[Zac Bears]: 29th, 2026 Medford City Council is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Kelly. Councilor Leming. Present. Councilor Maloney. Present. Councilor Scapelli. Present. Councilor Tseng. Present. Vice President Lazzaro. Present. And President Beard.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. The records of the meeting of May 26th, 2026 were passed to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, how did you find those records?
[Justin Tseng]: I find them in order and move to approve.
[Zac Bears]: The records of the special joint meeting of May 27th, 2026 and June 3rd, 2026 were passed to Councilor Leming. How did you find those records?
[Matt Leming]: The ones from June 3rd, I would motion to change the spelling of walkling. I can see there's a misspelling in there. But pending that change, move to approve.
[Zac Bears]: We'll correct that. And then reports of committees, we had 26-061 Committee of the Whole, May 26th, May 27th, and June 2nd. Those were all fiscal year 2027 budget meetings. Is there a motion to approve the records and reports of committees as amended? On the motion to approve the records and reports of committees as amended by Councilor Millane, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan. Yes. Councilor Leming.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Malauulu. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. Vice President Lazzaro. Yes. And President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Motion to take items 25189 and 25084 out of order.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take papers 25189 and 26084 from unfinished business for third reading by Vice President Lazzaro, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan. Yes. Councilor Leming.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Malauulu? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. And President Pierce?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Give me one moment. 25189, amendment to Chapter 2, Article 5, Division 2, Medford Standard Compensation Ordinance. In City Council, April 28th, 2026, approved for first reading. To be advertised May 14th, 2026, Medford Transcript and South Marble Journal. It was advertised and it's in City Council, June 9th, 2026, eligible for third reading. This is the standard compensation ordinance which is to create a wage floor for the folks in janitorial and security services who are not otherwise covered prevailing wage schedules of the state. They were exempted, and that means that cities can pay these folks less than the prevailing wage for the work that they do. There are a number of things in this ordinance. The main purpose of it, as we discussed at first reading, is to create a system for a wage floor and fair wages and benefits for the contracted services that our city contracts out for our buildings. And right now that is mainly our janitorial services. There's a lot of history here. This was first proposed in December after some serious concerns about some harmful impacts on folks who had been working for the city in janitorial services at Medford Public Schools, folks who lost their jobs, folks who were really put in very difficult situations because our city doesn't have an ordinance like this. And really, you know, one of the most important things that this ordinance will provide for our city is more certainty. in how we are procuring these kinds of services and more stability in making sure that we get good services on the market. So that is just something that is. It's essential not only from like a values perspective and a morals perspective that when the city is contracting out work, we are paying fair wages and benefits to the people who are doing that work. But it is also important for the city that we are having good services, stable services, the services that we need to keep our buildings clean and well-maintained. So that is the purpose of this ordinance over the last, month and a half since the first reading. I did have some meetings with the city administration. We have made some, we've had good discussions. We've made some progress. I do wanna read a letter from the administration. Give me one second to find it. I don't know why it's not showing up here. And I know that the administration might have. Yes, Chief of Staff.
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you, President Bears. I just want to note that Paul Ruggie's on the line and could potentially communicate the communication that was sent over to the council, to yourself and then to the council as well.
[Zac Bears]: Sure.
[Nina Nazarian]: If that's easier.
[Zac Bears]: If that's the preference, if that's your preference. Sure. Paul, if you would want to read the letter that you sent over today, I'll recognize you.
[Paul Righi]: Thank you, President Bears. This letter came is coming from myself and Fiona Maxwell, the our director of procurement, we are respectfully requesting that the council postpone final passage of the proposed standard compensation ordinance on June 9 to allow additional time for the working group consisting of President Bears. Attorney Janelle Austin, Chief of Staff Nina Nazarian, and the undersigned, myself and Fiona, to complete its review and finalize any recommended amendments to ensure that the terms of this ordinance are clearly defined, able to be implemented, enforceable, and minimize liability to the City. As you know, the school department's cleaning services vendor has been notified that the city is exercising year two of the existing contract, extending services through June 30th, 2027. Additionally, the city's cleaning services contract is being extended through June 30th, 2027 through FAC 114, which is the state contract as the procurement method. With both contracts secured for FY 2027, the group is in a good position to continue evaluating the proposed amendments and work towards a thoroughly reviewed and finalized ordinance before seeking final approval. While significant progress has been made, several key sections still require further review, including enforcement authority, exceptions and waivers, wage rate, labor peace, establishment of the standard compensation rate applicable to future procurement processes. And for that, we need analysis from our finance director, who currently has been working on the citywide budget. transitional employment period, and definitions and effective date. Although the group has made meaningful progress, there is still work to be done. Additional time would allow the working group to complete its review thoughtfully and provide the council with well-vetted recommendations. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the City Council defer final action on the ordinance and provide the working group with additional time to complete its review and present any final amendments for consideration. Thank you for your consideration of this request and for your continued commitment to a thorough and collaborative legislative process. And that is sincerely from myself, the former facilities director of the city of Bedford and from Fiona Maxwell, our chief procurement officer.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Paul. And, you know, I have appreciated the discussions we've had. I do think, you know, I am proposing some two minor changes to the ordinance tonight that I think we can agree on. There were a number of other changes in our discussions that, you know, I think the administration would like to see some different language in this ordinance. I don't necessarily think that whatever comes out of those discussions will necessarily be a joint recommendation that includes myself. That is subject to further discussion. My personal perspective is that we are now in month seven of considering this ordinance. And I believe that we have an ordinance that is strong that will meet the purposes and intent of the city council and that we can approve tonight and that we can continue to discuss the administration's proposed changes and that those can come back before the council to amend this ordinance in the future as the administration sees fit. And I am more than happy to continue discussing those proposed differences. In some cases, I think differences of policy with the administration But I also believe that for a number of reasons we should move forward tonight. So that's my perspective. It differs from the perspective of the administration. With that, I'm happy to go to Councilors for their perspective on how we should move forward now that you've heard from all involved. Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I am comfortable moving forward with the third reading tonight. I think we've talked about this quite a lot and reviewed it quite a lot and I don't see why there would be too much of a, why it would be opening us up to liability. And if it was, I would have liked to hear about that significantly earlier from our legal representation. So I'm happy to motion to approve the standard compensation ordinance for third reading.
[Zac Bears]: On that motion, is there a second? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. And I recognize Councilor Callahan and Councilor Tseng.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. I know we have been discussing this for many months, but for those folks who may be tuning in for the first time today, I would really appreciate if, I know President Bears, you have been working closely and directly with many different parties to go over the wording, as well as working with the administration over the wording. And I would love it if you wouldn't mind summarizing where the wording and definitions that are in this ordinance come from. Like if they come from other cities ordinances that have been in place for years or like if you can give us a little bit of a summary so that the public can have some of the same knowledge that we have because we've been in these meetings, you know, for seven months. If you don't mind doing a little bit of a summary, I think that would be helpful.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, and I really encourage residents to go back to look at the committee of the whole meetings and the meeting for first reading that we held. There was some really great discussions from Councilors. We heard from Peter Enrich, who's one of the, you know, Northeastern professor and has worked on a lot of this municipal law. This is a similar ordinance to ordinances that we see in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville. Much of the language comes from those different ordinances. There are some changes, some, I would dare say, improvements over the language that we see in Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville, but by and large, These are, this is similar policy to what other communities have implemented. It takes pieces from each of those ordinances. It also, it references state and, well, it originally was state, but it references some federal standards and some local standards in the city of Boston in terms of determining the wage rate, referencing contracts for janitorial services in, both for federal contracts and for, the city of Boston. So that is a very short summary of where all of this comes from. You know, part of the history here is that the vast majority of services that cities and towns in Massachusetts procure are subject to prevailing wage. And these services, janitorial and security services, municipalities were exempted from prevailing wage schedules. And, you know, that's because of austerity. It's because cities and towns have been squeezed. And I just don't think when our budgets are squeezed that we should start with the workers who are most vulnerable and those workers who are doing work that we've decided we used to pay people to work for the city for, we've decided to contract out to a private contractor. That's not the place that we should start when we're facing budget issues. So there have been cities and towns who are our neighbors who have said, The state doesn't make us do this anymore but it's our community values that we want to do this anyway and we believe that folks who are doing janitorial and security services who are keeping our buildings clean and well-maintained and safe should be paid living wages and benefits or at least prevailing wages and benefits, fair wages and benefits because cities shouldn't be participating in the race to the bottom. So I hope that is a fair summary.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you, I do appreciate that very much. And I just, I personally want to say that I really do think that we are in a moment in America where we are facing the largest gap in inequality. that I believe has ever been recorded. And it is not just bad for the people at the bottom. It is bad for democracy. It is bad for all of us. And I think that as a city, I know that this city for many years was one of the few places where working class people could buy a home and have a comfortable life. And I know that those people value unions and they value supporting union labor and they value supporting people who are doing the hard work that does not pay that well, but working hard, those people should be able to maintain their jobs when it is our own city. hiring them. So, to me, this is very important, and after seven months, I just, I'm not comfortable anymore with the, you know, the request for delay that is, well, we just want to keep, you know, workshopping the definitions and the language. And I think, you know, we can always revise this ordinance, but I feel very strongly that this is the values of our city and that we should really be taking action on this. So I am in favor and I will be voting yes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Kiley and Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. I mean, I think I was going to say period to everything you said. We truly, we truly, it's mind boggling to me. that in a city that has purported to support unions, to support workers, it's something that I was taught from when I was really young, that unions built Medford, that the working class built the city, and that we should stand up for them. It does become mind-boggling to me at some point that we let vulnerable workers suffer the brunt of consequences of austerity. They're the first ones on that line being attacked. And as you noted, Councilor Callaghan, you step back and you realize that Medford's not unique, that we are playing second fiddle to a system, an economic system, that fundamentally leaves people behind. I respect that there are different policy views on this piece of legislation, but I stand firm in my values and in believing that we should pass this tonight. When it comes to liability, it confuses me a little bit because we met, President Bears and I met with KP Law on this. to make sure that this was legally tenable for the city. And the draft that we have, the draft that we've been reviewing on this council for months is that draft, or is based on that draft. And so it strikes me as quite interesting. And you know what? I'm always open to listening to diverse opinions of policy. I think we've had seven months of conversation about this and that every week that we don't pass this is a week that we leave workers in the dark, that we leave workers without stability in the city. And I think ultimately that's just what this is about. So I'm happy to support the motion to pass this tonight. I don't know if there's a second on it, but I'd second.
[Zac Bears]: I do think we have a motion and a second. So I do want to quickly share I'm proposing some minor amendments based on discussions with the administration. And as I noted, like I will continue to in good faith discuss the administration's position and their requested changes and, you know, if at some point in the next months they want to present those changes as proposed amendments, we can consider those. And I think that would be a valuable way to understand and be able to go through this is, these are the things that they want to see changed and we can then make a determination whether we, believe that they should be changed. There were two items. One was, I'm trying to get this Zoom to be a little bit more legible, so give me one second here. So one is here in the definitions, if you can see it, adding to the definition of building services or building service work, cleaning and maintenance of building not otherwise covered by an applicable prevailing wage schedule. So this is to address a concern of the administration, you know, if there are already, if there are like someone's coming in to repair an air conditioner or something like that, that's already covered under prevailing wage. And then the other item is, In the enforcement section, there was a, the section 943, subsection 2, which is that this designated city department may, in conjunction with the solicitor and in accordance with powers, issue subpoenas, compel attendance of witnesses, require the production of evidence. And it was the opinion of the administration that these are not powers that the city has and that they're still within the enforcement section here. that the ordinance can be enforced by Chapter 40, Section 21D, so fines amount of $300 if there's a violation, filing complaints and forwarding complaints to pertinent state and federal agencies, and reviewing ongoing contract and payments and potential ineligibility for future contracts. So, that's the proposed change there under the review. The rest of it would remain The same under enforcement except for that one subsection. Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: I just, just for future legal reasons, I just want to be clear. Your understanding of the second amendment is that the powers connected to it are already contained in the section above? Or were, were the other section that you showed us?
