We're out there. Primary objective to keep the roads clear for fire trucks, ambulances, police cars, et cetera. So that's what we're doing during the storm and I'm going to use every piece that I can to do that. It's benefiting these folks and whether they know it or not, we're keeping Winthrop Street clear during those time periods. So it's an exclusive relationship. We're already behind in time if you ask anybody, they want more plowing faster. And, you know, it would be very challenging if not impossible for us to track if our plow drivers are doing private work as well. All kinds of issues there. that would be a nightmare to deal with and untangle. And then the question about adopting some sort of limited policy. Well, you'd be adopting a policy to violate the public dollar as far as the Massachusetts Constitution is concerned and spending public dollar on private property. And then it would also put us directly in the business of private driveways, which we got plenty of business in the private, I'm sorry, in the public ways. We're also pushing the envelope just to kind of put it on the radar on private ways, privately laid out right of ways that may not meet city built standards. Because before 1950, you know, really about there, there were no standards that had to be met that were established by planning boards. So before then, a road or driveway was just anything that you could build. and all you had to do to get it registered was to file a plan with a board of survey. Those times are long gone, so for good reason. But hopefully that gives you a little idea of some of the framework involved and some of the reasons why we wouldn't, you know, kind of get in that business of private ways. You know, what I was talking about pressing on private ways is we do a lot in private ways, said a lot of municipalities would not. So we plow in private ways. A lot of municipalities would not plow in private ways, but we do it, and we do it for good reason, I believe. But private way owners could ask us not to do that if they didn't want us to plow, and we wouldn't be obligated to plow the private ways, but we do in the interest of public safety. But driveways are a different thing. people who own property own driveways and those come with the property or the rights to them come with the property. So just want to make sure the record is clear on some of these facts. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Councilor Leming and then maybe take a vote here. Councilor Leming. Yeah.
[Matt Leming]: Well, I guess the dissatisfying thing of this, for me anyway, is that it seems that every avenue these residents take results in the area around their houses not being plowed, because they have tried to get They have tried to get private snow plows. They believe Erin said that she contacted 25, and they never, none of them would respond. I mean, when we're talking about an emergency situation, like an emergency response, yes, the main roadways, like we need to keep Winthrop Street clear, but It seems like an ambulance or a fire truck would have a lot of trouble getting to an unplowed roadway of that length. This is a case where I understand where you're coming from, but we do need a way, a mechanism for the residents to be able to actually clear up the roadways outside of their houses. And it seems like the avenues they've tried have all come up moot so far. So I would like to motion to, uh, because it did seem like there were, uh, it did seem like there were, uh, some outstanding questions there or a lack of clarity. Um, I would like to motion to have the city, uh, look into the possibility of, uh, liability way liability waivers for the city, uh, to offer residents who would perhaps want to, uh, allow the city to plow their private property. I think that it would be reasonable to get a legal opinion on the process for that or see if there is any precedent in any other cities or towns. I would also motion to, and a separate motion, we can vote on it or not, I would also motion request the city to look into some potential contract change that would at least allow residents to get their driveways plowed during a snowstorm. I would at least like to know if that has been a thing that has ever been done in other municipalities.
[Tim McGivern]: I just wanted to say, I think it is done in properties all over Massachusetts already. Lots of private driveways exist. Lots of public ways exist. Lots of private ways exist. They all have very clear legal and liability boundaries. There are already processes in place that residences can take with their private land to make it more accessible to the public, but that isn't the business of the city administration, and I would even protest doing some of this work because, you know, a legal opinion, sure, fine, but I am 100% qualified to advise this body on land rights and public access and things like that. So, you know, just want to make that clear. And I'm more than willing to have another meeting to discuss what some of those options are for private residents and what it means and how to do it, who to hire, who to talk to in detail. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Commissioner McIvern, it is the city's business to make sure that public safety is upheld and if emergency vehicles cannot access these homes, it is the city's business. I think that we disagree on this and I would motion that we, what was your motion? Can you tell me?
[Zac Bears]: It was to request the information included in this motion plus a seeing if there's some sort of protocol around the driveway plowing. and the contract change or something.
[Emily Lazzaro]: What Director Hunt was talking about earlier, I think, gave me the impression that the developers that were using these roads connecting private ways to private ways with more private ways is in some sort of violation of something. And if it's the developers that are doing something wrong, if it has become a public safety issue, then it seems to me, whatever it is,
[Zac Bears]: Well, but she was just saying that they're supposed to build a better bridle path. It's going to be a private way built up to a certain standard.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: That's all she was saying. And then the residents said that they haven't really started the project yet, so it's not done.
[Emily Lazzaro]: If it's a public safety issue, then it is the city's business, is what I'm saying.
[Tim McGivern]: And I'm taking it seriously. That's why I've been advising them the entire way and being as open and honest as possible.
[Emily Lazzaro]: But we're not dismissing it and saying that we're not going to do anything else. No, never have.
[Zac Bears]: Never have. Never have. From the beginning. I've been here the whole time. I just don't think we're going to get to a good place here, guys. Like we all just have a very clearly like a disagreement that we could talk about for another hour. So I think everybody needs to sit down.
[Emily Lazzaro]: I was going to say we should send it to another committee, like the public, Anna's committee, the Department of Public Works committee to discuss it.
[Matt Leming]: Second.
[Emily Lazzaro]: That's my motion, to send this to the committee on DPW.
[Zac Bears]: Great. On the motion of Councilor Leming as amended by Councilor Leming as amended by Councilor Lazzaro to refer this paper to the Public Works and Facilities Committee, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Malauulu.
[Matt Leming]: I seconded it.
[Zac Bears]: It's an amendment to your own motion.
[Matt Leming]: No, no. She was making a separate motion to refer the paper to committee.
[Zac Bears]: We're putting them all together.
[Matt Leming]: Okay. All right. All right.
[Zac Bears]: All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes. 26-055 offered by Councilor Callahan, motion to properly fund Medford Street Canopy. Is there a motion to have this reading done by the sponsor? So moved. On the motion, Councilor Tseng seconded by? Seconded. Seconded by Councilor Leyon. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Councilor Callahan?
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. So I want to, before I read through this motion, which is to properly fund Medford's tree canopy, I do want to thank Trees Medford, which has just done such an incredible amount of work over the last many years, doing tons of research. in addition to all the non-administration related stuff that they do, getting tons of free trees and giving them away and finding funding for things, they also have really pushed to make sure that there is a tree management plan that the city has. And so we got, you know, we got to see that, the urban tree management plan, and much of this information comes out of that plan. So there's just a ton of information here. It's going to be a long reading, so buckle up. Whereas the goal of the government of the city of Medford is to create a sustainable, vibrant, and equitable community through focused investment in housing, economic development, and infrastructure, as stated in our 30-year comprehensive plan. Whereas Medford's tree canopy is a vital part of the city's infrastructure that helps to create a sustainable, vibrant, and equitable community and has a replacement value of over $21, almost $22 million. Whereas climate change exacerbates flooding and summer heat. Whereas Medford's urban tree canopy reduces surface temperatures by up to 20 degrees in shaded areas, cleans the air, reduces flooding, and enhances public health. Whereas in Medford, our 9,866 public trees mitigate 2,245,080 gallons of stormwater each year, sequester over 211,000 pounds of carbon each year, remove over 6,000 pounds of air pollutants each year, and store a cumulative 11 million plus pounds of carbon over their lifetime. Whereas tree-lined streets are linked to increased walking activity and improved physical and mental health. Whereas trees provide important services to the city and its residents and are a public good, whether they are on private property or public property. Whereas the residents of the city are adversely impacted by the hot summers, flooding and air pollution. Whereas environmental justice communities often have less canopy, fewer green spaces, lower air quality and higher summer heat than other areas in the city and have experienced a greater rate of canopy loss over time. Whereas a predominance of pavement and buildings and lack of trees and green space results in heat islands, which are areas of extreme heat. Whereas the city now has an inventory of trees that shows the condition of each tree on its streets and in its parks and an urban tree management plan. Whereas the city's tree canopy in city rights of ways declined at a rate of 1.67% per year from 2015 to 2021. Whereas the canopy coverage in Medford's urbanized areas was approximately 35% citywide in 2015 and is now approximately only 20%. Whereas the city removes more trees than it plants per year. Whereas the city has 912 vacant planting sites and 424 sites with stumps that are suitable for trees on city streets. and 9,880 public trees on Medford-owned land or within the public right-of-way, as surveyed in the Medford Tree Inventory, whereas a diverse canopy is a resilient canopy, and whereas, in contrast, Medford's canopy has a preponderance of two species, Norway maples at over 21% and Callery pear at over 17%, which are invasive, non-native, and on the state's prohibited plant list. Whereas tree canopy is declining citywide with the greatest losses in residential, right-of-way, and environmental justice areas where heat and flooding risks are highest. Whereas the city's trees are stressed by periodic droughts that are exacerbated by climate change, and this stress weakens and kills trees, and whereas these problems can be mitigated with appropriate care. whereas all recently planted trees need water, whereas pruning is necessary to improve the longevity of older trees and the proper growth of younger trees, whereas increasing resources for planting and managing the urban forest could stem the decline of our valuable tree canopy, whereas facilitating the planting of trees on city streets by volunteers could save the city money because contractor-planted ball and burlap trees cost seven to 10 times the cost of bare root trees planted by volunteers. Whereas if Medford increases its annual public tree planting of 200 trees by the end of 2025, maintaining 22% canopy cover on city managed land by 2030 would require planting roughly 840 trees annually for the next five years. Whereas the requirements for volunteer planting of trees include identifying a site or sites that are amenable to group planting of trees, a city requirement for liability insurance by the volunteer group, a requirement for informed supervision of volunteer planting, a commitment to the city to water the trees that are planted. And whereas if Medford increases its annual city-wide tree planting of 200 trees by the end of 2025, maintaining 20% canopy cover in urbanized lands by 2030 would require planting roughly 2,360 trees annually for the next five years. Now, therefore, Be it resolved that the city council urge the administration to fund the full implementation of the urban tree management plan. And I will pause here to say that almost every single one of the be it resolves after this are simply the city following its own urban tree management plan. Be it further resolved that the city council will embed tree and canopy protection requirements into zoning. Be it further resolved that the City Council urges the administration to embed tree and canopy protection requirements into permitting, capital projects, development processes, and resource allocation, development review processes, and all relevant city decisions and policies through the budgeting, management, and administration of the city. Be it further resolved that the City Council will set a goal of 35% canopy cover in residential areas to be achieved in the next 10 years. be it further resolved that the City Council request that the administration allocate resources in the upcoming budget to hire additional staff or contracting to prune, water and care for the city's trees in regular maintenance cycle and annually update the tree inventory. It further resolved that the city council request the administration allocate resources in the upcoming budget to watering trees planted in the last three years and large trees that the city inventory has shown to be in fair to poor condition on a weekly basis in dry periods during the growing season. It further resolved that the city council request the administration obtain yearly LIDAR aerial photography data sets to enable it to monitor the tree canopy through the city and assess progress toward goals. be it further resolved that the city council requests that the administration allocate resources to ramp up municipal tree planting from 200 to 400 trees per year by 2027, be it further resolved that the city council requests that the administration allocate resources in the upcoming budget to foster the volunteer planting of city trees through partnerships with community organizations by enhancing its budget for trees that are planted by volunteers, by identifying appropriate species for particular