AI-generated transcript of Medford City Council Resident Services & Public Engagement Comm 09/16/26

[Liz Mullane]: All right. We'll get started. This is the meeting of the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee meeting for September 16th 2026. Clerk Siegel can you please call the roll. Councilor Callahan.

[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng.

[Liz Mullane]: Chair Moline. Present. Three present, two absent. We have quorum to move forward. All right. So first we are just going to walk through the rest of the newsletter. So I am going to share my screen. So, what we decided to do, I know that we have done this in the past, where we've been able to put together kind of a summer newsletter. So, the last meeting we had already looked through June, and so this is July and August, and because there wasn't as many meetings, It isn't as long as I normally do them, so I'm still trying to get a little more brevity in here. So basically, starting off, I did highlight the Ward 1 Neighborhood Meeting. I talked through any of the commemorations, remembrances, and acknowledgments, and then highlighted the different City Council meetings that we had. So we had the one on July 14th. Again all of these are linked and they will be linked in the newsletter. So for the meetings themselves will go right to YouTube and then to each of the different. agenda items that are posted up on the Medford webpage. Again, this was just going through the different resolutions, everything being tagged in here. I tried to, again, label out any of the different capital stabilization funds and what that looked like, how much was allocated towards each of them, anything that was appointed or any of the pieces that the mayor's office had asked for us to go through. And then I did try to make sure that with some of these different pieces that were a little bit longer, if there were any other types of presentations, et cetera. tried to link them in here as well, so when it goes out to everyone, they're able to click directly to see each of these different areas. So that was the July meeting, and then August the fourth general meeting, again, during the different resolutions, talking through the different ward meetings that we have there. And then, again, kind of matching up when it comes to some of the information that the elections office had shared with us as well. Any of the commission's appointments that we had, again, any of the outlining from the community preservation committee. of the appropriation requests that we had. And again, tried to link in anything that was up on the website to be able to have people review, and then was putting in here as well any of the different committee meetings for people to go back. You can actually view it on YouTube, the meetings themselves, as well as where we had different resolutions put in there. And I also did, for the community of the whole, put in here as well, there was the presentation on the Affordable Housing Linkage Nexus Study. It was a great report, so that would be helpful as well for people. And I see a hand, I think it's George online. Do you have a, George, we can unmute you if you'd like to add anything or just notice that you're here. Hi, Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: Hey, sorry about that. I just, I just wanted to let you know I was here. I apologize.

[Liz Mullane]: Oh, no problem. Thank you. All right. Any comments, suggestions, thoughts from anyone? Councilor Kelly.

[Anna Callahan]: My only comment is simply this is a ton of work. I really appreciate that you are doing this. And when I've done it in the past, it is it is something that really does require time and great.

[Liz Mullane]: Thank you. All right. Well, if we have no other thoughts, suggestions, we'll go ahead and get this put together with the previous month as well and send this out as soon as possible so that everyone is able to get that as well. Oh, sorry. Councilor Callahan.

[Anna Callahan]: I should have ended with move to approve and release.

[Liz Mullane]: Thank you.

[Anna Callahan]: Because I think we have to do that, right, for each one.

[Liz Mullane]: Is there a second?

[Anna Callahan]: I'll second that.

[Liz Mullane]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Oh, Justin, sorry. Clerk Siegel, can you call the roll?

[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?

[George Scarpelli]: Yes.

[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Tseng? Yes.

[Liz Mullane]: Chair Maloney? Yes. For approved, one absent, we will move forward with the newsletter. Thank you, everybody. All right. So the next piece that we wanted to talk about was the ward meetings. So we do have our next meeting is next week, Wednesday, September 23rd. This is going to be held at the Andrews Middle School cafeteria from 7 to 8. I'm excited that we'll also have the Zoom option available. Thank you to MCM for coming and helping host and setting that up. Hoping to continue to send this out to as many people as possible. Again, we had talked about this agenda a few times in some of these meetings to kind of figure out what made the most sense. And I think everyone wanted to make sure that People could feel comfortable to bring whatever area of interest or any concerns or comments that they wanted to bring that there wasn't anything prescribed that they would be able to come and share. And that was why we kept it as an open agenda. But as part of it, we do have a link that people could add in if there's anything specifically they want to talk about that we have a little heads up and we can bring that information with us. But truly, this is an opportunity for building community, get a better sense around each of the different wards, and allow for people to come and speak on Ward 1, in their neighborhood, or just in general questions, comments, things that they have or want to talk about around Medford. Any questions or thoughts, anything else to kind of share? Again, trying to send this out as far as we can. This is not where I excel in terms of the publicity side of it, so I appreciate everyone kind of putting that information out there. Any thoughts, comments or suggestions from any of the councillors this time for next week? This next week meeting is going to be hosted by myself and Councilor Tseng.