[Zac Bears]: more that the powers, like the city does not have the authority to issue subpoenas or compel the testimony and attendance of witnesses. So there are other, more that I was noting that there are other avenues, many other avenues for enforcement, but that specific review section, specifically reviewing a complaint, that the city doesn't actually really have the authority to do those things, at least that was what council presented. The city would still be required to review all complaints and request to inspect documentation and further answer review and could still find that they're violating the ordinance and use the civil disposition fines or refer that violation to a state or federal agency and review eligibility for the ongoing and future contract.
[Justin Tseng]: I see. And that, you mentioned that came from administration, did it come from KPL as well? Yes. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, these are the two changes that seem to be out of, coming out of those meetings to be, largely reflecting the existing conditions. So not necessarily including an expectation in the enforcement section that can't be met and also making it clear this applies to the services of cleaning and building and maintenance of buildings and security guard services but not to services that are already covered under the prevailing wage. Are there any more questions from members of the council at this time? All right. We will open it up to members of the public. I don't know who, if you'd like to speak, Rama, or if members of 32BJSCI, you would like to speak. Thank you. If you could provide your name and you'll have about three minutes.
[SPEAKER_17]: Well, thank you for having given me the opportunity to speak. My name is Kevin Bruteau and I'm excited to speak today about the opportunity to improve working conditions for building service workers in Medford. And I am here to support President Bears's standard compensation ordinance. This ordinance would provide critical protections for contracted building service workers in the city who are paid hourly and give workers a 90-day grace period in the event of a contractor change at their work site. This would give workers time to either improve themselves to a new employer or find a new job if necessary. Contracted building service workers in Massachusetts usually have no legal right to keep their job if the contractor changes. This means workers with years of experience can be displaced overnight and lose hard-earned wages and benefits. This kind of protection would go a long way for workers like me who have dealt with contractor changes at our work sites and lost our jobs without warning. I cleaned the McGlynn Middle School for many months. I enjoyed my job and I was proud to provide a clean and sanitary learning environment for Medford students. And I myself was a Medford High student as well. My coworkers and I had fair wages and benefits and working conditions under a union contract with 32BJ. However, the district awarded its janitorial contract to a new company called Partners Facility Solutions, which is a non-union company that refused to hire my coworkers and myself. The union has filed unfair labor practice charges related to this, but the worker retention provision of President Bears's standard compensation ordinance would help prevent legal action from even being necessary in these types of situations. More broadly, this ordinance will help stabilize the building service workforce in Medford, which would improve the quality of building services and ensure continuity of services at key buildings throughout the city. And I appreciate you, council president, for proposing these protections for workers in our city. I urge the council to vote yes and the mayor to sign it into law. And I really appreciate your time to all of you. Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak? Yes.
[SPEAKER_04]: Hi, everyone. Thanks for your time. My name's John Shabe. I live on Summer Street in Medford. My wife and I moved here about 17 years ago when we could no longer afford to live in Somerville. We got priced out. If I had to move to Medford today, I couldn't do it. The buildings that have been revamped are high-end condos, and I can't afford that. I think The janitors and security need to earn the prevailing wage. I'm here to support that as a resident and taxpayer. And as the gentleman who just spoke talked about losing his job because the contractor changed, I think people need successorship, meaning whatever contractor comes in, those staff still have the same rights to have their job. By paying people the lowest amount possible, you're forcing people into asking for assistance from the public. That's not right. The city should take care of people and provide them with health insurance, I believe. Years ago, I worked in a campaign at Harvard where Larry Summers, the former president, said, oh, those aren't my janitors. They work for contractors. I was like, well, Larry, you hire the contractors. So you do have a responsibility. Same with Medford. The city of Medford hires the contractors. They have responsibility. I mean, think about the price of gas, almost five bucks a gallon. Price of food, I was shocked to see the other day when I was at the grocery store with my wife. Housing, how do you expect people to live in the city if they can't afford to live in the city without a decent wage? So once again, my name is John Shabe. I live on Summer Street. And thank you for your time. I appreciate you listening, OK? Have a great night.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, John. Good to see you.
[SPEAKER_04]: Good to see you.
[MCM00001818_SPEAKER_06]: Good evening, everybody. My name is Joseph Casey, lifelong resident of Medford. I grew up here since I was a child. I was a paperboy. I was a hardworking kid. I worked two jobs for 30 years. I taught trade school at Medford for a couple of years. I'm very proud of this city, and I know there's a lot of hardworking people. I'm also a commissioner for the Disability Commission. I just want to tell you a small story. My son has a disability. He works 10 hours a week at Market Basket at minimum wage. He pays federal tax, state tax, social security. The government said, you work too much. We're taking your food stamps away. And one thing I want to say, we all want to save money. Nobody wants to see their taxes go up. Corporate America works people hard, and they want people to work for minimum wage. And they tell the people, you can go on government assistance, and you can get food stamps. And what happens, you, the taxpayer, has to make up the difference for these people that work for low wages. And I don't think that's fair when corporate companies should take care of their help and not go to the government for assistance. But also, I love this city and I would be very proud to see the city pay people just a decent wage. That's all I ask. Thank you. Thank you.
[Ralph Klein]: Ralph. Ralph Klein, Park Street in Medford. I just want to say these workers deserve something for what they do. I mean, janitorial services, people say, oh, it's not, what does it do? Well, I know firsthand what the lack of janitorial services is. My children and everybody who went to the Roberts Junior High School, the children, the parents got sick with the norovirus. It was transmitted in the Roberts School to close for two days. Nor did the children get it. The parents and grandparents, I'm a grandparent. I'm 68 years old. I don't need to get sick. So saying janitorial service, oh, the people with experience is what you need. And to transfer the job, if you get a new contractor, I went through that as well. Budweiser, when they sold, they didn't take anybody out of the Medford plant. They didn't take on anybody, the new company, Martinetti's. So having people move on who were experienced, that company has gone downhill from there. You ask any liquor store, bar, that the quality of the quality beverage is no quality. So having these people be able to move to the other company is a big issue. Not just, oh, the lowest contractor, so what? These people are experienced. And I don't want anybody to go through what I went through with the norovirus. I don't want anybody to get that. And with all these viruses coming around on these ships, It's lack of cleaning and janitorial service. So transferring people who know what they're doing is a good idea. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ralph. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this at this time? All right. On the motion of Vice President Lazzaro to approve for third reading as amended, seconded by Councilor Tseng. I will recognize Director Riggi before we move forward. Director Riggi.
[Paul Righi]: Paul. Thank you. Sorry, President Bears, my computer was not behaving well. I just, I understand the intent. I'm just, want to remind the council that there are still some legal issues with the ordinance rate, the way it's written, that legal review still says that the way it is written does not meet the letter of the law. Also, this ordinance would not be retroactive. The ordinance would not technically pertain to any contracts for cleaning services until next July 1, when those contracts expire. So that's why I still think that instead of passing the ordinance, as is with some issues still not resolved, is to finalize those issues and take care of them. And then so there's no amendments that are needed. to the ordinance. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Who wrote the original draft, Mr. President?
[Zac Bears]: I worked on that.
[George Scarpelli]: And then with the KP law?
[Zac Bears]: KP took a look at it and came back and I put some of the things in the original one back in and that's what we're looking at largely tonight.
[George Scarpelli]: So with those few small changes?
[Zac Bears]: Pretty significant ones, and then there's a couple of small ones, yeah.
[George Scarpelli]: Again, Mr. President, this is something that we've been talking about, and I think that everybody talks about the importance of supporting our labor. And obviously, we know that the history has shown that that's not what's happening here. Seven months has been a long time. I think that moving it forward and maybe that'll give the administration the onus to move this forward to make sure that before we move on to the next hiring process that all the legalities are met in their eyes. But I'm willing to move forward while we wait for this time, Mr. President. And again, I'll stress it again. We wouldn't have many questions if we had a city solicitor that we can talk to on a daily basis to answer these questions. But when you leave it up to the people that are in charge and as a council president doing the hard work with this, we can only support what the hard work you're doing and not entrusting that. So I would move approval, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And to be clear, you know, I think largely what's left out there, you know, much of the language in this ordinance exists in ordinances in other communities, and some of what the administration still has concerns with are differences of policy as much as they are, you know, legality. So, you know, we're happy to review both of those things. But some of them aren't, do we want to do something one way or another way, and the council and the administration may have honest disagreement about that.
[George Scarpelli]: I feel that moving forward with this protects our interests and what we want to do, but in the same breath, we give plenty of time before the next contract so we can cross our T's and dot our I's. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, on the motion of Vice President Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng to approve for third reading. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Malaty? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Pierce?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes and the ordinance is approved for third reading. Thank you. All right, we're going to move to the next item on the agenda. That's paper 26084, Amendments to the Personnel Ordinance, Director of Elections, Director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Director of Veteran Services. This is in City Council, April 28th, 2026, approved for first reading, advertised May 14th in City Council, June 9th. And Vice President Lazzaro, could you take the chair? Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Okay so this is a change to how employees are classified for based on the compensation and classification report that was received by our City Hall employees and Just to review, the request was made to advance the director of diversity, equity, and inclusion, the director of veteran services, and the elections manager, to new levels and this is now at third reading. I can recognize any Councilors that have a comment on this or I can go to any City Hall employees that may want to speak to this item. Lisa Crowley is on Zoom, so I will recognize our HR director. Go ahead, Lisa.
[Lisa Crowley]: OK, thank you. Thank you, Vice President Lazzaro. Through you to the council members, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak on this subject. As you know, the administration put a wage proposal before this body a few weeks ago that was amended by council. for one of the three proposed CAF changes. And although we appreciate the discussion that went into the council's suggestive change, we strongly recommend for the purposes of equity and fairness that the council approve its third reading, reverting back to the original proposed amendments. While I understand the intent of the change, would create several problematic issues, such as internal inequities among these three roles. It would also result in a newer position advancing more rapidly than longer-standing leadership roles, and not to mention the ripple effect that would come across the organization. Essentially, selectively moving positions up a CAF level risks contradicting the recommendations of the Kloppenklaas study, and undermining the integrity of the CAS system study as a whole, which we, you know, was designed to provide internal consistencies and transparencies across the departments. And it would also help us avoid the possible need for retro pay for these three adjustments. So we asked the council to vote on the wage adjustment in their original proposed form by the administration. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Madam Vice President. I know that one of the questions that we had that we were waiting for was the the opportunity to make sure that our leaders in department heads are compensated equally and for the fear that we've been seeing that when they're not, we're losing good people. And I believe the request was that we wanted to bring another department to the same step. Correct me if I'm wrong, that's what we talked about. And I think that that's what we wanted to discuss here tonight before the third reading is the city getting back to us, administration getting back to us about the possibility of bringing that position equal with other department heads at that level. I still, before I vote, I think I need to understand this a little bit better because I support the fact that we approve the measure as long as everybody is equal.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Director Crowley, I wonder if you could speak to that question from Councilor Scarpelli, if you could explain is the elections department head different in a way that is significant from the DEI director or the veterans director in a way that can that we can you can help us understand?