tree pits, by ensuring that the appropriate liability insurance can be obtained and funding it if necessary, by agreeing upon protocols for planting trees with appropriate supervision, and otherwise removing barriers and obstacles to volunteer planting such that volunteers can plant trees by fall of 2026. And be it further resolved that the city council requests the administration prioritize locations for planting trees, especially trees that would be large in areas of low canopy and especially in management zones two and three, which roughly encompass the neighborhoods of Wellington, East Medford, Hillside and South Medford as described in the urban forest management plan. Thank you so much for listening to this very long motion and very detailed motion. What I want to emphasize about this is two things. Number one, I have a group of volunteers that is very excited about volunteers planting city sidewalk trees. It started off with four or five people. We sent out an email asking who might be interested in participating, and we had over 70 people sign up. People want to dedicate their time to the city and to our tree canopy. That's going to save the city a lot of money, because by far the largest expense in planting trees is the labor. It's not the cost of the tree itself. So the city could be trying to upkeep its tree canopy. We're not building the tree canopy, right, because we are currently losing tree canopy every year. If we let volunteers donate their time and effort to the city, which they want to do, and fund community events, that is simply going to help us maintain the tree canopy. And I appreciate that the DPW commissioner has supported this, the mayor has publicly supported this as well, and yet the volunteer group and I have found a lot of obstacles. We're now being asked that While the trees will be paid for out of free cash, we're being told that other expenses that we did not know of and we did not expect, like paying an arborist to be on site during these events, or paying for, you know, having some liability insurance, which we may be able to. I mean, I tell you, the trees meant for people are incredibly resourceful, and they're like, no, don't worry, we've got this. that covered. But there just seems to be a lot of obstacles. And you know this is such an opportunity for the city to save money that we're just urging the city to allow us to to plant trees, to take some of that financial burden off of the city. And I think it would just be lovely if we really can do this by the fall of 2026. I think it's not too much to ask. So that's the first thing is, you know, I've had this volunteer group. We've been working for over a year on this project, and we still can't do it. We thought we were going to do one in the fall of 2025, and then all these obstacles came up. So that was what initially started the conversation. But the rest of this... motion that I just read is about the fact that we do have a really amazing document, the urban tree management plan. Did I call it the right thing? Let me just make sure here. Yes, the urban tree management plan. And this document that the city has created is incredibly well researched and detailed. It has a fantastic plan for how the city can do its best to maintain the tree canopy that we have. and to hopefully replace some of the tree canopy, and especially these environmental justice communities, which are the streets that you, you know, if you drive down them in South Medford, you know, I used to live on one, I had like one tree on the entire block, literally, like other, the one next to me had zero trees on the whole block, like starting to, you know, replant some of these in these neighborhoods that just have absolutely barren streets. We have a plan, we just need to fund the plan. And it's not wildly expensive. So this motion is basically to say, hey, let's follow the urban management plan that we just created. And that's pretty much it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan for introducing this resolution. I shouldn't add too much onto it because you've said it all so well already. The data, the facts that you've included in the resolution I think speak to a reality that we are all seeing and experiencing as residents of this city and residents of this planet that over the last few decades, years, months, even days, we can see the impact of extreme weather in our community in how it affects people's day-to-day living and the danger it brings to people's lives. From extreme heat to extreme cold, trees are something that really help improve residents' lived experience here. I mean, when I was first running years ago, something that I talked about a lot was heat islands and the fact that in environmental justice communities, In communities that are very often overlooked in the city, East Medford, Wellington, Glenwood, South Medford, Hillside, we've had real heat island problems. And over the last few years, we have been strategic as a city in terms of planting trees in those neighborhoods at a higher rate. But what's important to note too is that our trees are being cut down at a higher rate than we are planting them at too. And so that really calls for urgent action. The urban forest management plan is a plan that this council is asked to see for, you know, a very long time. And I think we're very excited for it. Residents should know that there's going to be an information session on it on March 30th, Monday, March 30th at 7 p.m. at the library. And that's something I'm very excited for, for residents to be able to engage with and learn about our plan. But that plan is going to be, You know, we just don't want to see that plan be for naught, right? It's one thing to know our problems, to have a strategy with how to deal with them. It's another step to actually, you know, step forward and say, we are going to fund this and we are going to treat this like a serious plan and not just a document that sits hidden away on a laptop. So it's, you know, that part's really important. I have also seen the enthusiasm from the volunteers that you've spoken to when it comes to planting trees. And aside from the, you know, the effects on the city, the good that they'll do for us, I think it's healthy to encourage people to get involved with their community, to get involved with their city government, to get involved in their neighborhoods to plant those trees. One thing that, you know, can be upsetting from time to time from our experience here in the council is that we'll have these ideas that are really promising, really ambitious, and when it crosses the hall to the other side, and this isn't to please blame on anyone, right, but it often is months long of identifying one problem, and then a few months later another problem, and then a few months later another problem. I think something that needs to happen in City Hall and something, you know, I, I think we do try a lot on, on the council to address this problem. But something that really does need to happen more on the other side is that we lay out all the problems in the first meeting. And so that we can address all of them comprehensively and get the program off the ground. And so, You know, I think in whatever form it is, be it asking via resolution or during budget season with our budget requests asking then, I think it's really important to support resolutions like these so we actually do make the progress we want to see as a city.
[Unidentified]: Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I echo part of what Councilor Tseng said. I think something important that Councilor Callahan is doing with this resolution is taking her initiative to the next step and that is often something that we have to do as Councilors and carrying through our resolutions and our projects all the way to completion is can be difficult and can take a really long time. And I appreciate Councilor Callahan reminding all of us about this project and how important it was and that there is a lot of political will to do this and that there is a lot of interest and that it has, I remember one of the, I joke that the environment isn't really my thing. I like it, I care about it, it's very important to me, but there are other Councilors in, I like it, in this body who tend to take that on more directly. And I focus on other things because I know that Councilor Callahan, Councilor Tseng, Councilor Leming, will focus on environmental issues more directly than I will. This is a great example of that, because it might not occur to me, but there was a time when I remember doing a Medford Conversation-like event, and Curtis Studen actually told me that the heat deserts in the city are directly correlated with lower income. So the lower income areas are hotter because there are fewer trees. And, you know, the parts of West Bedford that are closer to Arlington, closer to the lakes, have more trees, and they're cooler in the summer. And, you know, I think the air quality is also better. You know, these are things that we really need to focus on and address in the city. It's an equity issue. And it's a public health issue. And saying, yes, this is a great idea. And people are excited about it. So let's just put it in a file and leave it there forever. It's not the way that you actually solve these problems and make sure that things are going to get better for our residents. So the way that we have to do it is we do the resolution, we find the excited people, but then we have to put them to work. And we can't get bogged down by regulatory issues, by very appropriate laws that might slow things down. We have to keep going. And if that's something that a Councilor has to focus on, I mean, that's the case in this particular instance. I really appreciate Councilor Callaghan bringing it forward again, reminding everybody of this project. Everybody who's very excited should remain very excited, and we can continue to carry these things forward. So thank you for doing that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Director McGivern. Commissioner McGivern, sorry.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you everybody for hearing me again. I just wanted to thank you for bringing this up and to thank Trees Medford for being an active participant in this whole process. I've been very proud to lead this effort with my forestry division and the tree warden, and it's been a shedding light, eye-opening experience. We've been working on it for a couple of years now, and this management plan is something that I really wanted. I'm a big fan of right sizing, looking clearly and shedding light on problems. We now have an inventory of all of our trees that are in Medford, the ones that are in the public ways, in the public parcels anyway. We have a good idea of canopy for the private land as well. And, you know, we have the right tools to maintain that inventory. I'm committed as a DPW to support that effort. Already have been. We got the FY25 new trees are currently being inputted now. And our forestry foreman, I believe, visits GIS weekly now with updates on the tree inventory. So we got the things moving, and I will continue to support this effort. And I think this gives us a lot of information to answer hard questions and figure out how to support these efforts, because I think it's a sobering view.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Commissioner McIvern. Do we have any comments from members of the public on this resolution? One second here. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Nick Giurleo]: Good evening. Nick Jorleo, 40 Robinson Road. I'm all for more trees in our city. And I think one of the reasons many people like moving to Medford is because of its beautiful natural landscape. I was glad to see in this resolution a reference to zoning because I think obviously zoning has a relationship to what our city looks like. And that said, though, I think it's important to point out that You have very high density zoning. It makes it a lot more difficult to have trees. And I understand there's some creative solutions to this in more urban environments like rooftop gardens. But if you do drive through cities like, you know, Somerville, Cambridge, you're going to see that there's less vegetation. And I think it does relate to land use decisions. So I think it's good to mention zoning in this resolution. Also just to continuously be thinking about zoning and how it impacts, you know, our city ecologically. Going forward, I would, you know, encourage zoning that promotes open spaces, preserves them, backyards, you know, ways to have green spaces so we can put trees in. I think, again, this kind of beautiful natural landscape that we see in Medford is a reason people move here. It's good for quality of life purposes. So let's, you know, give people a reason to move here and not make zoning decisions that aesthetically affect the city that give people a reason not to live here. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Robert Carney on zoom Robert name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Robert Carney]: I'm sure Robert Carney 50 Hicks have unit six. So I live in South Medford and I border Willis have some on the Hicks have side and I can kind of see a little bit about what people are talking about with the Um, the heat islands so again, very much in favor of the idea of improving our tree canopy. I just want to put, um, try to put a little finer point on the financial topic, you know, specifically about. increasing funding, a question I would have, you know, it's like, how did we get to this point where a tree canopy has decreased by so much, you know, was funding cut, was funding level, etc. And then, you know, I also want to be thinking about the fact that we just had, you know, we had an override in 2024, and there's a debt exclusion on the table as well so I think it's very important to put, you know, some parameters in terms of what the funding increase will look like. and share that with the public. And my general viewpoint is that given the upcoming debt exclusion that our tree budget changes should be tied to our annual CPI change and no more than that. And less we have a further discussion at council and then with the public and then give members an opportunity to participate and offer their thoughts. Just again, very much support adding the tree canopy, but at the same time, we also need to live within our means and just be cautious about overburdening our taxpayers, particularly our working class and senior residents, because each dollar extra spent to expand our tree budget means an extra requested dollar on the debt exclusion for the high school. So just some thoughts for consideration, and thank you for listening.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else would like to comment on this resolution? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Callahan to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Board and Commission Appointments 26-051 submitted by the Mayor. This was tabled from our last meeting. There are reappointments on here, Jennifer Keenan and John Lopes for the Historical Commission and Board of Assessors. And there are new appointments from Sarah Berndt, Henry Miller and John Dubuque and William Williams. We still have the resumes from William Williams and John Dubuque. I haven't received any further communication with documentation from the administration. I think Councilor Leming did some of his own sleuthing on this. I'm happy to recognize him. We did receive a communication from the administration on this. titled Appointments to Multimember Bodies. Dear President Bears, I understand there were some concerns based at the City Council meeting on February 24th with respect to Resolution 26-051. There's a bit of background here. We'd like to share our perspective as to how someone was sworn in and clarify why limited information has appeared or discussed with the council at that meeting. It then cites the section of the new charter It explains that appointments automatically take effect unless affirmatively rejected by a majority vote of the council within 30 days. A referral can be as simple as an email. Furthermore, the council's role in accordance with the above is to determine if it wishes to reject such an appointment. Nowhere in the charter are there any prescriptions on materials or information that shall be submitted by the mayor such as resumes or compelling appointees to appear before the council. That said, we're happy to provide resumes for candidates who appear before or who submit one. The mayor reached out to President Bears to discuss these points and at the time we understood the response to being the president would place the appointments on the agenda as part of the council's process. It's also important to note a memorandum from KP Law which says that the city charter, the new charter is not in effect. The new charter will go into effect in 2028. The email that goes on to say that as stated in the memo, the provisions don't go into effect until 2028. The mayor, President Bears, councilor Sang, school committee vice chair Graham and school committee member Ruseau and chief of staff Nazarian met on December 22nd and discussed the memo. with KP Law and said that the mayor and city council members agreed to disagree and that the mayor was only submitting appointments, quote, referring appointments to the council in good faith. So one of the appointees, Sarah Burnt, was appointed early on in these discussions. While earlier disagreements were in play, Director Kouliani sent an email on the 7th of the note that the appointment would occur if there were no objections. One member asked some questions but said they were okay with the appointment proceeding. and the person was appointed 30 days later. They say they have demonstrated that they are willing to work with the council on this issue in an open and transparent manner and therefore believe it's important to reestablish history of the discussions, legal guidance advised, provided, and good faith steps taken by the mayor's office. We ask the council to recognize that the additional requests go above and beyond the provisions of the charter and make our work unnecessarily onerous. And we ask the city council to acknowledge the limits of its role. So that's the note from them. I'm just going to say this, that's actually not what Attorney Goldberg said at the meeting on December 22nd when asked if, say, someone were to challenge what was going on in the city. If there was a dispute over the charter, Attorney Goldberg said that the charter that the voters voted for in November was in effect because that's what the charter says. So, Councilor Tseng could certainly speak to that but I think this is somewhat misrepresentative of what's actually going on here. But essentially, that was the response from the administration. They're not going to ask people for resumes and they're not going to give us anything that they don't get from, from people who apply for appointments to the city's boards and commissions that make decisions for the residents of Medford. So, that's the administration's position here. Councilor Lame.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you. I was in an email correspondence earlier today, so we had some back and forth. I think that in some respects, they've kind of shifted their positions on this in light of the back and forth between the city council and the mayor on this. I will say the aspect about the charter not being in effect, yeah, that doesn't make any sense. The only sense in which that's applicable is that we currently have a city council and school committee makeup that is defunct because that was what the last election said. And so in the next election, That is what the next makeup of the city council and school committee will be just because it's logistically impossible to actually have that number of city councilors. But everything else, according to the charter, would be. would be in effect. The rest of this I see as an implementation issue. And I emailed the following to the mayor and the chief of staff when we were talking about the meeting last time. And I said, first, the cited section of the charter can't actually be implemented if a rejection vote weren't even possible. And in order for it to be possible, we need to have the names on the agenda in the first place. And that was a point that, you know, after thinking about it for a little bit, I believe they did agree upon, because the next point is that I think what they were trying to do is say, okay, we'll just email the council, and if anybody objects, we'll put them on the agenda for a potential rejection vote, which I also don't think works, because that makes an unnecessarily combative process, because if anybody actually doesn't, if any of the potential appointees actually appear on the agenda, then it will be known very publicly that it's because one Councilor took an issue with that person. And so that's not going to work out because, you know, if you appoint, if John Smith ends up being appointed to the historical district commission and suddenly John Smith and nobody else were on the agenda, Everybody will know that one Councilor doesn't want John Smith on there, and it just doesn't start things off on a very good foot. So I think moving forward in order for that vote to be possible, the only way to actually do this is just have everybody appear on a council agenda. Having resumes is not going to be required by the charter, but it's a courtesy. Councilors need public documents to look at and something more than just a name to make an educated decision. So with that, the mayor and the chief of staff did say that not everybody can make a resume. We followed up later with I followed up later with one of the appointees who I didn't have any paperwork on, but I did have contact information for. And this was a self-employed person, didn't have a resume, but I understand that Council President Bair spoke with her. We have a working relationship with her. I can understand that. I think it would be fine to have in lieu of a resume some kind of a letter justifying why that person is being appointed as well as just some paragraphs about who they are. We did, with regards to the six appointments on the list, we have resumes for John Dubuck and William Williams. I would be fine to, I would be absolutely fine to motion that council approve them just get them off the list. I understand that Henry Malorin withdrew from the Council on Aging. That was a private correspondence that I received from the mayor, so I don't believe he's up for consideration. John Lopez, and I forwarded this to my colleagues, also received information on him from Lisa and the Chief of Staff earlier today. So he's a reappointment, I'm fine with him. Jennifer was the person that we reached out to and sort of had that one-to-one correspondence with. I would... Sarah, I don't know anything about her other than a name. And I know that from a much earlier correspondence, apparently Ryan Hayward recommended that Sarah be appointed. But other than that, I don't know anything about her qualifications. Can't find anything definitive online. I would motion that we accept the rest of the appointments except Henry, who is not under consideration, and Sarah. And if the administration wants to submit some paperwork, even just a letter explaining who this individual is and why she, just sort of her qualifications, I would be fine with that. Can't, in my mind, the 30-day issue, that clock would most reasonably start when this appointments list is made public. It's currently before us, so I would motion to accept John Dubuck, William Williams, Jennifer Keenan, and John Lopez, and reject Sarah Berndt.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. If, I guess my only, the only thing I would like to say or reiterate is that if the mayor or the, or anybody else in the mayor's administration is not able to present us with any information on any of these, or on a particular person who's being presented, then what information did they have? in order to appoint somebody to a border commission would be my only question. If it's just that you knew them, then that is no longer how Medford does things. It shouldn't be acceptable. So I would second Councilor Leming's motion. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. On the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Mullane.
[Liz Mullane]: No, I also, you know, I know we spoke about this at the last meeting as we've come into this meeting as well. What I find a little surprising about it is that, you know, we've talked about having more transparency, you know, better communication. I think this is a great opportunity to be able to talk more about these different issues. boards and commissions to hopefully encourage other residents to hopefully apply. As someone who had to do a resume and sent one in a couple of years back to get on one of these boards and commissions and didn't hear anything back at the time, I figured that everyone else was doing that and following that same process. So, especially if we're going to make recommendations and approve or reject, as anyone that's been in any kind of hiring situation to not have any documentation as to why just seems a little odd to me, and I can't see why we just wouldn't to Councilor Lazzaro's part of, like, if there was a reason this person was nominated, why wouldn't we want to share whatever those accomplishments were, what that background was? And maybe that encourages other people who might have thought, oh, I shouldn't do this, say, hey, there's a lot of flexibility or ability for people to come and join some of these different boards and commissions and become more engaged in Medford. I'm also in agreeance with, you know, the people that did send things in and really appreciate that, being able to have a little bit more background of why and their resumes. But I would say if we don't have that kind of information, it just doesn't seem very fair or transparent or sharing of communication, I think, like we've all have been talking about.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Millan. Councilor Tsengh?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I had just wanted to confirm your retelling of the events from the December meeting that we had with KP Law, with the mayor, and anyone else who was there. And I wanted to add on to that, that we didn't just simply agree to disagree. I think we agreed that there was merit to our argument that the charter was in effect, especially given the fact that the state law that enables the charter says that our new charter is in effect right now, and that the old charter is completely off the books. The only parts, as Councilor Leming kind of alluded to, the only parts of the old charter that are still in action right now, certainly in my view, and I think this is clear in the text, are the parts that it would be absurd to kind of assume aren't in place, which is the 11-member city council, because Medford voters last fall didn't elect 11 members to the city council. So, I think it would be absurd to say that there is a lot of members on the city council right now, right? I mean, this is something in law that is called absurdity doctrine. It's a way of, it's a very kind of normal way of interpreting statutes. And this is a case of that. So what we had agreed on at that last, at that meeting with KP Law was to hold a committee of the whole for the city council to discuss the things that we, you know, thought were, were being implemented or, or should be implemented right now. I know we're, we're scheduling that meeting. And so, but that was the resolution I had put on the city council agenda a few weeks back with President Bears. But with that being said, I mean, I think it's a stretch to say that we're asking for the heavens here, right? Like, we're asking for what Councilor Mullane is saying. I think anyone would have expected this to be the process of city council, new charter, old charter, no matter what, right? And, and, you know, that being said, I, I know a lot of these people, not everyone, but I, I, for the most part, I've known most of the people that we've voted to appoint in the past. That's a privilege that we have is in terms of just knocking on doors and getting to know people that way. But for transparency's sake, members of the public should know who is being appointed, what is their background, why they're qualified for, for the positions that we're appointing them to. You know, we also need to be more inclusive on the city council side of things for new colleagues who come in. Because we aren't all going to be here one day and whoever comes in, you know, might not know the people being appointed, right? And so getting them the proper information on their backgrounds necessary to be for appointments is just kind of transparent. It's good government. It's logical. even if it's, you know, not necessarily in one chart or another or whatnot. It's just good practice. So I have to say I'm a little surprised that this is turned into such a kerfuffle because it seems to be something that should be administratively pretty simple on both sides, on the city council side and on the mayor's office side. Something just to, I think, again, something that's just good government, really. So I'll just leave it there for now. And.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Yeah. And again, I would like to just reiterate that I know there are some back and forth here, but based on the email exchange I had with the mayor and chief of staff, I think we are all basically on the same page of put all of the appointees on the council agenda and allow the rejection vote to be possible as an implementation of the charter. The argument about resumes and letters of appointment, I think that's just kind of, again, that's just Council asking, like, give us some information to point to. And once again, the basis for this rejection vote is I don't know anything about this one individual here other than a name. And I would be fine with potentially having that be resubmitted with more documentation. But I don't think, I don't think that, I think that there was a misunderstanding, there was like a gap in understanding at an earlier point. I don't think it's quite to that same degree now. And again, the, Resident resumes are collected on the application system by the city. So I just think that making that a requirement shouldn't be Shouldn't be too much of a heavy lift moving forward.