[George Scarpelli]: I'm sorry, I do have a question. I know when we work with the PTOs, it's, you know, it's not appropriate because it's political, but where this is an information opportunity and just meet and greet. Have we reached out to Superintendent Galusi to maybe send something out to our, you know, our parents in that district?

[Liz Mullane]: That is a great point, Councilor Scarpelli. I have not, I spoke to Dr. Galusi about it because I, unfortunately there is, it wasn't up on the Medford events calendar, but I know there is a back to school night that night for one of the schools. Unfortunately, even when I was looking at the calendar, when it was shared with me, there was like, it's hard to not find a night that might be open in September around back to school, but I think it's a great point. And I can certainly email Dr. Galussi too. She can send it out and see if we can get more people to attend either in person or virtually.

[George Scarpelli]: Okay, I thought that might help. So I appreciate your work. Councilman Lange, thank you.

[Liz Mullane]: Yeah, thank you. Any other thoughts, suggestions, anything? What I will do is just also share, kind of, I put together just a couple of notes. to share with everyone. So just a reminder again for the newsletter schedule, just to go back. We have the September newsletter. Councilor Tseng is going to take that one due October 7th, which is our next meeting. The October newsletter Councilor Leming had offered to do. That's due November 4th. And then the November newsletter, Councilor Callahan offered to do, which is due December 8th. And then once we get next year's schedule up there, we can reach out and see if there's others who are able to do some of the newsletters. And then this is just a reminder about some of the ward meetings coming up. So obviously we have the one next week. I'll continue to push it out again. Really appreciate everyone's help to get this out as far and wide as possible. The next one is for Ward 5, and that's on Tuesday, October 20th from 7 to 8 at the Mistak. That's hosted by Councilors Callahan and Singh. And then Ward 2 is myself. and Councilor Scarpelli on Wednesday, December 2nd from 7 to 8 p.m. at the Roberts. So I will send to everyone the confirmation I have from each of the schools. The schools have been really wonderful in helping to put this together. I have also let MCM know about it, but I kind of put together this quick little checklist to follow up with the schools. I did a walkthrough just to see the space and what that would look like for next week's meeting, kind of see where some of the setup would be. But I would suggest following up and I will share with the Councilors, the contact people for that, but also to check in with MCM to get the Zoom link to make sure that's as part of the invitation as soon as possible. And they need a good amount of time to set up in each of the different spaces, so checking in with the schools to make sure that it works. And then to check in, so I will check in with the schools on Sunday to follow up. They asked me just to check and make sure everything's in line and there's no other questions that they might have. So just sharing that again for the ward meetings. And I will send this out, but it will be up to you. Councilors Callahan and Singh to do the advertising and the rest of that kind of checklist kind of stuff. Great. Any questions, thoughts, suggestions, anything about the ward meetings upcoming? We'll be working on trying to set up for next year, for the remainder of the ward meetings as well, just trying to get through this year. And again, we learn as each one goes through. So again, any suggestions, thoughts would be great. All right. So the last piece that we wanted to talk through is the noise ordinance. So I will read through the noise ordinance that was shared at a previous Medford City Council meeting, and then we can start talking through where we stand and what we're working and looking to do right there. So the resolution to update the noise ordinance, whereas the city of Medford's noise ordinance was last updated in 1974 and is lacking any recent updates to types of noise that can impact residents, and whereas residents of Medford have shared a variety of ways in which different noise levels have been impacting their daily lives, and whereas noise levels can also be considered a health hazard and it is left to the community to help regulate and advise on noise restrictions throughout their city and towns. And whereas the American Public Health Association has stated that loud noise causes hearing loss and titanitis and can contribute to non-auditory health problems, chronic noise, even at low levels, can cause annoyance, sleep disruption, and stress that contribute to cardiovascular disease. cerebrovascular disease, metabolic disturbances, exasperation of psychological disorders, and premature mortality. Noise interference with cognition and learning contributes to behavior problems and reduces achievement and productivity. The health of more than 100 million Americans is at risk, with children among the most vulnerable. And whereas the APHA policy statements below relates to this update by advocating for the following, reducing environmental stressors and their harmful effects on public health, rectifying the disproportionate burden of environmental hazards borne by disadvantaged populations, and encouraging actions to mitigate adverse effects, including noise as a stressor in future APHA policy statements, an update is recommended. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the Council's Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee review the current noise ordinance to update its language, function, type, and current usage. I may turn it over to Councilor Tseng to kind of talk through where we might stand right now on some of those updates.