[Lisa Crowley]: Thank you. So, um, each of those three positions are, um, were reviewed individually for, um, what their role is, um, what the contribution is to the community, to the city, how they interact with other departments. And, um, again, the comp and class study gave us these three as the most Most outliers that they could see right off right off hand and moving them all up to calves. Produce equity in moving those three positions. Again, they're all unique in their own way and we really it's hard to compare apples to oranges to. Apples. And keeping with the integrity of the comp and class study, which is this is what they do for a living. The call-in center puts a lot of effort into this and I did send out a report I think yesterday on the study and a few emails over the past couple of weeks about why we believe what was proposed was more equitable and fair. And that's not to say there could be other changes. I think the last time I was in front of this body, we discussed a more in-depth review that will be coming this summer and into the fall for the next budget season that might make more adjustments. But for the immediate fairness and equity in the groups of the department heads, These were the three that the Collins Center represented as the ones that we should adjust first. And the adjustments were a recommendation that they all equally move up to CAF systems. And where they lie before the adjustment, is now we're just trying to get them aligned with other like department heads. So it's hard to explain what the differences are because they are very different positions, but we relied on the professionalism of the call-in center as well to help guide us in that change. And that's what was proposed to council. I apologize, I don't know the exact date. I do know it was a few weeks ago.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. President Bears. Oh, sorry, one second, Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: I apologize, Madam Vice President. Go ahead. This is something we've talked about over and over again, about retaining good employees. And when we looked at this compensation process, the question was, Is it a heavy lift for the city to bring everybody aligned so we can keep our best employees in their positions without fear of moving to different communities? And again, I think this is where I heard generalities that the call-in center, I didn't hear specifically that how you made the decision as the HR director in understanding this process. I still, you know, because I truly want to move forward with all three positions at the same level. I think that from, you know, the department heads that I've worked with, and I think my colleagues would attest that on our level, We're seeing that all three deserve equal and, if we could, more. But this is what's asked, so that's why I'm bringing this forward. So thank you, Madam Vice President.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. President Perez.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. I mean, one part of my concern here is that the report we got, I think, yesterday, and I don't know how much we're supposed to talk about it, but it has all of these three positions in the same tier, at the same level. So, I'm just not sure how the recommendation happened, I'm not sure. exactly what we mean by producing equity and what the questions at heart are there. And we also see for communication from the Board of Elections Commissioners specifically about the difference and that it didn't, there was a feeling of concern about continuity in the role and the fairness of the original proposed amendment. So we've heard a lot of different things and I'm still, to Councilor Scarpelli's point, not 100% sure how the initial recommendation was made. We just saw a different recommendation from the Collins Center that puts all of these three jobs in the same proposed new compensation and classification tier. So I'd just like to understand a little bit more why we're getting kind of the mixed signals from different folks involved in the process.
[Lisa Crowley]: With your permission, I can answer that.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Director Crowley, sure, go ahead.
[Lisa Crowley]: Sorry. So, yes, so the Collins Center put them in the same, I think it's C category, if I'm not mistaken. But what, it's C, I believe, right? believe in D and what yes what what you don't see is that there's proposed additional steps so we have two of those positions that the DEI director has been here for four years the veterans administrator a few years and our elections manager is the newest of the three. And although they're in the same group, they would fall on different steps within that new classification system for years of service, years of total service, and their job duties. So although they're in the same group, they'll move differently up the CAF system according to the years of service and everything else that they've put into moving forward in this position, in their position, sorry.
[Emily Lazzaro]: I'm confused about this because I thought that, I'm sorry, may I from the chair? I can't remember. Can you help me understand the difference between a CAF and the steps because I thought the CAF was the classification for the position in an ongoing manner and the steps are more to do with how many years you've been in the position.
[Lisa Crowley]: Yes, so the CAF is the actual, so the CAF would be the A, B, C, D, E, F letter. And then steps within the CAF, there would be step, say, right now, I think we have one through four on some, one through five, depending on what group you're in. But moving forward with the new system, everybody would have the same steps within those alphabetical CAFs. So there would be CAF B, step one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. say, if that's what we agreed to seven steps as we move forward. And every year, that person in that calf would move up a step every year as an increase until they got to top step. So there's steps within the calves, if that makes sense.
[Emily Lazzaro]: The director of veteran services, the election manager, and the director of DEI are all classified as D, grade D. So I guess that's where the confusion is coming in. Right.
[Lisa Crowley]: So they would all be D, but they would be in different steps within D. Right now, we don't have that system. We have a completely different system. So in order to get them where hopefully the new CAF system that we get to adopt, whether we do or not, I'm not positive yet. taking where they would be in this new CAF system and try to place them in the CAF system that we currently have, that's how we got those adjustments.
[Emily Lazzaro]: I'm going to go back to the Councilors. I have Councilor Tseng, then President Bears, and I will go from there. One second. Councilor Tseng?
[Justin Tseng]: To be honest, I'm befuddled. The city paid for a study, the study gave us an answer, and it seems like the original proposal we got ignored that. We have three positions that are in the same tier, but receiving, under that original proposal, receiving different treatment. I think, to be honest, I think this is a little bit simpler than we're making it out to be. I've heard the argument for waiting, that a broader review is coming, and we shouldn't get ahead of it. But I can't get past this idea that the proposal we were asked to approve wasn't really neutral, given the document that we got yesterday. It departed, in my understanding, it seems to have departed from the basis of the study. The amendment that we have right here that we're taking off the table is the thing that actually follows it. You can't, I just don't think you can commission a classification study to bring order to how we pay people and then ask the council to preserve a result that the study didn't recommend. I don't think that's protecting the integrity of the system. I think that's suggesting the opposite. These are people who have been here doing the work. Yes, some longer than others. They didn't design the compensation structure they were hired into. They just showed up and did the job. I just think they deserve to be paid according to the city's own analysis. And I think it's just as simple as that. We've also heard in this mix something to be said about gender. And, you know, I want to be sensitive to it, because it's true that a gender pay gap exists, even in this state, even in states as democratic and as blue as this one. But I find it slightly ironic that we're talking about a gender pay gap. And then at this last budget hearing last week, we heard about the way that City Hall, maybe even before this administration, has been contemplating pay rises, right? Where everyone's being compared to each other from where they were in the 1970s and the percentage rates they've gotten from there, not keeping in mind that in the 1970s, gender was a real problem in pay. And that's the reason why we have librarians and paraprofessionals that aren't being paid the way they are, and instead of treating that as a serious gender issue, we're, you know, picking at fine details here. Instead of treating the systemic problem, we're, you know, we're picking at straws here. I don't know. I mean, maybe I need it re-explained to me, but it just seems a little bit simpler than this.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to clarify, don't we have five steps in each CAF right now? Director Crowley?
[Lisa Crowley]: Director Crowley? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: So if these were all in the same CAF, then the steps could be different based on the service of the people in the positions currently?
[Lisa Crowley]: Correct.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. I feel like that so we can put them all in the same CAF because the, and I get it, maybe there's a couple more steps under the new system, but the study says they should all be in the same category and they're still under the current system, the ability to provide different, you know, address that some folks have been in service to the city longer than others. So I feel like we're in a good place by just putting all these positions in the same. classification because that's what the study says we should do. So that's just my opinion. I support the most. Has there been a motion? Sorry, I was out of the room for a second.
[Emily Lazzaro]: No, not yet.
[Zac Bears]: I would, a motion to approve for third reading.
[Emily Lazzaro]: On the motion of President Bears to approve the amendments, the personnel ordinance seconded by Councilor Callahan, we will continue discussing and take up that vote in a moment. Councilor Callahan?
[Anna Callahan]: I'm just going to summarize what I understand for folks who maybe weren't here at the last discussion, because the public's always listening, and I want to make sure folks, you know, listening online and here in the audience have an understanding. So there are three positions that are being recommended to move up the CAF system. CAF is like a governmental system that determines sort of ranges of pay. So every calf is a range of pay and within that range there are steps and those steps are related to how long you've been there primarily but possibly other things. So we were requested to move two people up to remove three different positions up to calves. in order to align with other cities, right, to make sure that our pay is commensurate with other cities so that we are able to retain people and hire good people, and we commissioned a study from the Collins Center, which is the sort of statewide expert in many things, including charters and studies like this. And they, we just got to look at this today, and, you know, I looked at it myself, and it does say that these three positions should all be within the same calf. And so what we were requested to do was to move each of them up two, which would put two of them in the same calf and one of them below that calf. And what we did, a few weeks ago was we said no we think they should all be in the same calf not even knowing that we were then going to receive an official study from the Collins Center that said they should all be in the same calf which is exactly what we passed. So we are now being asked to return one of those positions to the lower calf even though the Collins Center report says they should all be in the same calf. So I will admit to being aligned with my colleague, Councilor Zang, and being baffled, because it does seem that the report that we just received from the official statewide experts in this says that they should be in the same CAF, and that is what we are suggesting that we do. Thanks.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Madam Chief of Staff, I will, oh, sorry, Councilor Scarpelli, I'll take Councilor Scarpelli, and I'll come right to you. Sorry about that.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you so much. Again, I look at this in a different viewpoint because I have negotiated a municipal contract. I've worked and negotiated my own contract in my unit. It's different maybe with the unit, but we did a wage analysis in the community I work, and it reads exactly what we're seeing with the CAF. When it came to an equity piece, you're looking at equity for the people that have worked more years, they should be compensated for what they deserve. That's why the steps. Now, me, I fall into, we had four classifications when we started negotiations. Once we did this wage analysis, we then moved to five steps and then a 5A, so it was actually six steps. So six caps per se. So that's step. And then once it went in, then you started seeing the years of service where you fell in your step seven. So I'm 18 years of service. So I fell into the fifth, fifth block step 12, which is the highest step because he has a service. So we had employees that jumped $22,000 and we celebrated that as colleagues. I think that's important because everybody got what they deserved. And I think that's what this whole intent was, correct? Why we actually asked for this and why the city went forward with this, the administration went forward with this. So I don't see where lining everybody in the same calf, the position, the position goes to the calf and then the steps go for the individual. This isn't, to me, it's, When I met with our attorneys that were negotiating on our behalf and then with the city's attorneys that went through this process, there was never any questions on that end that I'm hearing from our end. So that's what's so confusing. And again, it would be a lot easier if I had this question and I went over to that corner office and said, quick question. This is what I got from our HR director who's not legally poised to answer any questions legally, but we don't have that. So again, I just highlight another reason why that position of the city solicitor is so important, but I would move forward with what my colleagues have stressed that we line everybody up in the same calf. And again, for the community, this isn't hundreds of thousands of dollars that we're shifting here. This is a couple of dollars. It's not, this isn't crazy saying that we're going to jeopardize our budget now. I want everybody in the community to understand this. it's only maybe a couple of thousand dollars nothing that's going to be that drastic that was saying well we're going to lose this we're going to lose that i don't think this is a heavy lift so with that thank you madam vice chair
[Emily Lazzaro]: You're so welcome. I forget which number that mic is. What is that? That's nine. Thank you.
[Nina Nazarian]: Madam Chief of Staff. Yes. Thank you. I appreciate that, Chair Lazzaro. So just as a quick question. Some of these things have already been said, but if I may. This is an interim step that we're attempting to take with the classification and compensation adjustment. As has been presented, this is something that we're trying to do before we have the opportunity to do a full implementation of what is before you all. The information that was contained in the communication that was sent by Director Crowley is the same scale and same groupings that was sent when you all receive the job description. So this information has kind of always been there. I know that was a lot of information, but this information has always been there. We don't deny that they're all proposed as group D. The difference here is we are taking a group of department heads that we have identified as especially as especially. wrong on the scale at this point in time, and we're pulling them out. And by doing so, there are other positions and other people, not people, because this isn't about people, other positions that are in the CAF system that probably need some review as well. And we've stated that in this process. We've indicated that this is specific to department heads right now, because we are taking department heads and prioritizing them. So it's important to recognize that this change that the council is proposing, this amendment that the council has voted in the first reading, if adopted in the third reading, would actually result in greater inequities to other positions inside the organization. Another point is, because I'm ultimately going to ask you all to maybe consider tabling this again until June 23rd so we can discuss it further. I don't really enjoy that for you all or for, I think, Director Crowley. There's, I personally have been approached by our elections manager on this very subject, and I have spoken with him directly on this subject. He's asked for specific data and information, and I have provided that to him, and perhaps that data and information needs to be provided to this council to express the point here. So, you know, perhaps, and then I think the last thing I'll say is if, the elections manager position is adjusted to a higher CAF, it will actually result in a lower increase to the elections manager. And I was transparent with the elections manager about that because of the simple realities of the discussions that you've all had with regard to the steps. So I would ask that either the council approve this as originally proposed by the mayor or perhaps table it for another two weeks and hopefully we can come to a resolution or perhaps we're still at an impasse and the council votes as it's proposing to do so this evening. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Can I ask you why, how, can I ask how it would result in a lower salary?
[Nina Nazarian]: because of the way that the existing steps fall.
[Emily Lazzaro]: So he would go down a step?
[Nina Nazarian]: No.
[Emily Lazzaro]: He would have worked here for less time?
[Nina Nazarian]: No. Unfortunately, the way that CAF, if I'm not mistaken, and I'd have to refresh my memory, if I'm not mistaken, based on the way that the top step in CAF 14 works, it would be between two steps. And our responsibility is to implement as equitably as possible. So we would have to pick one of those two steps. And that would be the result. Even the elections manager himself has stated that he understands if that falls that way.