[Zac Bears]: It's just about getting into the flow of doing this I mean councillor Leming councilman lane and then councillor saying
[Liz Mullane]: Just a point of clarification, is there any way just to be able to move Sarah from the next to the next one instead of just reject? I mean, I just don't like the, I don't want to, I want people to feel encouraged to apply and send their information in. I just, it would be nicer if we could just move her one and give a little bit more time perhaps to get the rest of the information or any kind of letter. I don't know if that's possible or not.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just wanted to say that, you know, I think the mayor has already sworn this person in. It's her assertion that the charter is not in effect and our opinion is just kind of a good faith suggestion. So, you know, I'm just putting that out there. If we, even if we take the clock as when we had this on the agenda, that would be the 24th. I think our next meeting is on the 24th. That might be less than 30 days because it was February. But yeah, I'm not sure that if we put this person through to the next meeting that it would, that it wouldn't be under the 30-day clock. But I think the mayor is asserting that the 30-day clock started on January 7th. So clearly we just need to get, there's a bigger, I think it's less about Sarah. Sarah might be the best historical commission person in the world. It's like we kind of just have this assertion that the new charter is not the charter and that, Yeah, there just seems to be some fundamental procedural issues in question. Councilor Tseng, I don't know if you had a comment on this.
[Justin Tseng]: I mean, I just wanted to note the complexity of the situation because of what you said. And I think at the same time, what becomes also complicated is that if we vote to reject, I believe that Rule 29 of the City Council would mean that you can't bring up something that's essentially the same subject. Like if a paper's ruled out of order or voted or rejected, Something of the same subject can't be brought before city council within three months of its previous writing for consideration as well. So there's just a lot of moving parts here as well, just something to consider. look, the administration's probably not going to follow this because their opinions, the Charter's not in effect, which, again, I think contravenes the Mass General Law. But it's just something for, I mean, for Councilors to keep in mind going forward into meetings because Rule 29 is something that we haven't really talked about in the last few years on the Council.
[Matt Leming]: Yeah, and we can vote to, it's something we've done before, rules are not ordinances. We can vote to suspend a rule if it proves appropriate to do so. And I think in this case, I'm making it clear that I just wanna see a paragraph describing this person, why they're qualified to serve, that's it. So if we do need to motion to suspend Rule 29 and allow for resubmission, I would be happy to add that to the motion as well. But to Councilor Malayne's point, yes, the reason for a rejection is that if we did just keep, this is going under the assumption that the 30-day clock started when the previous agenda was published, and if we just allow it to keep going, then it will hit the 30-day clock, and this person will be appointed by default. It's also borne out, yeah, that's, I'll leave it at that. That's the motivation right there.
[Zac Bears]: I think Councilor Leming, yeah, I mean, just two other things. I think at some point, this ridiculous notion that the charter doesn't exist needs to be challenged. The people voted for it. The law says what it says. When we pushed, I would argue very lightly, Councilor Tseng and Vice Chair Graham and Member Ruseau and myself, Attorney Goldberg was basically like, yeah, we were just saying it's not in effect, because that might make it easier to implement. But if anything went to court, that charters what the law is. That's kind of the state of play of things. I don't even know if this is the thing to do it. I also want to note that there is kind of a more significant option available if we wanted to explore it, if there just continues to be this kind of ongoing back and forth, which is the new charter also says that mayoral appointments, The mayor appoints everyone unless otherwise stated by charter or ordinance. So if you read the charter, we could pass an ordinance that would require every mayoral appointee to be confirmed by the council which would then require them to submit these documents. So that's certainly an option available to us. The only two bodies that that wouldn't apply to would be the Community Development Board and the Traffic Commission because they are currently continue to operate under special acts of the Mass General Law. No, CPC is already confirmed by us. There's like a third of these things are already confirmed by us. So that's the frustration I have is why it's that much more difficult to just use the same process that we use for the appointees that are already council confirmed for this, you know, approval rejection process as well. So I just wanted to put those out there as potential answers to the question. Yeah, I would say it's pretty clear that both Councilor Tseng and I and members of the school committee, it was like 30 minutes into this conversation, it became clear that the idea that the charter doesn't go into effect until 2028 was more of a vehicle to make it to do less work because there wasn't really an implementation plan for the charter. So the motion is for Councilor Leming to reject the appointment of Sarah Berndt and yeah, I don't even know that we have a formal withdrawal of the appointment of Henry Miller from the administration, so I guess receive and place on file the other five appointees because we don't have to take action. You can just, okay, yeah, and in the case that, in case that, okay, so there's, if Sarah Burnt were to be resubmitted with additional documentation that the rule would not apply, okay, Rule 29 would not apply. Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: Would Councilor Leming be open to severing the rejection from the placing on files?
[Matt Leming]: For those to be two separate motions, sure.
[Justin Tseng]: So I just wanted to walk through why I'm a 50-50 on it. I mean, truly, this is not about Sarah Burnt. From everything I've heard, she is very qualified for this position. We are lucky to have her on the commission. I think it just goes back to what Council President said about whether this is the right fight to pick it on. One thing I think back to is, I believe it's Marbury versus Madison. I could be getting my early Supreme Court cases wrong. Essentially, the historical context to the case is that they were fighting about, you know, whether Congress had a power, whether the president had a power, I mean, whether the states had a power. And essentially, the court had a feeling that, they would go ahead anyways no matter what the court said. And so the court in doing it essentially crafted a compromise where it said, you know, you vote to approve, like the court approved something, the thing happening, right? But by way of it approving to do so, they were the authoritative voice for why that appointment happened or that, you know, thing passed. And so that's just something I'm thinking is not an awful strategy in this instance. It's not about giving in to what the administration has done, but to say that we've done this on our own terms. But alas, it's a difficult conversation because I also don't want the administration to take this as we are just saying okay to something that's happened that goes against the charter. I think Councilor Leming has a.
[Matt Leming]: Yep. I do admit that it's, the rejection is a bit harsh, but I think that if we get in the pattern of just saying, oh, please do this, please do this thing for us, then we never actually exercise the powers that are given to us in the charter. Then it creates a pattern of telling the administration that they could just do whatever we like. I mean, these, These appointments were written in as a pretty major check on power between the city council and the mayor, one of the, and it's a very important one. So just going under the assumption that we'll never actually exercise it, I don't think it creates a precedent. I think it is healthy to show that this body is willing to do that. pretty early on just to kind of demonstrate that we will. Again, I think this conversation, it's been pretty clear that this isn't about the appointee. This is about documentation that we're very reasonably requesting and just saying like, oh, well, they didn't submit it this time, but surely next time they'll have. They'll do it. No, it's not a big lift to take this one appointee, submit a resume, and then have us say, okay, we'll receive and place on file and, you know, let that person be appointed by default. I think the additional motion to suspend Rule 29 and welcome a resubmission is pretty clear, makes it pretty clear that this is not like a rejection of the applicant. This is a procedural thing. So that's my reasoning, we do need to actually use these powers sometimes just to, because they were given to us for a reason.
[Justin Tseng]: If I could, Council President. I think that's compelling, but I mean, I think if we really wanted to clarify these boundaries, we would sue the mayor. Just, you know, it is that, right? Like that would clarify the boundaries. And, I mean, I wouldn't feel great about putting someone in the crosshairs of that. But, you know, I think that would make it clear. I think, on the other hand, I think the council president's idea that we pass an ordinance addressing, at the very least, I think an ordinance saying we should get documentation before an appointment is actually just completely reasonable and something that we should introduce as a council anyways. But maybe that will come on for the future agenda. Yeah, I mean, it's a difficult strategic question. It's awful that we're doing this level of politicking because we just don't, yeah, I mean, over something that we should really just be having. But it's difficult when there's such a breakdown, I think, in relationships and communication.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: Thanks. I think given the many options that have been laid on the table, I think I'm not interested in suing anyone. I think that's a little nuclear. I don't want to go down that route. I think an ordinance is not a bad idea, but it also is something in the future that somebody then has to write and, you know, I think it's a good idea. I just want to clarify about whether we can reject and request that they reapply. Like is that something that according to the charter and appointments like if someone is rejected and they Can we request that they reapply? I don't really know. I just want to make sure that we're not going to reject something. Because again, let me do a pitch right now for people to apply to become commissioners or be on committees. It's work that we absolutely appreciate and need done in the city. It's really important work. And we do want to approve people. I also think asking for resumes seems like the absolute basic minimum of professionality. You know, we're having people do these important jobs, and I'm sure there is some information, even if it's just a one paragraph, that we could see. That would be great. So I do want to just clarify, if we do reject someone, that we can then also invite them to reapply, and that we're not going to, you know,
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I don't know. I think that there's a clause in the Charter Section 2-9 that says, shall not be unreasonably withheld. The administration may interpret that that is an unreasonable withholding, like, which I don't think it is, but I think it's, basically I, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the appointing authority to provide a sentence.
[Unidentified]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Or a single document that explains why they're appointing someone to a border commission. Yes. Because I think it's very difficult for us to, I think it's probably unreasonable for us to withhold, you know, how can you even make an argument that we have enough information to know that we should reject someone when we only have their name?
[Anna Callahan]: There could be three or four Sarah Burns in the city. Sure, exactly.
[Zac Bears]: Who knows, right?
[Anna Callahan]: I mean, you don't even know which one you're talking about, so.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, we have a William Williams on the agenda. You know, and Billy Williams, great, great person. But, you know, I only know who he is because I got a resume that says he's super experienced for this role, right? So, I don't really know. I don't really know what to say to that. I think it's very frustrating that like there's this much pushback over the idea of sending a resume or a one-sentence explanation when someone's being put on the, Parks Commission or Historical Commission or the Water and Sewer Commission. I think that that's not transparency.
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Yeah, I think that Again, given the nature of this conversation, it is very obvious why, where this motion is coming from. I also honestly think that the reason that we're not getting these resumes is likely because the administration doesn't have them. I mean, they were saying that for many people, writing resumes is a prohibitive or they can't do it. I think.
[Zac Bears]: One sentence.
[Matt Leming]: Yeah, exactly. And I understand, but you can just write some justification for this person's, even if it's not a resume, just a letter, some documentation other than a name, I think is very reasonable because I think Without that, we don't actually know anything about these people or the reasons for appointing them. So, no, I don't think that this is an unreasonable objection. I think this conversation has made it very clear. And I do think we need to, you know, actually exercise these authorities that we were given as a form of checks and balances within government.