[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. So part of, a big part of the reason why we need to fix our noise ordinance is that right now it's just unexecutable, it's unadministrable. There's no set standards. If you go to the noise ordinance, it's really two paragraphs. One is about operating machinery and operating a plant. The other paragraph is about singing, music, sound devices, and carves out things for funerals, military parades, or civic, political, charitable processions. So there's really not much in there, and a big part of the problem is the lack of standards. That is really common throughout noise ordinances, really everywhere but here. We hear, I'm sure, This is true for all the Councilors. We hear a lot from residents who have certain complaints. They can't get to sleep. They can't enjoy kind of well needed time off because things are too loud and We need to fix that, essentially. And so we need to put in clearer standards, and there are different ways to do this that surrounding municipalities have adopted. The other problem with this ordinance right now is that without a clear administrative standard, we open ourselves up to liability if we try to enforce it, because folks could turn around if, if they're cited for violating the noise ordinance, they could turn around and kind of say that this ordinance is too vague, that they weren't on notice of their obligations. And so I think this meeting, it would just be useful to get a sense of where, what initial thoughts Councilors had about, what we're looking for in this rewrite. I can also kind of go through what some of our peer municipalities do. So in Somerville, they essentially have a 10-factor control standard and it considers factors such as the level, the duration, the frequency of noise in order to determine whether a violation exists. They also have an enumerated but non-exclusive list of specifically prohibited noise disturbances It's usually the three big examples that they have are air conditioners, construction and alarms, to basically, not to say that you can't use them, but to kind of regulate the usage so that neighbors aren't disturbed. And then the third big thing that they do, is they have a table in their ordinance. It's a duration-based decibel table under which ambient noise levels for respective districts step down based on the time of day and duration. So essentially, busier districts have kind of more lenient standards, more residential districts have higher standards. That's kind of how they sort it. And then they sort it by duration as well. So they have standards for less than 10 minutes, between 10 minutes and 2 hours, and in excess of 2 hours. I don't have it in a neat form, but I can. I guess, let me, I'll prepare something neater when we have a draft before us. But I think for today, I'm just kind of trying to sense where Councilors are at with the approach. In Cambridge, they actually establish zone-specific decibel standards measured at the lot line of those receiving the noise. So their standard's much more technical than that of Somerville. Rather than regulating just overall loudness with a singular decibel threshold, they break sound into nine frequency bands. So lower frequencies get high limits and vice versa. So this is a bit, in my personal opinion, a bit harder for a city like Medford to execute because it requires a lot of technology and devices basically for the inspection. for our building department slash inspectional services to execute. They consider hearing insofar as a 4,000 hertz whine is significantly more annoying and disturbing than like a 63 hertz rumble at the same decibel level. So they're looking at hertz instead of decibels essentially. And so the Cambridge Ordinance permits greater intensities of low frequency noise and is more restrictive on high frequency noise. So compared to the decibel measurement, it is, their approach is technically better, able to account for noise that's disturbing because of its frequency rather than its volume. But it's also, again, much more time consuming and complex for cities to carry out, to enforce. They also have a distinct set of restrictions for noise emitted from construction sites, and they follow a strict decibel threshold based on the zone in which the measurement is obtained. They do kind of like what we do already, like daytime versus nighttime. They split it into residential areas, residential and industrial, commercial and industrial areas. So it's kind of based off zoning. And it allows, their ordinance also allows their license commission, so they have a license commission, to designate noise sensitive zones around schools, hospitals, libraries, houses of worship. And it provides a formal variance procedure for unreasonable hardship. And they have penalties of up to $300 per day. That's enforced by the police commissioner, the commissioner of their inspectional services. For us, that's housed in the building department and by the chair of the license commission. And it has a leaf blower ordinance, which we already do. So instead of waiting for complaints, Cambridge actually, because they're well-resourced, their inspectional services department preemptively requires building permit applicants to certify that mechanical equipment as installed will comply with the desk pull tables. So that's kind of in their, like, the pre-construction period. They do that check. So something to think about. The third municipality I really looked at was Brookline because their kind of, their bylaw is distinct, their methodology is distinct from that of Somerville and Cambridge. So they set maximum noise thresholds for vehicles and construction equipment, but for other sources of noise, they kind of, they utilize a notion of noise pollution. So they measure the background level around the city. And noise pollution is anything that exceeds that by 10 decibels or 5 decibels where the sound is tonal in character. So like music, for example. This is kind of flexible because it accounts for the acoustic nature of each neighborhood. So it's kind of taking the baseline in that neighborhood instead of like defining zones like Cambridge or Somerville do. Or yeah, definitely Cambridge. But it also requires that two-step of having that background noise measurement and then a separate measurement for every enforcement action. So it's a little bit harder to execute because inspectors have to do math, basically. And there's some other cities, like Newton, that also followed this. They also fix absolute maximum noise levels for vehicles for automobiles and construction sites so essentially that's those are some like I think a good snapshot of how other cities approach how to make this enforceable and I think that's like a big. question for us here, and I'd be curious to hear if there's a preference for any system here. I think Somerville's is probably the easiest for us to execute as a city, but there are pros and cons of Cambridge and Brookline's approach as well.