[Emily Lazzaro]: So if it's not, no, I'm sorry. If it's not about people, it's about positions, then why do you have to compare the elections manager with the other two positions? Why don't you just give a person a salary that they deserve. It doesn't, I don't, I don't understand. It's about the position. It's just about setting up the position so that it's equal with other cities. So if all of these, if we were told by, okay. I can't, I can't. Matt Leming has his hand raised. So I'm going to, thank you. I'm going to go to Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Yeah, I think that my view on this is that this is sort of the latest in a more general pattern of HR issues just not being uh, presented to the council in a very. Comprehensive or or clear way, um, I, I mean, I, I think even even something like. Giving us a, like, presenting a slide deck or something like that, just sort of explaining these these issues and, uh, and, uh. greater detail would be useful for decision making in the future. I kind of the pattern here is something something's passed a council. You know, we've gone through several rocky elections in the past, and we've had like a lot of turnover with the elections manager and lost a lot of money as a result of that. And so we want to retain the elections manager. And, you know, the way to do that is to offer them more money. And so we go towards that towards, you know, trying to increase retention in the city, which is a pretty big issue. And then, you know, we and then we get pushback from that. And we asked why. And I'll just be very honest, like a lot of the answers that we've received to that have been have been a little bit convoluted. And I think that even just like a slightly more formal presentation to council with the administration explaining their reasoning in a slightly more comprehensive manner would really help to avoid these conversations during live meetings in the future.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Councilor Malauulu. One second. OK. Thank you.
[Liz Mullane]: You know I'm trying to take in all this information and obviously getting this study about where all of these different positions fit in. I agree with Councilor Leming. The fact that we're talking about them all being in the same CAF level, and then there's different steps, but no one's actually identified what step each one of them are actually seated in within these different levels. I just, I can't see how we're saying that we're being equitable by now not allowing someone who we've just identified in the same category that we don't want to approve that when we have the study that says that he that this person's position should be in that same D category. So I don't know if Director Crowley if you can address that at all but I just don't understand. It seems like we are creating inequity if we don't have them all in here at this point in time. And I don't know if it's been talked through with any lawyers or anything about this too because I just feel like we're setting ourselves up if we're literally looking at the files here and then saying that we're going to leave one out over equity issues.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Director Crowley, are you able to address that question?
[Lisa Crowley]: Yeah, hello. Can you hear me? You're on. Oh, sorry. I couldn't unmute myself. Sorry. Oh, that's OK. so i think um chief of staff nazarian just kind of explained it and again if if you need further explanation i'd be happy to come up with um some kind of proposal to you so that you can it you could um get a clearer picture it is a lot of information that we had to take in it's not that we're trying to hold back a position. What we're trying to do is take the three that we've identified as being more of an outlier. There are others that we will have to re-evaluate, as I said earlier, in our summer-fall evaluation. And that doesn't mean that this position may not again be adjusted in the spring our next budget season what we're trying to do is is close the gap that we have right now in the inequity in in some of our excuse me department head positions and hopefully we'll be able to do a better job over the summer and fall to get any other inequities that may be prominent but what we are trying to do is just close the gap as best we can moving forward until we do that more comprehensive review with our administration. So I'm not, I don't want, I don't want anybody to think that we're holding back the elections. The director of elections, I believe, is the new title and trying to put that position in a different light. We're just trying to close the gap as we move forward in a more comprehensive review of our own staff in our own system. Our CAF system now is not comparable to the CAF system that the comp and class is proposing. So we're trying to do our best to take what the new system would look like and fit around a square peg and a round hole type of thing. We're trying to adjust it as best we can on our current CAF system. Other than that, it would need to be something else that we could discuss. But to try to explain that, that's the analogy I think we're trying to do is fit a square peg and a round hole until we can get the new CAF system in place for everybody. And there may be more realignments that we have to do.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Okay, thank you. Councilor Callahan. One sec, George. Okay, point of information from Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: I apologize. You're presenting the caps to us. Now you're saying you're not prepared. This is so confusing that it's getting worse. I don't get it.
[Emily Lazzaro]: I honestly don't think we are confused, guys. I think we're all saying the same thing over and over again. And we have all the information. We've received all the information a few times. We just keep asking the same questions and getting the same answers. And it doesn't make sense, but that doesn't mean we don't understand it. It just doesn't make sense. That's a different thing. Councilor Callahan, we can say it, you know, we can say it all night.
[Anna Callahan]: Councilor Callahan. I just wanted to make a couple comments. Number one, I do want us to be careful. I'm not sure exactly about, like, personnel matters. These are individual people, not, like, entire departments, and so, like, If we lay out exactly what, you know, step and what calf and whatever. I'm not sure that we do that in open meeting. Maybe it's fine. I don't really know. Great. So but my other thing was it does sound as if this is time toward the budget. And now we're being asked to wait until after the budget, which I'm a little disinclined to do. That seems like that's maybe another year of it not being where the Collins Center said that it should be. And, you know, I think all of these positions are important. I think all of these positions should be paid commensurate to other cities and according to the study that we just received today.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: It really strikes me that this is more like putting a square peg in a rectangular hole. It doesn't fit perfectly, but it does fit. It fits in there. They're not that different. I think what's difficult, I think you're completely right. I think we actually understand the situation. I think where the answer is falling short is that we really don't have an idea of what these supposed inequities are, like the words kind of being thrown out there and bandied about, but it's not entirely, it's not concrete, right? It's never been explained to us how, what exactly is this concrete inequity. I think the other thing that we're lacking, both in the documents that we've received from HR and through the comments tonight and at previous meetings, is if this is an interim step, then what's the final plan? Like, what does that whole process look like? I think it kind of sounds like we're being asked to trust the process without being told what the process is. And I think that's difficult to stomach, especially when It's our job as a legislative branch to provide oversight and a check on the executive branch, right? That's our job. It's in the charter. It's in your fifth grade civics textbook. That's our job. I also, I think, am worried, and this is, I honestly, a place for, like, I wish we had a city solicitor for this. I'm worried that citing a protected characteristic as a basis for not giving someone the calf increase to that level that is stated in the classification study, I'm worried that opens legal challenges for us. Like, that's a serious concern. The decision, you know, it seemed like a protected characteristic was was at least sold to us as a reason why we should adopt their plan and not ours.
[Matt Leming]: I'm not totally I don't think I have it completely right, the point of calf 15 could potentially lead to a lower salary than calf 14 initially I, my guess is that it has something to do with longevity. in the position, which still wouldn't, I mean, that still wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to me because, you know, I understand, like, you know, that somebody at the top of CAF 14 could make a higher salary than somebody at the bottom of CAF 15. But I don't see how that would end up affecting the place that we end up putting the elections manager in there, considering that they've been in that position for like they've worked in the city for as long as they've worked at the city. So I'm not I'm not 100 percent understanding that. But either way, if raises in CAF are related to tenure in the position, I imagine that the elections manager would see would see more long-term appeal in CAF 15 anyway, just because they would get a higher salary just by remaining at the city for a longer period of time, which is what we want. So, I'm still comfortable going to going to cafe team but I would just like to, you know, repeat, repeat the request that if, you know, if the administration is, you know, frustrated that councils not not listening to them or not really understanding, then just. I just encourage you to put a little bit more thought into how these concepts are presented in the future and just put more effort into like, you know, explaining what exactly is in these studies, going into details, just, you know, breaking it down like that would really help both us and the public who watches these meetings instead of having these like you know, he's down the rabbit hole asides like we've had tonight. Anyway, but that's my answer. I'd be comfortable moving forward with this tonight.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Motion approved for third reading.
[Emily Lazzaro]: On the motion of President Bears, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, will you please call the roll?
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan. 7 in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Hearings 26108, petition for a grant of location, National Grid, 3960 and 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway. Petition for a grant of location, National Grid, North Andover, Massachusetts, petition for a four-inch underground conduit on Commercial Street across the road between 3960 and 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway. You are hereby notified by order of the Medford City Council that the Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, and via Zoom on Tuesday, June 9th at 7 p.m. A link to be posted no later than Friday, June 5th, 2026, on a petition by Massachusetts Electrical Company, DBA National Grid, for permission to install 4-inch underground electric conduit between 3960 and 4,000 Mystic Valley Parkway. Wherefore it requests that after due notice and hearing as provided by law, it will be granted a location for and permission to install four inch underground electrical conduit between 3960 and 4,000 Mystic Valley Parkway, JO number 31206725, originally dated April 6th, 2026, revised May 1st, 2026, received and filed in the office of the city clerk on May 19th, 2026. The following recommendations from the engineering division are, One, granted location is limited to two four-inch new underground electrical conduit poles. Sorry, Owen. Two four-inch new underground electrical conduit bank in this commercial street from two joint owned utility poles P1975 and P3537 located within the cement concrete sidewalk at 3960 Mystic Valley Parkway on commercial street across the roadway to the new driveway entrance for Madera Mystic Apartments at 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway as depicted on sketch. Contractor shall notify DIGSAFE and obtain all applicable permits, including a public right-of-way occupancy permit pursuant to section 74-141 of the city ordinances. No other utility structures or any other appurtenances will be adversely impacted. National grid will mark all sewer, water, and drain lines. The placement of the conduit must provide at least 18 inches of separation from other utilities. The cement concrete sidewalk restoration shall be done at the time of installation in conjunction with the engineering division. Any concrete sidewalk damage during this work must be replaced in kind and cleanly cut at the joints. Temporary patching using bituminous concrete pavement will not be permitted. Call 781-393-2425 for any accommodations and aids. Richard Alicio Jr. Acting City Clerk. Is there a representative from National Grid here? Please raise your hand on Zoom. We got Kim. and Ruben, Cam and Ruben, if you would like to present on this proposal, and then I'll open the public hearing.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, thank you. Good night. I'm Ruben. I've got nothing more to add. Just thank the project for the role.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Great. I will open the public hearing. Public hearing is open. Cam and Ruben, are you in favor of this petition?
[SPEAKER_17]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Is there anyone else who would like to speak either in favor and opposition or otherwise regarding this petition for grant of location? All right. Seeing none, do we have any questions from members of the city council? All right, declaring the public hearing closed. Is there a motion? Oh, Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: Motion to approve with the following conditions from the engineering department.
[Zac Bears]: All right, on the motion of Councilor Callahan to approve with all of the conditions of the engineering division, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Milley? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. And President Pierce?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm informed of the negative. The motion passes. Petitions, Presentations, and Similar Papers 26109, Petition for Amendment to a Common Fixer's License, Extended Hours, Scoopology, LLC, DBA, Coldstone Creamery. There is a request for, great, if you could come to the podium. We have a request from Scoopology, LLC, Coldstone Creamery to extend their hours to from 11 p.m. to 1 a.m., Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. This would be during their summer schedule, Memorial Day to Labor Day. They're requesting the extended hours to accommodate late-night customer demand and better serve the community. As a dessert-focused business with minimal noise and traffic impacts, Coldstone will continue to operate responsibly while supporting local economic activity and customer convenience. And we do have a representative here if you want to share a little bit more about your request. And then I'll go to councilors for any questions.
[OLDneqaxKDk_SPEAKER_11]: Members of Council, we got this story about three months ago where you approved us for the Common Mixtures License. And I spoke with you guys that I might be back for this. So we are getting a lot of demand between 10 to 11 p.m. right now, especially with the Doordash and Uber Eats so much active in the Medford and surrounding areas. People don't have a place to go to for ice cream. The only place they have open is, I think, Scoop and Scootry. That's in Cambridge or Arlington. They don't have any other options around Medford as of today. So we calculated the impact. This will also help us hire an additional person, because this will increase about 42 store hours. So that means we can hire one more full-time or two part-time employees. And we'll also ensure that all the students who are working with us, they wrap up their shifts by 9 PM, usually. If anybody have any questions to that, I can dig them. And also, the Long Cross Bar that's just across us is open until 1 a.m. at night already on Fridays and Saturdays, I believe. So, yeah, that's it.