[Marie Izzo]: That's all.
[Zac Bears]: All right, Councilor Leming, you proposed a motion and Councilor Tseng, you requested that motion be severed. And Councilor Leming, you have an objection?
[Matt Leming]: That's fine.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So we'll take two votes. The first is on the motion to receive in place on file the appointments of Jennifer Keenan, John Lopes, Henry Miller, and John Dubuque, and William Williams. And essentially, that just means we're not rejecting them. So on that motion by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor?
[Matt Leming]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? The motion passes. And so the other half of that motion is to reject the appointment of Sarah Berndt and to request that What?
[Matt Leming]: Just wondering if Councilor Lazzaro needs to be here for, never mind.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro, yeah, she doesn't have to be, but do you want to hold that off?
[Matt Leming]: I'll table it until she's back in the room. Okay. Is that an option?
[Zac Bears]: Kind of. We've already taken one of the votes on this, so. Looks like she's back, great. I just vamped, breathed loudly long enough. Yeah, so this is a motion to reject the appointment of Sarah Mernt to request a, to also suspend Rule 29 in the case of a reappointment of that same person.
[Matt Leming]: Resubmission of materials.
[Zac Bears]: With a submission of materials, okay. On that motion by Councilor Leming, seconded by? Seconded by Vice President Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Maloney? Yes. Councilor Tseng?
[Liz Mullane]: No.
[Marie Izzo]: Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: No. Four to two, the motion passes. All right, 26056 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Capital Stabilization Fund Appropriation Requests. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend your honorable body approve the following appropriations from the Capital Stabilization Fund. New Gym 4 at Recreation Center in the Chevalier in the amount of $160,000.00 and I use Zamboni for the Rec Department in the amount of $9,995.00. Recreation Director Kevin Bailey will be available for questions on the above request. Capital Stabilization Fund currently has a balance of $10,133,846. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Reinaldo Kern, Mayor. Hey, Kevin. Is this the Gene Mack gym floor? Great.
[Kevin Bailey]: I thank you Councilor Villes and the rest of the City Council for taking my request tonight. For those of you who are not familiar with the Recreation Center and the Gene Mack Gym, we are located at the old Method High School. It was the original gym. The recreation center itself is really our main pillar, especially in the wintertime for a lot of our programs. That facility runs on a typical day from 8 o'clock in the morning till 10 o'clock at night. You can see things early in the morning to early morning pickleball. to like 10, 11 o'clock in the morning to go to our method family network does indoor play. We do some afternoon adult like liquid lunch kind of programming and then in the early evening, we have a partnership with the YMCA of running an afterschool program. And then again, at six o'clock, we go right back to youth sports and activities, and then usually between eight to 10, we do adult leagues or adult drop-in programs. So you can tell that, especially in the wintertime, that center is used a lot. We rely on that on a lot of programming. And unfortunately, because it does sit very low into the ground. We have a very high water table around us. We are very prone for flooding. And just a couple of weeks ago, we did have another flood. This one particularly went into the boiler room and found its way into the gym area. But that's not the first time. In my eight, close to nine years being here in Medford, this is the second flood that has actually affected the gym floor and created damage. Fortunately, the first one, I say that lightly. Fortunately, we were able to call ServiceMaster right away, and we were able to keep it so that the floor stayed intact. It did result in a little bit of coupling. That was actually less than a year that we did the entire floor over. But the one that I'm talking about today was less than a month ago with the flood that went into the boiler room, went. on to the gym floor towards the bathroom area. We did start to see some buckling. So while we thought things were dry, things were looking good, water did get underneath the gym floor itself. So while at the surface it was dry, it was the water that was underneath that would stayed under there. So we did start to see some buckling. We did call service master again to come out there, put dehumidifiers in there and try to run it for four days. We did the best we can to try to dry it out. Hopefully try to see a reduction in buckling, but unfortunately it just keeps on getting worse and worse. And really right now we're at a point where the buckling on the gym floor is getting so severe, it's on the basketball court itself, on the different play areas. And while it's not extreme, we know that for kids to be running back and forth, or for adults running around. on the gym floor, we do think that that creates a safety hazard. So if you've been following our website or our Facebook page or you've seen some of our announcements, we did change that all the adult program, all of the different activities that we have that are in intensity that does a lot of running back and forth. We are trying to relocate Fortunately, the school department has been very helpful with us, relocating at Method High School. And we just announced for between next week into April vacation, we are going to be at the Brooks Gym. So we are doing the best we can to be able to continue to provide the services and activities, but it does put us in a limited capacity. And I'm sure many are familiar with an after school program. It's very difficult for our children to get off that bus after school and tell them that they need to be careful around the gym, they can't be running back and forth. So we certainly need this done as soon as possible so that we can restate the different programs and activities that we typically serve to the Method community. With that said, one of the things that I am trying to do is make sure when we do the gym floor over that we don't go back to a wooden floor. As much as I love the wooden floor, it does look great. It's great for basketball, but the reality is being in a basement, having hydrostatic pressure underneath the gym floor, continuously worrying about water moisture, we need something that's a little bit more resistant to moisture. So we are looking at a synthetic floor. We have not picked a vendor yet. The past two weeks I've been meeting with different vendors, talking about different options, and what I did bring with you today is the one that we are currently leaning towards is a synthetic gym floor that is actually tile-based. And I think what really has sold me, not only does it look like a wooden floor, if you guys can see, it looks like a wooden floor. But on top of that, because it is tile, if water did get underneath the gym floor again, which realistically, if it happened twice, I'm sure it will happen again at some point in my career here, we can pop up the tiles and we can still add dehumidification underneath the gym floor itself. And again, if a tile gets damaged, we can pop it out and replace it. So I do think this is a good option, but as I said, we haven't chose a specific vendor, but the money that I am requesting right now is based on the quote that I received to install this. The quote itself was $120,000, but we did do a high contingency, and that's why you're seeing the 160,000. Even talking with the vendors and, I think we're all in agreeance that we're sure once we start ripping up the old gym floor with the water damage that we're gonna be seeing things that we might have to rip up some of the plywood and replace it. There might be different beams that are running underneath that ground that might have some water damage that needs replaced. So we do have a high contingency on there with the expectation that once we take that floor off, we are gonna discover some things that also need to be replaced. Other than that, I'll just leave it up to some questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Kevin. I'm going to go to Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: We emailed about this yesterday, and you have my full support on this. And I wanted to thank the residents who wrote in with their stories about why the rec center is so, so important, why the gym is so important to our community. Because it really is a place where a lot of residents go. I think, you know, I just had some, you know, quick questions. One resident was, you know, making the point that this really could be a hub of community. And I think it's, you know, it is a hub, but like, you know, envisioning something greater out of it. And she brought up, she had brought up that, you know, the idea that, The gym has had to go through a lot of piecemeal repairs over the last few years. And there's space issues as well. And obviously, we can't solve everything at once right now. We don't have the resources for that. But I was curious if you had done any research into, maybe long term, what resources would be needed to rethink the space or to invest in longer term repairs.
[Kevin Bailey]: No, it's a great question. And we have looked at some of the things long term. I want to first start off by saying that not every recreation department has a gym. So I am very grateful for what we have. There are many recreation directors that say that they're jealous that we even have our own personal gym. to be able to run a lot of those activities. But with that said, we certainly outgrown it. I knew that within a few years that that was going to be outgrown, especially with shared space with a very important program like the YMCA with the after school class. So could we have another recreation center and we would fill it? 100% absolutely. I know that is a very difficult thing to obtain, but having space like that is important. And I do think when the new high school is built, that is our opportunity to kind of look at that and explore on how the recreation department can possibly have other space to expand our programs and services there as well. But as far as the facility concerned as well, I know Cindy will be up here in just a minute. Cindy is one of the people who fundamentally helped turn that old high school gym into what it is today, originally with the Boys and Girls Club and now with the partnership with the Recreation Department and the YMCA. They've done a fabulous job in the early 90s, correct me if I'm wrong, early 90s, putting all that together in the classrooms and you can see that. But yeah, I think for updating, there are certain things that we would like to see as well with the classroom. There are different things added in the capital improvement plan that we would love to see done at the recreation center too. So we can keep that update monitored. And of course, we want to make sure for the kids that are coming down there are having a great atmosphere.
[Justin Tseng]: Great. I mean, as someone who used to go a lot back when it was the boys and girls club, certainly grateful for your work, Cindy, and for you know, for your work after I've, you know, after the time I've been there to even like improve it even more. I'm curious about this floor in terms of, so because it's removable tile, it's, you know, you can more easily fix other problems and I guess like when the water is a problem, address that. I'm curious if you have an idea of what the like lifetime on a floor like this would be.
[Kevin Bailey]: That's a great question. Honestly, that was my concern, and that's why I am, again, saying we haven't signed with the contractor yet. We're still exploring other ideas and thoughts. I was concerned with this. It does have a 15-year warranty, and I did question that. Does that mean 15-year lifespan, or does that mean warranty? And they said that it is much longer than that. There are facilities out there that have had it longer than 20 years. When I did look at different people who, different places that did install this court, the Salisbury Boys and Girls Club was the one that I was most gravitated towards just because they are also in a basement, very similar size, and a lot of their programming is very similar to what the rec department has. I looked at that as a really good comparison. I did talk to the CEO the other day on the court. He's had it for five years. He said it still looks as good as the day it was put in. He likes the product. He does recommend it. He said another facility he was at was near 10 years old, and he said he had no thoughts to replace it. So that does sound very promising. I also had some questions as well too. So I did make that call to the CEO again and ask if I could actually drive up there with one other person in our management team and actually see what that floor is like and run on it and shoot a basketball and really see if it's delivering exactly what we're expecting out of it.
[Justin Tseng]: Great. Thank you so much. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. Any further questions from members of the council? I'm going to go to Cindy and anyone else from the public wants to speak in just a minute, but I just had one question for you, Kevin. That warranty, does that include water damage?
[Kevin Bailey]: I actually don't even know the details yet. So, if this is what we're going with, like I said, there's two other vendors that I'm also looking at. One to get back to me today, a pre-estimate that was around, I want to say $265,000. So I don't know if that's the product that we will be going with. But there are other people as well. Once we choose the product, we will go back to the vendor and really get all the details before we make that final decision.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And in terms of like the time frame, when do you expect once you made a decision that we'd have a new floor and you'd be back to operations in the gym?
[Kevin Bailey]: Well the main goal right now is to get the funding for today. I did talk with the CEO Debbie Amaral from the YMCA and we did talk about timeline because one of our biggest fear is we know taking out the gym floor installing a new one is going to put the entire recreation center down for probably about two weeks, and almost every vendor that we talked to said about a week for demo and a week for install. We would love to be able to do this during April school vacation week, but we know that's a very fast turnaround time, even our vendors question if they're able to do that. If they can't, we might wait until June to do that work, or if the repairs are getting to the point where no one can be on the gym floor, then we might book that up a little bit sooner. But we don't want to stop the after-school program. That's our main focus and concern. We don't want to displace parents. If we do find another location, that might change. But as of right now, our main focus is to make sure that the after-school program stays where it is, the classes and activities that we're running that we can do safely on the gym floor, that we continue that.