[Anna Callahan]: Can you just real quick go back and be like, here's the phrase for Somerville, here's the phrase for like

[Justin Tseng]: Um, phrase in terms of, yeah, so Somerville is basically, yeah, so Somerville is like, Somerville defines three zones. or not three zones, three time periods. 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., so daytime. And then evening, that's until 10 p.m. in residential districts. And then nighttime, that's 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. And then they do residential versus commercial, basically. And they measure by decibels, so that's what they do. Cambridge has kind of ties it to zoning. do, they basically look at frequency, right. They look at like frequency, so they're looking at basically how annoying per se the noise is, and so the more annoying it is, the kind of, the more limits there are on them, the less quote unquote annoying it is, the fewer limits there are on them. And then Brookline is background noise plus 10, basically, 10 decibels. So basically there are a few moving pieces. There's how many chunks of the day do we want to break things into? That's one question. There's decibel versus hertz. So like, is it just noise level or are we looking at frequency? There's also just zoning basically, like how do, are we considering the city writ large, are we comparing residential to industrial to commercial, or some mix of that, something in between. So I think those are the kind of duration, frequency versus decibels, and then, sorry, zoning, like are we carving things into zones? Those are the main things for us to consider. On the status of drafts, I have some drafts, but I really wanted this meeting to kind of see where we were at, and then I'll adjust that draft to what kind of we talked about today.