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. I'll go to Vice President Lazzaro and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I am almost always in favor places staying open later in Medford. We have a history of closing restaurants and bars early. But I think it's good for business and especially good for us. And it's good for bringing in revenue. And in the summer, an ice cream store should stay open late because it's a place that teenagers have to hang out. That is a safe place to go and a fun place to go. And I think that's wonderful. So motion to approve. Thank you for coming. And I'm sorry that you're here so late.
[Zac Bears]: We'll be here a lot later, so it could be worse. I understand. I'll go to, thank you, Council, Vice President Lazar. I'll go to Councilor Schapiro. Thank you, Mr. President. Licensing, permitting, and signs.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the request, and I think that we should move forward. But would it be much of a difference if we stay consistent at 1 o'clock? I think the 2 o'clock, it just For any teenager, I know my son's 23, and I don't like him being out at 2 o'clock. So for some reason, I think being consistent for that neighborhood with different restaurants, I think staying at 1 o'clock. And then I know this is only seasonal. If the petitioner doesn't mind, that's not a big deal. For those three days, instead of staying open till 2 o'clock, just to be consistent. And then I would recommend that we do put some sort evaluation like we normally do, obviously not 30 days, 60 days, but maybe a two week review. I did talk to the code enforcement officer and he never had any issues. There's never been an issue, but being that there are apartments upstairs and this is something new, I think that we should be cognizant of that too. So whatever way we go, I think we should at least put in some sort of review within two or three weeks at the beginning of the summer. I know this ends at Labor Day, but I would request that, Mr. President. And then, like I said, to be consistent, I would like to stay open just until 1 o'clock.
[OLDneqaxKDk_SPEAKER_11]: If I may just add something to that.
[George Scarpelli]: Yes, go ahead.
[OLDneqaxKDk_SPEAKER_11]: So, Council Member, we actually had a discussion internally for that as well. So, I think we are aligned with what you are saying. We were hoping just to get Common Pictures approved till 2 a.m., so we don't have to come back if you want us to open later. But as of now, when we spoke with our employees as well, a lot of them take the MBTA to go back. And the last buses are around 1.15 to 1.20 to 1.30, right? So we have been cognizant of that. And our plan is initially to go to midnight and then to 1. But in the rare cases, we were hoping that if we stay open, it probably will be just the family operating. And we'll let all the people who take the MBTA leave by 1, 1.15. We get an ice cream shop, so it doesn't take like one hour for us to close. They can do majority of the closing activities from 12 to 1. And thereby, they can leave around 1.15 to 1.20. Thereby, they can catch up their buses or wherever they need to go.
[George Scarpelli]: Right. This is hours of operations. So you operate until 1, you close the door, then you take 15 to 20 minutes to clean, that's acceptable.
[OLDneqaxKDk_SPEAKER_11]: We usually complete all the cleaning activities and everything because people, we, last order is going to be around 12.45 for online.
[George Scarpelli]: Yeah.
[OLDneqaxKDk_SPEAKER_11]: So, there are not a lot of people who walk in, it's just more like the online orders.
[George Scarpelli]: So, are you all right just being consistent at one o'clock throughout? We are okay with that, yes. Okay. So, if we could move that, Mr. President, with a three-week review.
[Zac Bears]: All right. A three-week, 21-day? 21-day. All right. And that just means that if there's any complaints in the next 21 days, we might have to invite you back and talk about it. Great. All right. So on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to, well, Councilor Scarpelli has an amendment that this be 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. Monday through Sunday. So you'd be able to stay open until 1 a.m. every day and that we attach a 21-day review. So that's the amendment. Vice President Lazzaro, I believe you moved to approve. Are you okay with that amendment? All right, on the motion to approve as amended by Vice President, the motion to approve by Vice President Lazzaro as amended by Councilor Scarpelli and seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Oh. Okay.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll turn on the microphone if you want. I was just saying, if we table the budget, we'll have a place for ice cream after. But I think seriously, this is great for the neighborhood. I live around there, spend a lot of time around there, would love a late night sweet treat. I also know from living there, there's already noise from the MBTA at those times. And which is, I think most residents have learned to live with it. And I don't think an ice cream shop adds much to that. So I'm grateful for that. I would have supported the 2 a.m. to be honest, but I'm happy that we have a good deal here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Kelly. Councilor Leming. Yes. Councilor Malling. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng, Vice President Lazzaro, and President Pierce.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Thank you. And good luck with the late hours. Motions orders and resolutions 26 1 1 0 offered by Councilor Tseng resolution regarding the MBTA's proposed amendments to the bus network redesign for Medford. The MBTA's proposed amendments to the bus network redesign stated as proposal to approve Medford access which presents three options for modifying routes 80, 94 and 96 and transit connections along Boston Avenue. The MBTA has a public comment period through the summer and a virtual public meeting on June 15th. Be it resolved the City Council will inform Medford residents about the proposed changes and the public comment process and will solicit and compile resident feedback. Be it further resolved the City Council ask the administration to inform Medford residents through the public outreach channels of the city including social media, city website and any other available means. And be it further resolved that the City Council and administration work to invite the MTA MBTA to schedule an in-person meeting in Medford in collaboration with the city and urge the MBTA to ensure that public engagement on these amendments is accessible to residents who lack reliable internet access and to residents who do not speak English, including through in-person opportunities and the provision of language access services.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. A few years ago when the MBTA was exploring the bus network redesign plan, the better bus plan as they call it, what we did as a council was we sat down together. We had, I think, a committee of the whole over the summer where residents were able to send us feedback for the MBTA that we then passed along to the MBTA. And through that we saved bus route 80, we got higher frequencies on some routes, and we got some better routing as well. Now the MBTA is revisiting the bus network redesign plan, in particular around Hillside and West Medford. These plans, I think the proposals writ large either make no big effect to Medford service or actually might strengthen Medford service, although if you're living near George Street, their three proposals, the third proposal might cut some bus service for you. I just want to let residents know that this is happening. The MBTA has said that they're soliciting feedback over the summer. If you want to learn more about the plans, there is a meeting on Monday evening. It's on Zoom. You have to register on the MBTA website. about, and they're just going to do an info session about what the different proposals they're looking at are. I've also gone through and put together a kind of a guide to what the plans mean for Medford, comparing the frequencies on the timetables right now that are listed on the MBTA website to the frequencies that are proposed the MBTA has a kind of like a map where you can see the proposed frequencies. And you can kind of go through and see on each corridor, on each route, what that, what changes mean for residents. I know we all talk to residents, and so this might come up, and I feel like this document might help us kind of explain this to residents as well. I think in addition, I'd suggest that Councilors write in to the MBTA with their thoughts on strengthening Medford bus service. We have a chance to get Route 94 back. And we have a chance to actually get more coverage in Medford, which is really nice. So I would suggest that. Our schedule is a little busier this year, so I'm not sure if committing to the whole is the best idea this year. Though, I'm happy for Councilors to provide feedback about where to go next with this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Councilor Stank, for putting this together. I think this was when they made those changes, the biggest issue was that people weren't prepared, right? So I think this is a great step. But I also think that we have a communications team here at City Hall that I would amend that if you don't mind, that we have the comms team send this out to these neighborhoods, either with a robocall letting them know that There is a meeting that's happening tomorrow and that in the fact that where we can find this information, whether it's on Council's site or that we share this with the comms team so they can put it on the city site so people can get involved and invested in this process. Because again, when we don't inform our residents and it comes back to us, it makes us look bad. So I really appreciate the hard work and I appreciate the way you broke it down because I think anybody can understand it. So thank you, because I did. So which is great. I know Councilor Leming would love to hear that. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Mullan.
[Liz Mullane]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng for bringing this to everyone's attention as well and pointing this out. I think it's really important that We try to get this spread as far and wide as we can so that people are able to weigh in on it, especially since it will be impactful for so many people to understand and be able to weigh in on. Is it something that we might be able to also put in within the newsletter, be able to share that as well as like another opportunity within that grouping to be able to share this information? I know that won't be in time for this meeting on Monday. support Councilor Scarpelli's suggestion of trying to get some sort of messaging out in advance, but would also like to see if we can include it within some of the avenues we have as well.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the Council? On the motion approved by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, we'll go to public participation. If you could share your name and I will hit the timer. You'll have three minutes.
[Simon Alcindor]: Simon Alcindor, 404 Tainter Street. I was just wondering, I know you mentioned the whole meeting, was that after the final BNRD mappers release? Sorry. Like the one that this is amending, basically.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, yeah. This is after that. So they're essentially, through the chair, they're essentially re-looking at their plan for the hillside and West Medford area.
[Simon Alcindor]: Yeah. No, I was wondering if the committee, the whole meeting was after that. Sorry. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: I didn't hear you clearly. The one that we held last year.
[Justin Tseng]: The one a few years ago.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it was after they had released their initial plan, and we got comments on the initial plan, and then submitted those to the MBTA. They have now taken those in, and they are saying, we're gonna change our plan. I think that's the sequence of events. Yes.
[Simon Alcindor]: Yeah, I was just wondering if it, because I know that there's a couple of other things that changed, if I remember correctly, with the final plan, such as I know the, I believe Route 96, that's also when Route 96 got rerouted to go up through, Yeah, Winthrop Circle, I think it is. So I think that this could also be a good opportunity to look at things like that that have also changed, that are also changing, and for people to provide input on that. Because I remember one of my frustrations is that there wasn't any sort of way to actually ask questions about that, especially in relation to, what is the city doing about that? Because, for example, with sending the 96 up to Winthrop Circle, that's a place where there's frequently a lot of traffic. So I have concerns about that. Additionally, I think especially just since 94 was brought up, I think that the 94, like, I understand why that was a thing that was on the chopping block, just from the perspective that it's a very redundant route. And I also think, just going back to the comprehensive plan, that it is also a good opportunity, perhaps, to use, I know there was a proposal in the comprehensive plan to have feeder buses within Medford, and I think that that would be, Perhaps something that we could also explore if that's something I could also like fit into what we're talking about here Yeah, oh, yeah, that's it All right.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you Councilor Tseng oh, no I was just wondering what the council thought would be the best way forward, but it sounds like we have a motion to approve Yes, I mean if you want to
[Zac Bears]: try to hold the meeting before June 23rd meeting. I'll have to double check the schedule. And then we have one week in July, one week in August. So those would be the options.
[Justin Tseng]: We can take a look at that. And we should be sure to invite the MBTA folks great to that.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I would talk to Todd about it. And maybe even talk to Todd and see what the best dates are. If the MBTA is willing to come in July, maybe June's too soon. Or June or July, and then we'll pick a date so that they can actually be there to hear from folks. All right, on the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Kelly? Councilor Leming?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Millenni? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Vice President Lazzaro and President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. Communications from the Mayor, 26-111 submitted by Mayor Brian O'Connor and Board and Commission Appointments, Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board, Lisa Ann Davidson, reappointment as the chair. We have a resume, we have a reappointment request, we have a recommendation. Is there a motion? There's what? There's no? What do you mean? Just motion to approve? Yeah, on the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Malauulu. Yes. Councilor Schapelle. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. Vice President Lazzaro. Yes. And President Pierce.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, having the affirmative and the negative, the motion passes. 26-112, submitted by the Mayor, food truck permit are in the below. On behalf of the below entities, I respectfully submit to the City Council the following request for food truck permit in the City of Medford. In addition to Council approval, vendors are required to adhere to Health Department food and safety requirements. This is for the Medford Square Fest, Brews, Bites and Beets. events in the Clibbership Pop-Up Park. We have Tandor and Curry for June 13th and August 1st and Revelry for July 18th, July 25th and August 8th from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. This is for the food truck permits.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I did, this is something that I think this is the reason why this process goes to the council. And although it's a great event and we love it, I think that I have stood strong on the effort to protect our brick and mortar businesses. And talking to some restaurant owners in Medford Square, they didn't know anything about this. And you're talking about their key lunchtime on a Saturday and how that affects them. Some of the questions they asked is if they were invited for the process, taking turns to either run the beer or set up a restaurant, a mobile restaurant there so they can benefit from being a brick and mortar building and support our brick and mortar buildings and giving them the opportunity to find a way to sustain their businesses. I think that I would support this, but that hasn't been done. I think the food truck process is something that it's innovative, it's great, but it's something that I have to stand strong with my convictions in protecting our brick and mortar businesses and share my displeasure in not supporting this for the fact that this process wasn't discussed with our brick and mortar. We talk about the open storefronts and why it's a problem. This is part of the problem. When you're not supporting the storefronts for other entities, it comes full circle. So I would even ask if we could to, until our next meeting, just approve the next few and at least try to find a way that maybe giving other, giving the brick and mortar an opportunity to come in and provide the beer or the food for the other events. But I hope we can consider that as amendment that we just approve the 13th. And then when they come back to us, is it the 13th? I'm looking at Friday. I'm sorry, Mr. President, give me one second. Is that the Friday, the 13th?