[Kevin Bailey]: I know we have the Zamboni too, but if I can pass it to Cindy.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I mean, does anyone have any questions about the Zamboni? You need it? Okay.
[Kevin Bailey]: Great thing to have. We don't have to close if our Zamboni breaks.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Okay. We'll close that one.
[Cindy Watson]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All right. And we have Cindy Watson from Friends of Chevalier.
[Cindy Watson]: All the Friends of Chevalier and the.
[Zac Bears]: And the Chevalier Commission. Commission, however. Sorry about that.
[Cindy Watson]: That's okay. On both behalves, mostly the Friends of Chevalier, everybody thinks that we just work with the theater. Okay, which is not true at all. A lot of former Councilors have come. Matt Leming has been at one of them. So we also work very closely with the Y and Kevin has done an unbelievable job of revitalizing the entire Boys and Girls Club formally. He also implements very strategic activities, for example, adaptive equipment for people with special needs, children. He addresses the elderly. To address your issue, City Councilor Callahan. He looks into open space, because as you know, he is restricted in a lot of areas from the CPA. Okay, so he is all inclusive. I call him Kevin from heaven. And he has certainly worked more than diligently. The other thing is that I don't think the city councilors know, okay, how high the poverty level is in Medford. It is higher than you could even imagine. And that is one of the things that Kevin and his program serve. So that would be tragic not to have them attend. So again, I'm here on behalf of Kevin and all of his efforts, and I can't give him enough kudos and accolades. And this money really needs to be implemented.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Cindy.
[Cindy Watson]: Any questions? Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Looks like we have a couple more folks. I'm not seeing any hands on Zoom, but if there's anybody on Zoom who wants to speak, you can raise your hand on Zoom. Go to Ken, also from Friends of the Commission.
[Krause]: Hi. I'm Ken Grouch, 50 Mystic Street, Medford. Recently concluded a 20-year term on the board of the Friends of Chevalier. Cindy mentioned we're a 33-year-old nonprofit whose mission is to provide community support, financial support and advocacy for the Cheviro Theater and the Gene Mack Gym. I'm still involved with the organization as grants manager. We've been able to obtain well over a million dollars for the complex for both the theater and the gym and the Medford Youth Center Program is something we're very, very proud of having accomplished. Just for the benefit of the viewing public, I guess, I'd like to shed a little light, as the previous speakers did, on the Gene Mack Gym. I think a lot of people are perhaps more familiar with the Chevalier Theater, given its prominent events that are regularly held there. But the Gene Mack Gym, which is named for the former Boston Globe sports cartoonist and Medford youth champion is a thriving part of the complex. As Kevin said, the rec center operates seven days a week, 12 or 14 hours a day. And while they offer programs you might typically expect in a recreation center, pickleball, archery, basketball, they also offer things like line dancing, little painters, a painting class for kids, kids test kitchen, So they have a broad offering of programs that you might not expect to be available there. So I encourage people to look at the Recreation Department website and see what they offer. The Youth Center, which was mentioned, it offers comprehensive after school and out of school program for Medford children ages 5 to 13. It's focused on STEAM education, literacy, and social emotional learning. Again, they're not just rolling out balls on the court after school and say, you know, have fun until your parents come pick you up. There are about 99 members and generally about 75 are there a day. And as Kevin mentioned, when the gym was out of use, the kids had to be bused to, I think, the Malden, the Mystic Valley Y in Malden for activities. And also, as mentioned, the Medford Family Network has regular drop-in activities at the gym and special events. So it's a vital city asset. It's integral to serving all ages and demographic groups in the city, I think even more than perhaps was envisioned when former Mayor Burke started the Recreation Department in 2019. And a lot of the credit goes to Kevin Bailey. He's done an unbelievable job with a lot of limitations on the space there. So again, it's an important that we keep the facility, you know, as good a condition as possible. And I think this is an appropriate source of funds, the stabilization funds, but this was an unexpected and unbudgeted expense. And it's also been encouraging to hear that our new facilities director, David McIntyre, is looking at the larger problem with the flooding and looking at ways to address it. You know, there's new technology now wasn't available in 1939 when the building was built, and hopefully that can address and alleviate some of the existing problems that have been ongoing for decades. So again, just thank the council for considering this appropriation, and also the mayor, and urge your approval. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, we'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_24]: Hi, Tony Ingano, 166 Lincoln Road. Just a resident of Medford, and I discovered this hidden gym about two years, gem, about two years ago.
[Unidentified]: Gem, gem. Yeah, same thing.
[SPEAKER_24]: Yeah, I didn't know it even existed. And then I found out there was volleyball there. And I was like, oh, great, I'll check this out. And then I was like, where is it? I had no idea. But it's there. I've been doing it ever since. There's about 75 to 100. volleyball players that come in and out every week. There's so many that they've had to create an extra volleyball thing. And while that's going on, I see all the kids there at the same time. I mean, it's just an incredible venue. And I think we just need to make sure we keep it going. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Thank you so much for your comment. Any further comment? Seeing none, we'll end the public comment and I'll go to Council Vice President Lazzaro. There is a motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Yep, just very eager to pass this and support recreation and fitness in our city. So thank you everybody who spoke.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And yeah, I think this is really a testament to certainly, of course, getting right on top of something when it's not working. And I really appreciated hearing that we're going to try to maybe find some long-term systemic solutions, different materials to try to minimize future impact now that we know that this is kind of a recurring problem. And also, you know, it came up, this is an unexpected issue. to use our capital stabilization fund, which is why this council was really insistent that we become one of like the last 15 cities in the commonwealth of Massachusetts to have a five, last five in the whole state to have a stabilization fund. So, we were really insistent on establishing that as part of our plan. fiscal 24 budget agreement with the mayor and as part of our financial task force work in 2024. There are many other parts of that like the budget ordinance and questions 6, 7, and 8. But establishing stabilization funds and funding them was a really important initiative of this council and that's why we have these funds available for when we have emergencies like when this really important community resource is having a serious issue. So there's a lot behind everything and thank you though for Making sure we don't have to come back to the stabilization fund. We're trying to, you know, figure out ways to mitigate future impact considering what we know about the structural needs and issues of this building that was built a long time ago. Thanks, Kevin. And thank you always to the friends and the commission and the patrons of the REC department. On the motion of Vice President Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming? Councilor Mullane? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Thanks, you guys. 26-057, submitted by the Mayor, regulatory votes for the Medford Square Parcels Redevelopment Project. Dear President Bears and members of the Medford City Council, after almost two decades of studies and plans, including recommendations from the Comprehensive Plan in 2022 and a Medford Square Municipal Lots Disposition Engagement in 2023, the city released a request for proposals in 2024 to redevelop the three city-loaned lots in Medford Square along Clippership Drive. This has been previously presented to this August body. Transom, as has been previously represented to this August body, Transom Real Estate has been selected as a partner for this redevelopment. We respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following language that has been provided by KP Law as a required step. that is not necessary in this process. City Council vote ordered that the city-owned parcels of land described below are hereby declared surplus to the needs of the city and are available for disposition by long-term ground lease, which parcels are located on Riverside Avenue and Clippership Drive and are identified more particularly as follows. Lot A comprising of assessor's parcels M096C, M096D, O104, O104A, O104B, and 0108. Lot B comprising of assessor's parcels of three numbers and Lot C comprising of five assessor's parcels collectively the city property. The care custody and control of the city property is hereby transferred from the board or officer having charged thereof for the purposes for which the city property is held to the mayor for the purpose of leasing. C, authorize the mayor to lease the city property pursuant to a 99-year ground lease to transfer real estate, LLC, or an affiliate on such terms and conditions as the mayor deems appropriate, which may include a site control agreement setting forth the terms and conditions pursuant to which the city will lease the city property and land development agreement setting forth the terms covering construction and development of the city property. And further, D, authorize the mayor to take any and all of the actions as necessary or appropriate to promote the development of Medford Square, including without limitation, acquiring rights in the city property and or portions thereof by eminent domain, for the purpose of perfecting the city's title to the same, granting such easements on the city properties may be necessary or appropriate to serve the proposed development and entering to any and all agreements that may be necessary or appropriate to accomplish the foregoing. Director Hunt will be present to answer any questions with regard to this request. Additionally, KP Law and Peter Spillias, Principal of Transom Real Estate will also be available via Zoom. Respectfully submitted, thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor, Alicia Hunt, Director of Planning Development and Sustainability. And we did get a further amendment. We respectfully request you amend the vote to add parcel M096B to the list of parcels referenced in the vote. So do we have a motion to amend to include on the motion of Councilor Tseng. So we'll be voting on the paper as amended by Councilor Tseng. We also have on here a referral of specific overlay district for this project. I don't know if... Director Hunt, you want to present this as one coherent whole or talk about the regulatory vote followed by the overlay district? Do you have a preference on that?
[Alicia Hunt]: Why don't we just do the regulatory vote first just to keep it clean?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Could you, yeah, just share a little bit more than is in the letter what exactly this regulatory vote is allowing. It seems pretty clear that it's a lease of this land for authorizing a 99-year lease to transfer real estate and then just the section D, it mentions eminent domain. So I always like to be clear. This is about just making sure that the lots are and any lot boundary issues, is that correct?
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, and as so just to be clear about section D. These properties are incredibly old, and there are apparently sorry I for deeds comprising of many many parcels as you just read through, and they don't all align clearly and so there's been some title research. There's been some realignment of the way parcel, which actually it turns out that not all the paperwork was done back when Clippership Way was realigned. So there is some needing to clean up the title that we're working through with transom that I have actually. Attorney Shrin Everett is the Samsung phone. If we do need her. But she's been working with us on the title issues that do need to get cleaned up. And yeah, that's really what that is all about. It's complicated, because for those of you who understand, some of it is registered land, which makes it more complicated. So that's what item D is about. And yes, there will be no sale of land, as we've said all along. There will be a 99-year lease, and there'll be a couple of different documents involved with it, a site control agreement, as well as a lease, and we're working through the stages of these. So this is to authorize us to actually start signing the documents to move forward with the project. And if she wants to add anything, she can email me or text or raise her hand.
[Zac Bears]: I do see Attorney Robin Stein is here.
[Alicia Hunt]: Attorney Stein is here to help with the in case there are questions about the overlay. She's a land use lawyer and great. Attorney Everett is here under the Samsung phone for the... Oh, on the Samsung phone.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, gotcha.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, sorry. See, Samsung SM, that's... Yes, gotcha. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: If you can raise your hand, Attorney Everett, if there's anything else you'd like to add, or I'll just request that you unmute, but if you don't have anything to add at this time, we'll ask Councilors if they have any questions.