[Liz Mullane]: Thank you, Councilor Snider. What I can say, too, is in terms of some of the research, I did kind of deep dive. The other piece I would put into that as well from what you stated in those different blocks is also by type. And I think Somerville, from all of the different areas that I looked at, seemed to have the most in-depth and kind of spelled out of the different types or ways of which noise can infiltrate in different areas. So I would also add as part of that piece to add that in as well. Um I saw uh Councilor Scarpelli's hand up for a little bit. Let me um there we go. Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: Hi um so I I thank you Councilor uh Mullane for bringing this forward and thank you Councilor um saying to to get us that information. I think that uh I've dealt directly with that ordinance working with uh the stadium and the noise for our residents and our neighbors believe it or not. We had a lot of complaints when the noise would, uh, move over to Arlington. So, um, I think this is a good starting point. Um, I think that, you know, we can look at right now, probably the biggest complaints we hear whenever it comes from noise is what it's leaf blowers. And most importantly, our neighbors on Hancock Street that, um, that are next to, um, Next to that are next to the bear hall in understanding that piece. I think that what I wanted to add is really the enforcement piece. I think that when we, we get really the cause of noise, it's really the police that are called. because it's after hours for our code enforcement officers, and usually our police can't do anything about it. That's not in their purview unless we work with the police department. So I think that we should, as part of this process, look at the process of enforcement, especially after the regular business hours. I think that's important once we know what avenue, what process we'll be using, but as I think that, you know, Councilor Tseng gave us three great communities to look at and options. I think that it's easy, like we did say, I think the decimal for us, personally, When it comes to our mitigation, in Somerville we actually have a decibel reader that we often take a little ride over to Arlington and sit in someone's backyard and play the music at Dillboy Stadium just so we can read the decibels to make sure that we fall in the range that is part of our bylaws. And I think that helps us and it's pretty clean and pretty easy. So that's only because I've used it. So, but again, I think to add, this is a great starting point, but I think looking at the enforcement side and trying to figure out how We get a little bit more robust and we get more stakeholders involved, not just our 2 code enforcement officers that usually leave at 430 every day. So, and not the weekends. All right. So, thank you.

[Liz Mullane]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Callahan.

[Anna Callahan]: Thanks. Really interesting to hear how other cities do it, and there's a lot of options we have. I think that's great. I have a few comments. I very much appreciate Councilor Scarapelli's comment about fines and, or sorry, enforcement, whatever that might be. And I do, I'm curious if when we talk about enforcement we can, have enforcement be different for corporations, corporate entities, than it is for just regular human people playing some music for themselves or their friends. And maybe even repeated offenses getting higher, because one person doing one thing, one time, that should just be... You have your kid's birthday party and it's loud. Whatever that might be, right? So, like, being kind of human-centric would, I think, be good for us. I would also really love if we can get a better sense of the noise complaints. So, I suspect it's often the police department, but maybe there are other departments as well that hear about them, and it would be really nice to actually know what those usually are in Medford and be based off of the real world. I think that would help us. And then I just wanted to mention that... I think it would be great if we can, you know, engage maybe our community liaisons in this. I know that different cultures have different expectations around noise and music and those kinds of things, time of day. And, you know, I think it would be lovely to kind of hear some different perspectives on that. So I wonder if we can, you know, have one of these meetings where we just sort of invite the community liaisons to come and join us. Thank you.

[Liz Mullane]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan. I think that's a great idea. The more community partners that we can have engaged and to share thoughts certainly and I do like the idea of getting a better sense of other types of complaints that come in. I know that we oftentimes see e-mails that come to us but I'm sure that there are other avenues and other things that we don't see that are coming in so we can certainly I can take it upon myself to reach out and see if I can get a sense and a listing of what that looks like. But, yes, would definitely love to have more community partnerships. And to Councilor Scarpelli's point as well, trying to figure out how we enforce that and what that looks like. I think that's another important piece that brought up. Thank you to Councilor Tseng, too, for kind of walking through all the different areas and research that went into it as well. There's no other comments from councilors, and I'll open it up to any public. Oops, sorry. Councilor Tseng.

[Justin Tseng]: Thanks. I mean, I love this idea of, you know, trying to get a sense of where the complaints are in real life. Maybe this is not something we take on as a committee or a council, but individually we could kind of mention, kind of solicit at the ward meetings, at neighborhood meetings, maybe put together a survey and send it out on social media, try to work with a city communications department, see if they can help us get the word out and just kind of survey what kind of or what kind of things that people are complaining about slash what kind of things people want to see protected.

[Liz Mullane]: That's great. Thank you. That's a good suggestion as well. Great. I will open up to public comment. I did have an email I was going to read, but it looks like the individual is online. So Robert Carney, I see your hand raised, so I will unmute you.