[Zac Bears]: Friday, June 13th or maybe that's Saturday. Yeah, is it June?
[George Scarpelli]: Saturday, yeah. I just lost my computer.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's June 13th, July 18th, July 25th, August 1st, and August 8th.
[George Scarpelli]: So if there's a way we can just approve the first few events, Mr. President, and then talking business owners from the brick and mortar in our chamber that they reach out to the administration to see how they can possibly be the vendor or share that vendor opportunity. So if my colleagues could could support that, I would appreciate it, because I don't want to say no, especially for the one that I believe is this Saturday. I don't want to hold that one up, but I think that, again, the lack of communication to our business district, from what I gather, is really hurting. And then, again, if it doesn't support the brick and mortar and they move forward, they don't want to move forward with any support, then I think that we can vote on our next meeting for the rest of the summer. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? I heard essentially a motion to approve the June 13th food truck and table the other ones, so we'll have to take that as two motions.
[George Scarpelli]: I would appreciate it then we can, if we don't hear it, Mr. President, any concerns with the brick and mortar. Moving forward, we can approve the whole rest of the summer if we can.
[Zac Bears]: All right. So we have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to approve the food truck permit for June 13th, 2026. Is there a second? Seconded by Councilor Mullane. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Mullen? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. And President Pierce?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. There's a motion to table the remaining items until our next regular meeting. Second. By Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Kelly? No. Councilor Leming?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Malate? Yes. Councilor Scapelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. And President Fierce?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 7, the affirmative, 9, the negative, the motion passes. 26113, submitted by Mayor Brian O'Connor, appropriation of retained earnings. Dear President Bears and city councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the appropriation of retained earnings from the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund in the amount of $5,500,000.00 for the purpose of undertaking design, construction, and ancillary functions and costs for water main replacement projects on the following streets, including but not limited to Brewster Road, Capon Street, Governors Avenue, Roosevelt Circle, and Sherwood Road. The balance and the retained earnings in the water sewer enterprise fund before this vote is $10,591,021. City Engineer Wertele is available to answer any questions. Mr. City Engineer.
[Owen Wartella]: Hello, how are you all. Thanks for having me. So this is basically the appropriations for the remainder of this year's work, and the design for the continuation of our five year plan to replace water mains in and around some. low zone, low water pressure zone, high lead level areas. And I had come back, I came back a few months ago to get the design. This is for the construction costs and the designs for multiple projects moving forward for the rest of the year.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Could you move the microphone up? It's hard to hear you. You might just have to put it on the, or you can go down. If you want a spot, that's fine. Hello. I'm not. Your call. There's an easier. Maybe better for all of us. I just don't like hearing my voice. Well we need to. I saw some some faces in the back saying I'm not sure if I can hear him.
[Owen Wartella]: So we heard it all.
[Zac Bears]: It's fine. OK. It went through the zoom. Great. These are for the projects that we fund a design for for areas where we have low pressure water mains and high levels.
[Matt Leming]: Correct.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Do you have any questions from members of the council. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you. Mr. Vitale, this is perfect. I appreciate this work and I don't move forward. While I have you here, I just had two questions that residents brought up. I don't know if it's our ordinance, but I guess residents were asking questions about if they're doing work I guess, over a certain amount, like doing the kitchens over? Is it our ordinance that we have to change that tells them that they have to do their water main?
[Owen Wartella]: So that's something different than what we're discussing here. You're talking about... Right.
[George Scarpelli]: You can talk about this offline if you want. Sure.
[Owen Wartella]: You're talking about water service lines, like the direct line from the main to the house. And it's under the water sewer regulations that if you are doing a large renovation to your project over $30,000, then you need to identify the material if it is not, if it is lead or if our records indicate that it's lead or that it's indicated as unknown.
[George Scarpelli]: Okay. So that's, that's, that's not with our ordinance. That's something that. Correct. That's the water and sewer regulations. All right. So I have other questions, but if Kim will talk offline. Sure. I think that, because I've, I get the questions weekly. I'm just not going to get a permit, and Mike, you can't do that, but these are the issues. I appreciate that, but I move forward with the motion, Mr. President.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. So I would love just that. I know we have a lot on our agenda today but just a quick update on sort of where we stand like this is going to use half of the budget that is in the retained dirt balance for tenderings in the water enterprise fund. And I know that we have, you know, like all of our water mains are 130, over 100 years old. And we are, you know, making sort of a plan for how to deal with that. And so I would love to just have a very, if you can be concise.
[Owen Wartella]: I will try to be quick on this.
[Anna Callahan]: How does this fit into that?
[Owen Wartella]: It does. A year ago we did a water main analysis and we had our consultants create a five year plan that actually stretches out to 15 years but we want to like revisit every five years. The retained earnings are currently at around 10 plus million dollars. They made suggestions to the Water Commission to increase rates over the series of years slowly to keep the retained earnings at a healthy level so that we can come in do the about five to seven million dollars of water main work every year for the foreseeable future. And so we've funded it. We've and now we're just allocating the funds to do the work. Thank you so much. You're welcome so much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just from a kind of fiscal perspective, we're talking about spending about half of the retained earnings on this.
[Owen Wartella]: Correct. So we actually have a water main analysis that actually shows that with the increased rate, we'll actually have a, we'll maintain a healthy balance through the next 15 years.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Owen Wartella]: Right. But I mean, granted, that's also up to the Water Commission's approval. every year, and they review the rates. And so these are just retained earnings of those rates.
[Zac Bears]: Right. I guess my question is more... So you've created a rate schedule out many years. If the Water and Sewer Commission approves that every year, you're feeling good.
[Owen Wartella]: Then we will have enough money to fund all the projects that we need to do over the next 15 years with, and then at the end of those 15 years, we'll still have a very healthy balance that will never be dipping below. We'll never go down to like 2 million or 4 million. Like it's supposed to like stay and maintain at the appropriate level.
[Zac Bears]: And you're targeting around 5 to 6 million, is that appropriate level?
[Owen Wartella]: I think so. I think it was a little bit more than that, though.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So you're expecting we'll get maybe a little bit of replenishment this year.
[Owen Wartella]: I think it's replenished in the summer, like fiscal year.
[Zac Bears]: Right, at the end of the fiscal year. Okay. So we're not lopping off a chunk without a plan.
[Owen Wartella]: This time next month, we'll have another $5 or $6, $7 million on top.
[Zac Bears]: All right, to work on the major projects. And I guess my only other question on that is, over those 15 years, when you say we'll have for all the projects we need to do, could you talk a little bit more about what we need to do and why and how you prioritize that?
[Owen Wartella]: So in this case, these funds are allocated for water main replacement. We have about 80 miles of water main that's very aged, very old. Some are from the 1890s. Some, most are from the 1920s. And we are trying to upgrade from usually 6 inch to 8 inch or 8 inch to 12 inch. And upgrade our infrastructure so that they're more reliable. We don't have as many breaks. We don't have to dig into the road as many times and have a pothole or, you know, a patch that, you know, leaves a bump. So these are the, like, the last steps. before we can come in the following year and then repave the road, redo the sidewalks. So once we do this, then we'll come back the next year with different appropriate funds and refinish the road.
[Zac Bears]: All right. So this will do the underground work and then it'll be the next year the above ground work.
[Owen Wartella]: Funding approved.
[Zac Bears]: If the funding is there and approved. All right. So I just wanted to make sure. And I guess my last question is, you've done an analysis of the water system. Over the next 15 years, we've looked at the street system. We've had you and Tim, and we've talked about the roads and the sidewalks plenty of times. And we know that the streets and sidewalks fall into kind of these condition buckets. I'm guessing something similar is for the water and sewer main.
[Owen Wartella]: Yeah, but it's not based on condition or age. I mean, it is, but it's more safety-based, more like if there's a fire and we're pulling from a hydrant, is there enough flow? Is there enough water pressure? There are some low-pressure zones, particularly in the areas that we're currently working on. So we're trying to focus on the connectors first, and then once we have these main like arterial connectors to the substrates of the neighborhood, water pressure can get higher for safety reasons.
[Zac Bears]: All right. But basically, I guess, maybe I'm not articulating my question quite. I think I'm asking you to answer a complicated question in simple terms. But over the next 15 years, how much better is our water and sewer main going to get? And how much deferred maintenance are we going to address? And what will be the condition of the system at the end of that 15-year period?
[Owen Wartella]: Our intent is to, we won't be able to replace all 80 miles in the 15 years, but we'll be slowly moving in the right direction where a backlog isn't going to, we're not going to be falling off the edge of a cliff. We've got a plan, we're actively doing it.
[Zac Bears]: By the end of the period, much of our backlog will be gone?
[Owen Wartella]: I hope so. I don't like to look too far. I'd like to kind of keep it realistic. Let's look five years in the future. Plan for 15 in the long term. But realistically, a lot of things can change in five years. So let's just keep it reasonable and level-headed at that point.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I appreciate it. It sounds like there's been a lot of thought that's gone into this. There is.
[Owen Wartella]: This is the second. We're going from year one to year two with this appropriations and we plan to keep doing it for the next three years. Someone tells me to stop. I want to get them all done.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Yeah. All right. Councilor Malauulu.
[Liz Mullane]: Thank you. Just a quick question. Just high level, what is the communication strategy or how are we letting these residents know when this is impacting them?
[Owen Wartella]: So we have, sorry, are you good? So we've done kind of like an overhaul with the communications basis. We've wrapped in the administration's communications director. We do reverse 911 calls. We message this out usually as soon as the contractor schedules the work, we post, we do door-to-door flyers as well, and then we call, and then we put barrels with a big, like no parking signs, and it usually has more information on that, where it's like water work, you know, for the next couple weeks. And usually when we first fly a flyer, we'll get an influx of calls and, you know, We'll discuss like how it's going to be phased to, you know, residents that are curious about it. And usually the big concerns are like where's parking, when's it going to do, you know, what are the hours. And for the most part, the water main work is pretty fast moving so it's not usually lingering in front of a, you know, one resident. That's about it. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thank you. Do we have any more questions about the retained earnings appropriation? Seeing none, is there a motion? On a motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan? Councilor Leming?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Malauulu? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Councilor Scapelli? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? No. And President Pierce?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Thank you, Owen. Thank you. 26114 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Medford Public Schools Special Purpose Override Stabilization Fund Appropriation. This stabilization fund was established in the previous fiscal year. As folks know, the November 2024 overrides occurred in the middle of a fiscal year. And those funds were directed to the Medford Public Schools for their programming. At the end of fiscal 25, there was a sum that was unexpended because it was done halfway through the fiscal year, so those funds were retained in a special purpose stabilization fund for future use by Medford Public Schools. Questions 7 and 8 did both go to fund our schools in fiscal year 2025 and 2026 and are fully utilized in fiscal 27. One of the main things that they are funding is the contract with the Medford Teachers Association and its members which resulted in significant wage and benefit increases as well as the finally the solution to addressing the high school schedule which allows every student at Medford High School to take arts, music, vocational courses in addition to their academic core courses which has been long awaited. That's a very, very short overview. The specific paper from the mayor is from June 4th, 2026. Dear President Bears and city councilors, I respectfully request and recommend your honorable body approves an appropriation of $1,085,549.00 from the Medford Public Schools Special Purpose Override Stabilization Fund as per the city council's June 24th, 2025 vote in accordance with the enclosed recommendation. to establish and transfer funds to the Stabilization Fund. The Medford Public Schools Special Purpose Override Stabilization Fund currently has a balance of $2,185,000. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter, respectfully submitted Brianna Lungelkern, Mayor. So in that enclosure which established the fund, we also received a presentation last June outlining how the funds would be expended over a three fiscal year period with about a million dollars this year, around 500 or 600,000 next year. You'll correct me. and then the remainder, which is a little around, I think around 400,000 in the year after that. So kind of winding down that funds while supporting the Medford Public Schools. And we have the Medford Public Schools Director of Finance, Noel Vela is here, so I will turn it over to him to share anything else.