[Everett]: Good evening. This is Chiren Everett from KP Law. Alicia spoke correctly insofar as the eminent domain authority is solely to cure any title defects and boundary issues that may arise. Transom has been doing its title research and it is incredibly complex. So, as a prevent, as a, as a, just to foresee some issues that may come up, We're asking for Eminent Domain Authorization to perhaps cure some boundary issues. There is no appropriation associated with this request. So this would be only for the purpose of curing and perfecting the city's title to these parcels.
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. I'll go to questions from the council, Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. I know that we have seen a lot of information about this project over a long period of time, but I do think that since this is a vote that we are taking today, I would love to have our planning director go ahead and let the public know who might be listening. Maybe you're tuning in for the first time today. Just what this process has been starting with the RFP and going on through all the different times that it has been talked about in public meetings. I just want to make sure that as we're voting on this, people understand that this is not the first time that we're hearing from this. So it'd be great to have a brief rundown if she does not mind doing that.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sure, I didn't prepare anything like that because I was not anticipating it. I had sort of reached out asking if there were going to be questions or anything that I should prepare. But that said, we have actually set up a web page with a lot of information. And I'm just calling it up quickly because I don't want to be misspeaking off the cuff. And I am going to share. Oh, I don't know if I can share that link. I can't. I can send it to Zach.
[Zac Bears]: One second, Alicia. You should be able to share now.
[Alicia Hunt]: OK. So this is the link to the web page that we have set up. And that way people, because I'm just going to be very, so at that link is the key elements of the proposal. You will see that first. This is the intention is to have three buildings. One is a parking garage to one is residential with a cafe and one is residential with a city scale grocery store on the first floor. We're looking at 283 apartments, 20% of them are income restricted. I am. The numbers are always a little bit plus and minus, just because once you finally lay out the exact things, you might go up a couple here or there or down a couple. We're looking at parking spaces, literally more parking spaces than we currently have, but it's replacement for the city hall parking, it's parking for the residents, it's parking for the grocery store, and it's parking for the senior center. And we are coordinating parking as well with the Chevalier Theater to make sure that there would be sufficient parking for them as well. So if I actually go down below that, I'm actually going to go to the bottom of the page and start up.
[Zac Bears]: There was a network square. Alicia, could you share your screen?
[Alicia Hunt]: Sure. That's actually, thank you, a really smart idea.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: So let me, and I'm just gonna sort of, just briefly, in 2005, there was a Medford Square master plan that was adopted. All of these were taken into consideration. In 2006, there was a team from MIT that did a study of Medford Square and the river. There was a Medford Square parking garage feasibility study and site plan in 2010 and 2011. Medford Square existing conditions and vision memo in 2016. Many of these, so far all of these predate my role in this office, but most of them, if not all, had public input sessions. 2016 Medford Square existing conditions memo. 2017 Medford Square Master Plan. 2018, there was a Medford Square Roadways Improvement Study. I wish we were able to incorporate more of this into this plan, but there's just so much we can do with this. Feasibility Study in 2019 to look at the redevelopment of these lots very specifically. The Medford comprehensive plan only touched on Medford Square, but actually said all of these plans make sense. And we should start to move this forward. Then we did. So now this is the part that I actually had direct involvement in. In 2023, we brought in MAPC to do some public outreach and engagement. And we did a number of sessions in the library and the senior center and city hall. and online surveys to find out from people, if we were going to RFP these lots, what are the most important things that people want out of this? And what we heard the most strongly was we want, don't lose the parking, we want affordable housing, and we want a grocery store. And that's, so that's sort of where we targeted things because those were the largest things we heard. And you can see the memo with all the engagement information there. We created a district improvement financing, a DIF. This is a very technical thing that basically says some percentage of the additional taxes that come in from improvements in this area will go into a fund specifically to reinvest into this area so that the building of these buildings will also provide us with some extra money to do improvements in Medford Square. There is a citywide zoning, which has been going on, and we just mentioned that because that also is looking at Medford Square, having public meetings. There were public meetings, there are more going on now. Then in 2024, we hired a consultant and we released an RFP for the redevelopment of these lots. From the RFP, we got two proposals, and of the two, there was a preference from the committee that reviewed the proposals for transom's proposal transom development. We are still planning to get some additional graphics and information on here, but this is perhaps the most beautiful of the graphics where our fountain is right now, and I apologize, my brain cannot make the name of that corner come up. You would see the grocery store on your left, there's the cafe across the street to the right, and they're envisioning that we would do some lovely street crossings to make it a safer place to to cross there, and they're not showing the traffic lights, which will not go away, because we will continue to need a traffic light at that intersection. So hopefully, is that sufficient as a summary?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: That was amazing. Thank you so much.
[Alicia Hunt]: Just think what it would have been like if you had asked in advance. Then there would have been PowerPoint slides. We would have gone for 20 minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Nope, see, that's why we didn't. Alicia, just one question about the DIF. So as a portion of that 1.15 million in tax revenues, will that be going into the District Improvement Fund?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes. and I cannot tell you that percentage is off the top of my head. It's been a couple of years and I would have to go open that document again and look at it. But that is the idea. So it's the new growth. So it is a percentage of the new growth goes into the fund to help create reinvestment back into that area. So that money would then be available to us to do more streets improvements, more crossing improvements, more stuff like that. We've also been encouraged by mass development. So mass development, I basically reached out to them last summer and said, We're a little bit stalled and we could use some consulting help. And so they have hired R&D consulting, who is also on the phone on the call this evening to give us advice and assistance. They're a real estate firm. They do a lot of work with municipalities on development parcels. So Janice Bergeron is here from them as well. They've been helping us through the process, guiding us through, coaching us on negotiations, et cetera. And part of what Mass Development also said to me at that time is that we should apply for more grants to help with some of the infrastructure improvements we're going to want with this project. Um, they have helped us with the cross street cemetery project, um, which should happen late spring, early summer. Um, but that, uh, once we have a better feel, once we're a little further into the development process, um, and we know what we want for, for example, street and, um, other improvements and infrastructure, uh, transom will be assisting us in applying for additional mass development grants.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any further questions on this part of the discussion, the regulatory vote? Seeing none, we have a motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Any discussion by members of the public on the regulatory vote? We will have further discussion on the overlay district. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please. Oh, we got one. Just in the nick of time. Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Hello, Councilor Bears. Hi, Andy. Hi. Can you hear me, sir?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can. You have the floor.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you. I just had a question. It's great to have a supermarket back there. There was one there like 45 years ago. and the square could use a supermarket. I was curious about the parking. Is it going to be paid parking for the supermarket?
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you, Mr. President. The parking will continue to be some level of paid as it is with Medford Square public parking now. The intention is that there will be approximately 90 spaces between that supermarket building and the river where there's currently a parking lot and the pop-up park. The pop-up park will go back to being a parking lot. And we expect that that will be on the Medford city public parking kiosks meter system. And then there will be additional public parking in the parking garage. Those 90 spots will also include parking for the senior center we've been told that they need. approximately 50 spots on a daily basis. Currently, there are 18 directly allocated to the senior center, but how that will work out the actual processes, allocations, et cetera, we're a little early in the development process to have figured the details out.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: I have one further question, if I may.
[Zac Bears]: It might be premature. You have about a minute left. Go ahead.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Oh, thank you. I appreciate that. This may be a premature question, but when do you expect this project to start and when will it be completed, totally finished, you know, by any chance?
[Alicia Hunt]: The hardest part in answering that is the permitting process. We do believe that we can get through the permitting process within the next year because there's site plan review will take a while once we finish negotiations. They can't prepare for site plan review until they have the zoning locked in. Once they have the zoning locked in, they can file for site plan review. Site plan review, we expect, will take several months to work our way through. And then once they have those permits, they can start construction permits. But at the same time, they're also working through MassDOT. MassDOT wants to have a say in some of this. uh, whether or not they're going to need a MIPA approval from the state is something that is not 100% certain yet.
[Zac Bears]: The department of transportation and an environmental permitting process through the state.
[Alicia Hunt]: We're hoping that all of that can get done in the next year because of the, uh, governor's commitments to, uh, accelerating the MIPA process. Um, After that, so our goal is that in a year to 18 months from now, they'd be ready to start construction, because once you have all your permits in place, then you can start doing your electrical drawings and your structural drawings and your mechanical drawings, and those can take nine months to a year to complete and to apply for building permits. And if I, sorry, I didn't look it up, but I think off the top of my head, we're expecting two years in construction, but we expect it to be phased, that they won't start all three parcels at the same time. And so that it might be a little bit longer from start to finish for the entire project, because we think we wanna have some projects, part of it open and running while others are in construction, so that we don't take away all the parking lots all at the same time. The plan is to build the parking garage first.
[Zac Bears]: So construction, just answer the question and Mr. Castany, I'll give you a few seconds after that, but it sounds like construction would start in one to two years and would last for another approximately two years. Three to four year timeline.
[Alicia Hunt]: That yes, we're hoping to meet that aggressive timeline. That's actually pretty aggressive for a lot for a three parcel building development like this. We do have the lawyer for the for transom on and so that such. Valerie more if I've misstated any of that or misrepresented the timelines because I did not pull them up I was doing that from memory.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Sounds like a real cool plan. I hope it happens before the decade's over and while I'm still alive. Thank you very much.
[Alicia Hunt]: You too.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. We had a motion. Is there a vote? Roll call vote. Everybody good? Great. On the motion. Yes. To approve the regulatory. Yep. Including the as amended. Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: Yeah. Councilor Callahan? Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Maloney? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: Vice President Lazzaro? President Pierce?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Affirmative. One absent. The motion passes. All right, 26-058 submitted by Mayor Brian Legocurin, proposed amendments to the Medford Zoning Ordinance, Medford Square City Hall Overlay District for referral to the Community Development Board. So just a reminder, this is to refer it to the Community Development Board. They will then review it. They will issue recommendations. Then it will come back to us and we will take a final vote. I'm guessing at the earliest we would consider this in a joint public hearing in a couple of weeks, Alicia, on March 25th.
[Alicia Hunt]: That would be our goal, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and then that would not be the final vote. That would be just like the public hearing, maybe just the first public hearing if we decide that we need more time collectively as a community development board and a city council. So with that, just note that this is a procedural vote. We can have a presentation here. I honestly would prefer that we have a more detailed presentation on March 25th with the Community Development Board. But if you want to go over Alicia just what led us to this point, I know, you know, last year we were pretty close to getting Medford Square zoning done before the process stopped and now we're at this overlay which is a little bit different. So maybe if you could just speak to why this is the approach being taken now. and how that relates to the Medford Square zoning process. And we can also hear from Attorney Stein, Attorney Moore, if they have anything additional to add after you've finished your presentation, Director Hunt.