[Robert Carney]: Hi, Councilor Mullane, thank you very much. Yeah, so first of all, I just want to commend you all for talking about this. And I really appreciate how you brought up Somerville, because I used to live in Somerville, I live in Medford now. Well, as you all know, I live in Medford now. And my experience with noise issues has been a stark contrast. And I think, you know, one thing to really flesh out too is cutoff times for noise, you know, on weekends versus weeknights. I have been told when I've called at various points that there seems to be like some 10 p.m. cutoff right now, which like on a Saturday night is totally understandable, but I've had issues where there's been extremely loud noise that's made it difficult for us to sleep at like 9.30 p.m. on a Monday night, and I think When thinking about the policy again, I think the Somerville policy personally, it's great. I'm glad you all brought that up as an example. But also just thinking about those practical realities, I think of what Councilor Callahan was saying, we want to take a human centric approach. And part of that is, you know, on weeknights, a lot of people need to go to bed, you know, by about 10 o'clock or so. And so thinking about that, And the other thing that I want to flag on a high level based on my experience, I live in a residential area that's adjacent to an industrial area. And so we border many warehouses and commercial facilities. And they sometimes have loud trucks as early as 4 or 5 in the morning. There's just louder business activity that can spill over to residential areas through ambient noise. So when thinking about this ordinance, I would strongly suggest that we think about a way if we can hold businesses that are adjacent to residential areas to a slightly higher standard, then those are further away from residential areas. It sounds like y'all might be thinking about that in some ways already based on what you've discussed with ambient noise and measuring it. The other thing I wanna just bring up is echoing Councilor Scarpelli's point about resources, I'm if we're going to be asking the police department to help with enforcement. I just want to flag that my concern as a citizen, based on staffing levels, the police department. I believe at the May 2 2026 committee of the whole meeting. I was, there was a comment that there used to be 102 officers at one point. can't remember the exact time period, I think it was about 30 years ago, but we now have 78 and I've heard complaints that a lot of officers are working a good amount of overtime, which can also cause burnout as well. So I'm just wondering if we need to be thinking about how we can work with the police department to improve the resources, perhaps increase staffing, to improve morale and also to help them take on this extra work if we're gonna be having an ordinance that's going to have more teeth into it and result in more calls. Thank you.

[Liz Mullane]: Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. All are great points to add in here as well. Any other public comments, any other suggestions people might have to share or thoughts, things that jumped out at them around the noise ordinance or anything that we've talked about too? OK well it sounds like we've kind of got some good pieces and starts on this in terms of research that's already been done in other areas. Some great comments from Councilors and from the public to kind of look and engage and figure out. kind of next steps, the community liaisons, figuring out maybe talking with the police department in terms of the enforcement, what that looks like. Certainly trying to get a survey out, get a better sense from our neighbors. to find out what is really kind of sticking out most of them. So I think, you know, keeping this in committee for us to continue having these conversations and to pull some of this information together, I think would be helpful. Any other Councilors have any thoughts, suggestions around that?

[Justin Tseng]: That all makes sense I can for the next meeting try to prepare some text which of course we can adjust based on all these conversations but just have something to point to and kind of like. I always find it easier to give feedback when there's something to work off of. So I can try to do that. And then I'm sure the text will change a lot through the process, but at least something to get our eyes on to kind of see what this would actually look like here at Medford. But I think all those next steps are important and I think sound good to me. And perhaps we can have a meeting where we invite all of those stakeholders to a committee meeting too.

[Anna Callahan]: Yeah I was just going to suggest that maybe we don't have another meeting on this until after the first ward meeting and then we invite the community liaisons. I move to keep the paper and committee and adjourn.

[Laurel Siegel]: If that's OK and there's everything else on the agenda. Councilor Callahan. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: Yes.

[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Tseng. Yes. Chair Malauulu.

[Liz Mullane]: Yes. Four in the affirmative, one absent. We will keep this in committee and follow up following some of our board meetings. Is there any other motions on the table? Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. Okay. Okay, so meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone, I appreciate it. All right.