[Noel Velez]: Yeah, no, as you just said, you know, our goal is to continue to support our teachers, continue to support, higher education and greater education here at Medford Public Schools. So this $1,085,549 will go into approximately 29 accounts and also into our stipends and coaches accounts because also as part of the CBA, we also increases our stipends to our coaches. who support our athletic students, and we also increased our stipends for after school activities and providing more extracurricular activities after school. And we wanted these stipends to be competitive with other communities around our area. So the stabilization fund continues to go into those areas, continues to lift up our budget, and more importantly, have a positive impact on our students.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any questions for the Metro Public Schools Finance Director? Are there any motions on the floor? On a motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Vice President Lazzaro. Is there any further discussion by members of the council or the public? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Mullane? Yes. Councilor Scarpellick? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Pierce?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I've been the affirmative. None of the negative. The motion passes. Thank you.
[Noel Velez]: Thank you all very much for your time.
[Zac Bears]: 26115, establishing a cable television public educational and governmental peg access special revenue fund. June 4th, 2026, re-cable television public educational and governmental access special fund, special revenue fund. Dear President Bears and city councilors, I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body accept general laws chapter 44, section 53F and three quarters, which establishes a special revenue fund known as the peg access and cable related fund. to reserve cable franchise fees and other cable-related revenues for the appropriation to support pay access services and oversight and renewal of the cable franchise agreement, the fund to begin operation for fiscal year 2027, which begins on July 1st, 2026, or take any other direction relative thereto. Motion, ordered that the Medford City Council accept General Laws Chapter 44, Section 53F and 3 quarters, which establishes a special revenue fund known as the Public Educational and Governmental PEG Access and Cable Related Fund to reserve cable franchise fees and other cable related revenues for the appropriation to support PEG access services and oversight and renewal of the cable franchise agreement to the fund to begin operation for fiscal year 2027, which begins on July 1st, 2026. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. And I really love any Massachusetts general law that ends with a fraction. I think that's really a blast. Madam Chief of Staff, is there anything else you'd like to add on this paper?
[Nina Nazarian]: Nothing substantive. Thank you President Bears. I think you covered it. The council heard about this for the first time at its May 19th budget hearing when the cable Medford community media budget was being presented. This is all in accordance with an informational guideline released by the Division of Local Services. So I'm happy to answer any questions that the council may have.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve by Vice President Lazzaro seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Any further discussion by members of the council or members of the public? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Maloney? Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. And President Pierce?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes. All right, 2-6-0-6-1, submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, fiscal year 2027 budget submission. Dear President, mayors and city councilors, pursuant to Mass General Law chapter 44, section 32, I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body approve the proposed fiscal year 2027 general fund budget, public educational and governmental peg access special revenue fund and water and sewer enterprise fund budget. The total submitted appropriation for all departments, including schools is $217,375,456.13. And I think that's for the general fund. And then we have to meet these appropriations, the sum of 216,624,203 dollars and 81 cents be raised and appropriated from the fiscal year 2027 tax levy and other general revenues of the city and that 108,750 dollars be transferred from the sale of cemetery lots and 208,759 dollars and 44 cents be transferred from cemetery perpetual care funds and 353,742 dollars and 88 cents be transferred from the casino mitigation fund. The PEG special access fund at $276,101.97. Further, that $276, that amount be funded by revenue from cable access fees. And finally, the water sewer enterprise fund budget at $30,030,904.68. and that be funded by anticipated revenue of the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. Thank you Madam Chief of Staff for being here, for presenting the budget. I know I'm sure that we'll have plenty of questions from members of the council. If there's any additional comments in addition to all the budget meetings that we've had that you'd like to share right now or any, I know there was some changes in the book. If you want to go over those, let us know and then we'll take it from there.
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you. Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for that. I appreciate all of that, the high-level overview, the opportunity to speak before you all with regard to this FY27 proposed budget. I appreciate all the time that the councilors have put into hearing the budget proposals from department heads, and I know it's been a lengthy process for all of you and for all of us, candidly, by just some high-level background items. In February, we sent out budget sheets which were due back in March. In April, we learned that there was a A substantive and large school budget gap through April and May and somewhat into June, we were closing the gap between the revenue and proposed expenditures. I know the council knows all of this, but in case this is the first time a member of the public is tuning into these discussions. I want to thank all the department heads who contributed to this process and also worked collaboratively with us, myself, the mayor, the finance team, to adjust budgets as needed. As the council knows, the mayor sent the council an email following her presentation on June 2nd, identifying a proposal that was the result of the council's 15-page memo, as well as feedback from the council and the councilors, which we appreciate. The mayor sent the council over a half a dozen emails addressing the inquiries and requests by the council as a part of their FY27 priorities, as well as feedback from, which included feedback from department heads. It also indicated that through cuts we would be providing $1.25 million additionally to the schools, which wasn't originally part of the allocation that was identified for the school department when it was communicated in the, in February as per the budget ordinance by our finance director and auditor, Bob Dickinson, who is here this evening. The mayor also shared that she was prepared to add over $112,000 to the FY27 proposed budget with additional funding to recreation, arts, library, legislative and law budgets conditioned upon a package budget deal. The mayor was also happy to share the $50,000 grant from Tufts to the Medford Family Network and a Cummings grant for $100,000. and indicated in that communication, I know you all know this, so please bear with me as I go through, but $157,000 roughly would be a bridge to the Medford Family Network through free cash based on discussions with members of the council. And as proposed, so that would be for the June 23rd meeting before the council. As you all know, the mayor is happy to discuss with any councilor these details and we appreciate the communications back from a couple of councilors who had a chance to reply to that communication by the mayor. President Bears, you had asked that we identify changes between the department budget submitted at the hearings and at the final budget that are in the final budget book. So we did our best to outline those. I have some copies of that information here. If it's all right, I'll pass that out. Thank you. As you will see on the list before you, there was a change in the building department. I've outlined the specific line in which there was a change, the original amount that came before the council, the final amount, and whether it was an increase or decrease. So I'll just go through the department and the amount and what it was essentially for. To be brief, for the building department, the increase was about 13, well, it was $13,290, and it was to consolidate citizen-serve licenses across various departments, which I believe was shared with the council on a few different occasions. One namely was the city clerk's office, another one And they'll come up throughout this list so I will kind of see that redundant. And that's a perfect segue to the next line. The clerk's budget was reduced by eighteen hundred dollars because the citizens served licenses that were proposed in that budget or the license if I'm not mistaken was moved to the building department. For the engineering division, there was an adjustment of a decrease of $10,500. Again, this was a citizen served consolidation into the building department. And I'm going to jump down for a moment to the second Health and Human Services line for the last adjustment pertaining to CitizenServe, which was a decrease in that department of $4,500. I also want to note that it didn't end up being apples for apples because we communicated with the vendor who was proposing to go from $1,500 per license to $1,800 per license in FY27 and asked for a reduction in that. And they did agree to bridging half of that increase over two fiscal years. So the license cost per license is actually now going to be for fiscal 27, $1,650 per license. So happy about that. It's a temporary measure, but at least it is some cost savings. On the next item, I was largely focused on identifying things that were about $1,000, but I didn't want to exclude something in the executive budget because I wanted to make sure I was inordinarily transparent about that. I had missed a longevity item for that office, for the executive office, for the office that I work in. It wasn't for me, but it was for another staff member, so I added that. That was $950. In finance, there was a $3,801.98 change because it was a correction on the personnel line that was identified in the budget hearing by a member of the council at the time. Health and human services, under the permanent employees line, there was a reduction of $76,411.96. And there was a grant funded employee who was inadvertently listed basically in the grant section of the budget and also in the general fund section of the budget. We already went over the next line, which was the citizen served for the $4,500 for health and human services. For legislative, through communications with you, Councilor Bears, we added $10,000 to account for the citizen-serve costs that you had mentioned at the budget hearing for legislative. For the library, there was a reduction of $100,609.35. As presented by the library director, there was an inadvertent duplication in salaries during that budget hearing that was stated. And then finally, with two minor notes after this, for the Treasury and Collections Department, there was an increase in $7,000 to move SoftRite to the cloud. SoftRite is the vendor that the city uses to input collections. The reality is if we were, you know, If it was easy to move to a new financial package software, we wouldn't have to do this. But it's going to take several years, as we all know, to move to a new financial software. And the most efficient way to go through that process, where our current server is end of life for SoftRite, would be to move to the cloud. And so that will come with a $7,000 cost. I got those numbers right around when this budget package was being finalized. So, you know, it seemed prudent to put it in. We will also probably be before the council for a appropriation for the admin server, the other financial software that the city uses because that server is also end of life and we're doing our due diligence to address issues that could come up later down the road in these areas. And then there was minor changes to the elections and facilities departments. Both of those were under $1,000 and in one case it was mainly moving between a couple of lines. Happy to answer any questions on that. And one other thing I'll point out, if it's easiest for me to just go through all the comments, is we replaced pages 59 and 60 in your budget books, given an error that was flagged on Friday afternoon, but we couldn't correct before delivering the books to the council by Friday at noon. And then finally, the FY27 proposed water and sewer budget, that's in the transmittal letter before you all, contains a scrivener's error. The line that contains the water and sewer budget simply has an addition error. It states that the line for the overall water and sewer budget, not including bonds and interest, is $27,799,042.18, when it should in fact be $27,700,000 $742,000.18. All the other numbers are correct, including the water and sewer total. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. I just had, I think even on the corrected pages 59 and 60, I think the school budget is still, it says fiscal 27 is $85,490,000. And I think you guys are proposing $89.1. So I just wanted to double check on that.
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you for flagging that. We'll review.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Great. You know, I don't know if we'll move ahead tonight. If not, a revised version would be great. And just like a general FYI, procedurally, we are, next week as you are aware is riddled with holidays. We are trying to set a deadline of Tuesday afternoon for papers. I know that's going to be tough. I'm happy to discuss it further with you. But for the June 23rd meeting where we just have some deadline, it's tough with the Wednesday and the Friday. So.
[Nina Nazarian]: Understood.
[Zac Bears]: And with the short staffing continuing in the clerk's office and the acting clerk is, you know, planning on using PTO as this is right on so. We just really, anything we could have by Tuesday, even earlier than that would be really helpful.
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you, President Perez. I appreciate the heads up and we'll do everything we can.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Vice President Lazzaro and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Emily Lazzaro]: No, I turned it off.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, okay. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. So, first, I want to first apologize for last week. I was on the meeting. I can hear everything. For some reason, I couldn't send a message back, and that's why I was texting Council President. And I appreciate Clerk Alessio with the knowledge of not voting without being present. So I appreciate that. But I did hear some things last week. I would not be true to myself if I didn't follow through what we talked about. We have asked the city for legal documentation through FOIA to help us understand our true financial picture and our true financial gaps that are occurring in this community. in understanding what the processes are and if it's something that's hurting us before we move forward with this budget vote. Last week, I heard the mayor come up and she explained again, which she was right, a thousand percent correct, that she presented us with a report that showed where we are in our legal line compared to neighboring communities. And she's right. But this is what I've been saying for many, many years now. That's not what we're asking for. What we're asking for, that's why the foyer is so detailed and asking for specific numbers. And the numbers that the mayor quoted were the numbers for our legal line. But it's not what we're spending. on legal issues throughout our community especially with what we're seeing for settlements and fighting lawsuits for our city employees and on and on. We asked for that information and it's funny because I know that the the administration said just a lot of work and you need to be it's difficult for us to do everything at once okay When the firefighters union came up, they expressed that this year alone they spent fighting the city's, the mayor's issues with the union members, that they spent $158,000, if I'm not correct, and they had them in line. They sent us an email breaking down, it's very simple. I mean, if we got just this, it might have appeased me saying, OK, this makes sense. But they sent every single legal line from what they've had since 2022. And it broke it down that they spent over $300,000. Now, that's with them fighting it, but then winning most of those cases. So this is the reason why I cannot move forward with approving or voting for this budget favorably tonight. I'm going to actually ask to table this, Mr. President, until our next meeting, which is the last Tuesday of the month of June, which hopefully gives us enough time to get that information that we're needing so we can make a strong decision whether There are concerns financially and then the other piece I would recommend the city administration prepare a 12-1 budget if that doesn't happen and that would be general law 44 section 22 chapter 44 section 22 that still has to budget our city, but on a month-to-month basis until we get the information that we need. And I find it funny that the mayor's response to the request that we asked for, there's stipulation that said what? As long as you don't cut the legal lines. That speaks volumes to me. So I would move, Mr. President, to table this to our next scheduled city council meeting and prepare our administration to, if not given the information that we need, to protect our community. And what we are charged to do is protect the fiscal responsibilities of this community without understanding what we're spending and We were pretty detailed on that FOIA, that understanding what the premiums are going to be, who's paying these lawsuits out, how much these lawsuits are for, how much we're paying attorneys, what attorneys other than KP Law, because there's multiple, and then moving forward with non-disclosure. That was disingenuine as well. with the first response saying that there has never been a non-disclosure process in the process of legalities, which is totally false because that was sent to me with a few different settlements. So there's a lot of information. I know it's a lot, but this is something new. Go back four years, I've asked the same exact question for four years. It's just, I appreciate that my Councilors are now seeing that and they understand the process. So I appreciate that, Mr. President, and I move to table.