[Alicia Hunt]: So just to sort of stick to sort of the whys, yes, if we had passed the zoning last summer, we probably would not be doing this. We might be being asked for this or they would be going to the site plan review site plan and asking for some waivers potentially. There might have been the need. So I will say that Attorney Moore submitted comments to us last summer asking for a couple of small changes in the zoning to make this a little to make this work better. These parcels are very unusual in that they are very large and they are bounded most of them are bounded by public ways on all four sides because the highway is a public way legally and the area touching City Hall, while that's not a public way, the intention is to make that a bus way. So how are you going to treat that? And so this sort of addresses some of the unusualness. For example, there is an item in here that says you may not have, in our proposed zoning, that says you may not have fire exits on a public way. They have to, because they have to have the fire exit somewhere. We also sort of, how do you treat these? Some of their comments are things that are moving forward as suggestions into the public hearing process for the 25th. For example, the definitions of public structures and garages and how they're treated. It's not exactly clear for a parking garage to be a standalone owned by a private entity, isn't actually allowed for in our current zoning, only as accessories. So some of that is here. So this is sort of like the big picture. And I guess a lot of it with a developer, time and uncertainty is money. And we would really like to get this moving forward. There is interest from a grocery store right now, but interest in grocery stores could go away. And so we don't want this to drag on interminably so that we can secure that as well, like that's actually kind of a driver for me in this. And this also allows a couple of more waivers than we would allow any other developer in Medford Square would be allowed through this overlay process. because that'll make things a little bit more simpler, a little bit more streamlined. This project also undergoes way more scrutiny than any other kind of project that would ever go in front of the CD board because of all the negotiations with the mayor and staff and the city before they ever get to site plan review. Then even after site plan review, we continue to have sign-offs on this because this is property that we own. So we have a lot more controls than just zoning here, whereas zoning has its own difficulties when you have to get variances and then people can challenge your variances and you can get tied up in land court for years, we would really prefer to avoid having to do any of that. So that's basically We are all hopeful that the Medford Square zoning will get referred out of committee on the 25th, and we'll move forward quickly. But we don't know that that is the case, we thought it was going to get referred out two months ago, and so now we just want to start basically not I'm not using the right words here, but we want to make sure that we can just move this project forward without pressuring the boards and the council to vote out the zoning just for this one project. This would allow the project to go forward and for the council and the board to take the time that they need on the Medford Square zoning to get it right for all the other properties where we won't have as close a relationship with the developer in question. And so we need to be right. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. We do have questions from the Council. I don't know if Attorney Stein or Attorney Moore if there's anything you want to add at this point or if you'd like to hear from the Councilors first. You can raise your hand on Zoom if you want to be or your physical hand. It looks like Attorney Stein, go ahead.
[Robin Stein]: Good evening. I don't have anything to add. I'm certainly happy to answer any questions. I was just trying to note that Zoom wouldn't let me unmute myself. So I wasn't ignoring you. I just couldn't do it. But I certainly hear if the council has any procedural questions about this vote or the referral or anything along those lines.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Attorney Moore, I recognize you.
[SPEAKER_11]: Good evening. Thank you very much for recognizing me. I will just add briefly that we really did draft the overlay to be fairly narrowly tailored to what's been discussed with the city as part of the negotiations.
[SPEAKER_10]: So it's designed to reflect the project that has been extensively discussed with the city staff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right we'll go to Vice President Lazzaro and then Councilor Callahan. Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I appreciate Director Hunt's very extensive knowledge and discussion of this. It would have been I think we can all agree it would have been well we can agree that it would have been ideal for the Medford Square zoning to have moved forward. earlier this project, I think that the, I'm experiencing concern that if this project can happen then there will be a lack of urgency on the remainder of Medford Square. But I think that if we can continue to work closely with the Community Development Board and if the Community Development Board can continue to prioritize the needs of the city, the businesses, the residents, the people that work and live and move through Medford Square and of the needs of all of these people together collectively that we can pass this overlay zoning and we can also pass a comprehensive zoning plan that will be productive and useful for all people that need it. So I would motion to approve this. And I think that we can have all of the things that we need. in a timely manner without wasting our residents' money and while balancing everything that we need from each other because I think everybody who enters into public service in any capacity is trying to do what's best for their city and that's what we're all trying to do here. We're not trying to drag things out and make them take longer than they need to. for any reason. I think we're all just trying to make sure we're doing the best job possible. So I'm very excited about this. I'm excited about the project and I'm excited about there being a grocery store in Medford Square and moving forward with developing these parcels in a way that's going to be the most useful and productive for the most people possible. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. I just have a question if someone can very briefly explain how this interacts both locationally and timing-wise with Medford Square zoning. So, you know, exactly what sort of properties does it cover? And then how will it interact with Medford Square zoning? Like if we, on the same day or two weeks later or a month later pass Medford Square zoning, like how does the overlay interact with that?
[Zac Bears]: Director Hunt?
[Alicia Hunt]: It seems that Attorney Moore is interested in answering that. This is something to be clear. Both zonings, so this overlay is exactly just the parcels in question for transom, and I think the little packets that I left for you that had the colored parcels on it, parcels A, B, and C, it's only on those three parcels. And the, when you have base zoning and overlay, the property owner at that location can choose to use either the overlay or the base zoning. So, they would both be in effect and they'd both be in effect for the duration of those parcels. And so, in this case, Transom would choose to use the overlay. It's possible that in the end they would be exactly the same, but I actually wouldn't exactly recommend it because we want to be a little bit more strict with most of the developers than we would with Transom in terms of what they're allowed to get waivers for.
[SPEAKER_11]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further questions? I saw you had your hand up. Okay. All right. Is there anyone who'd like to speak on this overlay district proposal? We got someone in the chambers. If you'd like to speak on Zoom, please raise your hand on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Nick Giurleo]: Thank you Nick Giorleo 40 Robinson Road. I was able to review both this overlay and the original Medford Square zoning and I'm actually going to raise a legal concern here. I know we've seen the letter written by the attorneys for transom that. The two proposed districts here are generally consistent, but if you actually put them side by side, they're not. So my concern is for spot zoning. Hopefully you all know what that is, but in case you don't, it's essentially when a when parcels are zoned specifically for an economic benefit of the developer and it's inconsistent with zoning in the surrounding area. So, you know, I was able, like I said, to put them side by side and I'm seeing significant differences, you know, and we see this both in the table of uses, we see this dimensionally. Like for example, in the table of uses, we see with like three unit dwellings, detached, multiplex, multiple dwellings, you know, those are allowed as of right in this overlay district but if you look in the original Medford Square zoning, they're not allowed. We see this dimensionally, you know, there's all these dimensional waivers in the transom zoning that aren't present in the original Medford square zoning. And I could honestly keep going with this. Parking as well, we see that. We see these kind of inconsistencies. So, you know, my concern is for spot zoning here. So I'd actually just recommend to all of you you get a legal opinion on that before you refer this to the Community Development Board because it does seem like our intent here and that's what spot zoning, you're looking at intent too. You know, it does seem like our intent here is to help this developer out as much as possible. You know, our planning director just said that money is a consideration here, right, which makes me think we're thinking about, you know, the economic benefit of this developer. I mean, we see as an express purpose in this overlay district to facilitate the redevelopment of multiple city-owned plots. So, you know, all of this combined does raise a concern here. So I would just recommend that getting a legal opinion on that specific issue. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Director Hunt, we're just going to wait a minute. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in the public comment period? Maybe we could hear from Attorney Stein and then you, Director Hunt.
[Alicia Hunt]: It's my point is about the benefit, and I went on about public benefits that we, we, the developer cannot give us public benefits. If there isn't the finances in this project. There's nobody putting money in their pocket. We are not putting money in the pocket of the developer, we're getting a grocery store which is not a great economic engine for a developer, we're getting 20% affordable housing rather than 15. We are getting a lot of benefits out of this community benefits public parking. And I just want to be really clear about that, because I've heard some rumblings about people feeling that we're trying to rush this through for the benefit of a developer. It's because the community wants these benefits that you can, I refer you back to the MAPC report from 2024 that talks about the economics of the community benefits. But I would actually defer to Attorney Stein on spot zoning.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Hunt.
[Robin Stein]: Good evening, again I'm Robin Stein with KP law. So, um, you know, I don't want to get too far into the spot zoning question tonight, unless you really want me to because, again, the purpose of the meeting this evening is simply to do the 40 a five referral. So again, when. you know a zoning ordinance amendment is initiated as it's been initiated to you. The council has an obligation to refer that for the public hearing within 14 days. And so really the scope of what you're doing that is the referral and questions like spot zoning which always come up with overlays and I'm confident will be adequately addressed here are definitely questions to discuss at the public hearing which I understand is going to be March 25th but for you know what's before you tonight that's not really a question I mean I'm happy to get into it a little bit if you want me to tonight but I do think it's something that you're probably going to have a further, you know, questions about and discussion about when you get into the joint public hearing itself. But I can say that, you know, again, it always comes up with questions of overlays because overlays often involve smaller areas of land than, you know, whole districts. But it's not spot zoning when you have legitimate zoning principles being advanced. Even if there is some economic benefit to a particular developer, as long as you have You know you're you're seeking to accomplish goals of zoning like job creation and diversity of services in the community and things like that. You know you shouldn't have a spot zoning problem. But again I think that's something that I'm sure you're all going to get into and we can talk about further you know at the full public hearing.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I think I was going to ask you to do it in three sentences. I think you did it in maybe four. So, you know, we can talk about it more. I spoke too much.
[Robin Stein]: All right. Spoke too much. Sorry about that.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, no, no. That's great. You know, I appreciate that kind of early, since this is a referral, we can ask more questions about that if members of this body or members of the community development board have questions at the meeting on the 25th. But no, I appreciate that understanding. And just to clarify you, Attorney Stein, you're here representing the city and the mayor. KP Laws here is like the mayor's council, council for the city.
[Robin Stein]: I mean, we serve as council for the city.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Okay. Do we have any further questions from members of the council? All right. Is there a motion? A motion to refer to the Community Development Board by Vice President Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. All right. Thank you. Last item, public participation. Name and address of the record, please, if you'd like to speak in public participation. You can take it at the podium, or you can raise your hand on Zoom. All right, seeing none, is there a motion? Motion to adjourn. The motion to adjourn by Vice President Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
|
total time: 34.8 minutes total words: 2940 |
total time: 14.63 minutes total words: 864 |
total time: 25.1 minutes total words: 1081 |
total time: 10.9 minutes total words: 558 |
|
total time: 15.94 minutes total words: 550 |
total time: 3.28 minutes total words: 249 |
total time: 2.18 minutes total words: 233 |
total time: 0.74 minutes total words: 66 |