[Zac Bears]: If I may request, Councilor Scarpelli, that you withdraw the motion since it is undebatable, just in case any other Councilors have anything they want to say, and then I might have a question.
[George Scarpelli]: Okay, I would respect that. I would take that off for now.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Is there anything else from any other Councilors? Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: Yeah I was I was going to say that as I was looking at this final budget I really did appreciate the many places where the administration did do what we requested with the librarians the you know increasing just a little bit more to pay for the lowest paid librarians, the part-time hourly librarians, also funding the charter mandated position that supports the city council. However, as I looked at this budget, The law department budget is the one that I have difficulty with. And we requested information. We couldn't get that information. We put in a FOIA request. I don't know exactly what day that FOIA request is. in terms of I think it's only.
[Zac Bears]: There was a 30-day extension. I'm not 100% sure.
[Anna Callahan]: 30-day extension. So I don't know. I think we've said before that like this would be important information for us to understand before approving the budget, and yet we don't have that information. So it feels quite disappointing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments from members of the council?
[Justin Tseng]: I was just going to say I think it makes sense to table this. I know we're not supposed to debate that. But that's my personal preference. There are some new changes, I know they're mostly, the explanations make sense, but I think it makes sense for councillors to sit with us a little bit longer and make sure that we do have everything we want in here. I also, as Councilor Scarpelli alluded to, the offer is to add a number of things that we want with the understanding that we won't cut the legal service line item, call that a deal. But I think in order to understand if this is the best deal for our residents, for our city services, and for our taxpayer money, it makes sense to get as much information as we can from the administration with respect to what we're looking for on the FOIA and with the legal line items that Not only in the law department budget, but also the ones that are being used across departments as well Thank You Councilor Tseng
[Zac Bears]: Seeing no further questions from members of the council, I do have a few. I think it would be helpful, I don't know if you want to do it tonight or if you want to put it in writing and attach it to the agenda to kind of go through publicly with the public the proposal that the mayor is offering, essentially that certain things, 5,000 for the Arts Council, the Arts Liaison, a raise for the librarians, the council city messenger and council assistant. And I'm not sure if the MFN is in this or not. I couldn't quite tell from the email. But kind of explaining what is, which of these things are contingent on us not making cuts to the budget? You know, what are the things that aren't going to be funded? if the council continues to hold through its concerns about the legal expenses. And I think the other thing is back to what the other councilors requested, which is, you know, the questions are still there. I mean, some of them, obviously, there's a lot in the initial request from early this year and the public records request that we made. There were also some pretty specific requests in the budget meetings, like a breakdown of the professional services and the fire. You know, Chief Evans kind of verbally described to us a breakdown of that line item, but he did not. We asked for a written copy of that. So that is a... I think those are a few of the things that I'm hearing Councilors outline, but for me very specifically, you know, I have a difficult time that, I have a hard time with, we will fund these things. We know the money's there to fund these things. We agree that these things are important. We just had, you know, two hours tonight with the Arts Council talking about the Arts Council needing more money, wanting to bring back the liaison. And it's like, we will only fund those things if you don't, you know, if you back down on your oversight, you know, specifically around the legal budget. So I have a hard time with that. I think that's a discussion that shouldn't be had kind of as indicated in the mayor's email. in private one-on-one conversations. I think that's a conversation that we should have here on the floor of the chamber. I think the administration should present that clearly to us, like here. Not necessarily just paragraphs in an email, but here's what the budget will look like. here are the amendments that we're proposing to the budget to fund these priorities. And also be clear that, you know, if the Arts Council doesn't get more funding this next year or there's no liaison or there's no council assistant or the rec department doesn't get its money or we decide not to give librarians a $4 an hour raise instead of a $2 an hour raise, that that's because the mayor said that's only happening if you guys don't cut KP law. So I think that should be a discussion that's had in public. I don't think that's a discussion that should be had behind closed doors. I don't think it's a discussion I'm comfortable having behind closed doors. So I would really like to see that presented as a paper when we take this back up. And it's all written out here largely, although I'd like to kind of see it in budget format versus kind of this written paragraph format. But I'd like to see that be something that the administration presents as essentially saying this is what's required to fund these things. So that's my personal preference. I don't know if other Councilors have comments on that. It does look like at least Councilor Callahan has more to say. So I'll go to her and then I'll let you guys kind respond and we can engage in a dialogue, and then it sounds like Councilor Scarpelli wants to motion to table. So I will go to Councilor Callahan, then Councilor Mullane, then Councilor Tseng, and then you guys.
[Anna Callahan]: I simply wanted to mention that I did read this email from the mayor. I completely missed the half sentence that said that it was contingent upon us not cutting the legal budget. So I totally missed that part of it. I have stated my feelings about quid pro quos before. I personally do not believe in giving up things that I believe are right for our residents so that I can get some other thing I believe are right for our residents. So that's kind of not a thing that I do. But I would agree that if that is being discussed, it should be in the open and it should not be in private emails.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Malayne.
[Liz Mullane]: Yeah, I just, I want to just follow up again. I'm, I'm also in favor of tabling, especially when it comes to the Medford Family Network. I mean, we're talking about people's jobs and being able to continue a, a huge resource that I would like to see definitely outlined within the budget. I know so many people rely on the services. I know a lot of people have been waiting. We've been celebrating doing all these activities. And I, to not see it in here or to have as, as we've mentioned this email. I wouldn't feel comfortable moving forward with it until I actually saw it outlined in here and be able to say to residents, yes, it's in here. We have the funding. It's definitely noted. And people that are relying on these services, relying on the jobs, have something to look to as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilman Lange. Councilor Tseng. I just wanted to support what you said from the chair. This, I think what we're being asked to give up is a very structural part of what city councils do. This idea that we have a branch of government. Again, as I said earlier tonight, we have a branch of government that's there to check and do oversight of another branch of government. I think it's fundamental to our form of democracy. And so, you know, I'm wary of giving that up. And like Councilor Callahan said, this idea of a quid pro quo isn't one that residents should be awfully comfortable with. So I think this conversation should be one to be had here in public. I'm thinking about the options. I'm trying to understand everything. But I think we need more information before we can make the best choice.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just had one slight clarifying question just so I understand too. Is the MFN funding and the 1.25 million for Medford Public Schools, is that also contingent on the council not cutting the budget in any way? Oh.
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you, President Bears. No, the $1.25 million is already in the budget for the school department as proposed. The MFN is just as simply as a different funding source, and that's why it's not before the council at this point in time. We're going to propose other free cash, essentially replenishing the capital stabilization. So I was going to do it together, but no issue presenting those on the 23rd and continuing the discussion on this subject.
[Zac Bears]: And just to be clear, those are not contingent on, the 1.25 is already in what we've received. And the MFN is going to be a free cash request and neither of those are contingent on us taking some sort of action, but the rest of the list is.
[Nina Nazarian]: That's my understanding, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Yeah, so I think it would be great if that was presented, you know, publicly to everybody, you know, If you do X, we will fund Y. If you don't do X, we won't fund Y. And if I may, President Bears?
[Nina Nazarian]: Yes. Yes, I did make those comments in my opening remarks. I said that it was conditioned on a package deal, so nothing being hidden here. You know, I have the numbers here in front of me, and I'd be happy to go over that now since it's been I was just trying to be brief in my opening remarks, but the legislative budget is proposed to go up by $25,000 in the salaries line item. The executive line is proposed to go up by $15,000 in the salaries line item. So let me back up, my apologies. Legislative $25,000 for the constituent services assistant that the council has been discussing and presented, and we've had some lengthy discussions on, both here and through you, Councilor Mullane, with our human resources director. The executive budget with regard to placing about a 10-hour a week employee, if I'm not mistaken, I might have been quoting, it might have been 15, so if I'm mistaken about that. please rely on the email, but $15,000 in the executive budget for the salaries line. As you may know, Lisa Coliani, the Director of Community Affairs is essentially the person who does most of that work and interacts with the Medford Cultural Council. But, you know, and does work with the arts and does a lot of work in those areas. But we recognize that it would be nice and I think it was you, Councilor Tseng, who had brought up the idea when we spoke about the executive budget to add some staffing. This is a step forward in that direction. Also, $5,000 in the executive budget under the ordinary expenses for the purpose of increasing the amount that goes to the arts. The law department budget, the comment that we received on that from the Councilors or was essentially to increase the city solicitor position to step five rather than step one. It's really more of a budgetary number. The amount that's included in the budget doesn't necessarily, doesn't directly indicate exactly what the city is going to offer to candidates because it's all commensurate with experience and, you know, background essentially. And then the recreation department, $25,000 for the purpose of giving the department head some flexibility in that area and in particular to use it for more inclusive programming and if we have any additional trouble maintaining an office manager at $24 per hour. We do currently have a candidate who's signed an offer letter so we're hopeful that that will produce a, you know, a good longer term relationship. And then the, finally the library, an increase in the salaries line with $20,696 to address the additional $2 an hour to get to a $4 hour increase, which has been discussed considerably. So, we're happy to discuss any of that more. You know, everything's out in the open. I stated all of those things in my open remarks.
[Zac Bears]: Would you be comfortable if I just attach the email to the agenda then next meeting?
[Nina Nazarian]: I mean, I have a letter here if the council wants to. I can either submit it for the next meeting, but I can read it for purposes.
[Zac Bears]: Submitting, I mean, if you want to read it, that's fine, but submitting it for the next meeting is also fine if we don't want to. It sounds like it's getting tabled, so if it's a difference between five minutes from now and now.
[Unidentified]: I don't want to waste your time. I hear that, yep.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. At least we can all agree on that. Okay. Councilor Leming. I would like to motion to table. On the motion to table by Councilor Leming, seconded by Council Vice President Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Kelly? Councilor Leming?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Malaney? Yes. Councilor Schaefeli? Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The budget is tabled to June 23rd. 26-105, this is also free cash for the Affordable Housing Trust. If we're going to have a free cash paper on the 23rd, maybe we can just consider all of it at the same time. On the motion to table 26-105 by Vice President Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Kelly? Councilor Leming?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Millan? Yes. Councilor Scapelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. And President Pierce?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm in the affirmative. None in the negative. The motion passes. Public participation. Is there anyone who'd like to speak in public participation? Please come to the podium in the chamber. Raise your hand on the table. Seeing none, is there a motion? Motion. On the motion adjourned by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Mullane. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Mullane? Yes. Councilor Scapelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears?
|
total time: 45.35 minutes total words: 3776 |
total time: 14.73 minutes total words: 931 |
total time: 4.17 minutes total words: 355 |
total time: 6.67 minutes total words: 524 |
|
total time: 8.11 minutes total words: 778 |
total time: 19.7 minutes total words: 1327 |
total time: 2.79 minutes total words: 321 |
|