Public Works and Facilities: Private Way Snow Removal and Maintenance Policies - 2026-10-21

AI-generated transcript — the recording is the record.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Clarence Eagle, I'll just let you know whenever you're ready. Absolutely. It's processing. Thank you. Perfect. All right. We should be good to go. Thanks so much. This is the Public Works and Facilities Committee meeting of October 21st. It is 612 p.m. starting supposedly at 6 o'clock. We're running a little bit late from a prior meeting. I appreciate that there are folks from the public here. We really like having people from the public at our committee meetings as well, so appreciate you being here. Today we have two motions that are both about private ways and how the city deals with private ways. The first one is 26-172. It is the order to place adoption of MGL Chapter 40, Section 6C before voters in November of 2027.

regarding liability on private ways. And I'll just read it and then I will turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli. So the motion says, whereas in Gallagher versus City of Medford, a resident brought suit against the city after suffering injuries caused by a defect on a private way, and whereas the city sought summary judgment arguing it had no maintenance obligations over private ways, And whereas the appellate division of the district court department found that the city's informal maintenance on that private way performed without the city having adopted MGL chapter 46 see stop the city from denying that ways public status under. MGL Chapter 84, 25, and whereas the court stated directly, it is undeniable that a city or town which has accepted MGL Chapter 40, Section 6C, may remove snow and ice from a private way without risk that such services will constitute repairs cognizable under MGL Chapter 84, Section 25, and whereas following the Gallagher ruling, the city has not acted to adopt MGL chapter 40, section six. And whereas the city of Medford continues to perform informal maintenance, sweeping and snow and ice removal on private ways. And whereas section six C's liability carve out only protects the city if the city has actually accepted it. And whereas 39% of Medford roadways are designated private ways. And whereas since 2020, the city has appropriated $0 for private way repairs. and whereas no maintenance or upkeep services are provided but for the informal services outlined in Gallagher, whereas without acceptance the city is unnecessarily exposing itself to full public way tort liability, and whereas acceptance of the measure requires a ballot question at the next regular city election, Now, therefore, by the Medford City Council, that we hereby vote pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 6D, to submit for acceptance to the registered voters of the city at the next regular city election, the question of whether the city shall accept the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 6C. And I will go to Councilor Scarpelli.

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate both resolutions tonight. And I think that just to be clear with everybody, my intention is really to get the ball rolling and started talking about the understanding in the policies and processes about private ways. There's so many misconceptions and misunderstandings and unknowns with the process. I think that's where it started. and I think that as I started doing some work and reading into this and looking into this process I think that we realized back in 1980 the City of Medford should have done something to make sure that we're protecting our city through liability but at the same time still performing the necessary requirements of of road work that's allowed under private ways provisions. So since then, I've had a great meeting with both Mr. McGiven, Mr. Watella, our engineer and our director of public works. And we've learned a lot of different avenues and that leads right into our next resolution 26-182 that talks about an understanding the process. Cause I know that even in that resolution, there's some confusion about what monies and how we spend it and how it's presented in that resolution. We'll get into that. but I think it's important that we start with the baseline. The baseline right now is visiting this resolution and moving this forward so making sure that we're one starting the process to protect our our community and our responsibilities for liability purposes and then moving forward making sure I think what we've identified I think most of us that have looked into this now is the true misunderstanding and lack of information that really has to go out and really has to be placed somewhere. I think that after talking with our commissioners and engineers, I think that we understand that messaging is going to be very important so people can understand what we're doing, what we've done, and what we can do.

because our residents have come up and I've heard from a lot of residents in the last 48 hours especially and with some with some concerns whether it's the liability of a tree that's not on their property per se but lands in front of their home and who's responsible for that removal of a tree that's needed if it's dead. The understanding of a raised sidewalk and the liabilities if somebody gets hurt With, you know, walking across that race sidewalk, we're talking about, um, you know, street repair and the abilities that, um, when our. our public vehicles, our DPW, fire, ambulance, police, trash trucks, what that means when a road is in disrepair. So there's a lot of questions that are out there and really nobody really knows. It's not out there in print and policy and I think that's where we're leading to. That's why these two resolutions are so important. So I appreciate my fellow Councilors hearing me and bringing this forth. I want to especially thank Council Tseng because I want to hand it off to Council Tseng. He's done some extensive work and research and legalities again. Unfortunately, without the support of a city solicitor, I think that a lot has to fall on the people that really don't have a lot of time to do that. I know how how busy our director of public works and how busy our city engineers are today. But it's finding that time to get the information that's needed so we can dispel a lot of concerns and issues, but at the same time, put things in place so people know what their responsibilities are and know what the city's responsibilities are. So if we can, Madam Chair, if we can, have Councilor Tseng share his insight. That'd be greatly appreciated.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Absolutely. Sounds great. Councilor Tseng.

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: Thank you. So I think George introduced it pretty well. Councilor Scarpelli asked me to look into Mass General Law Chapter 40, Section 60, which was on the council agenda a few weeks ago. So I made a short presentation just kind of walking through for councilors and for residents to see what exactly this is, what implication it has, and what the next steps are. And then I think, well, you'll notice through the presentation that there's a lot of open policy questions too. So Tim, if you have anything to add after or any corrections, please let me know since this is just from my own research.

Can everyone see the screen, the PowerPoint?

[SPEAKER_03]: Yes.

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: Cool. OK, so Mass General Law Chapter 40, Section 60 is really about snow removals on private ways. Now, of course, this is an issue that came up a lot last winter season from residents. And we were kind of constrained about what we could do as a city. So I think most folks here will know the difference between a public way and a private way. But public ways, essentially, we have a responsibility to keep it in repair and clear of snow.

On the liability piece, like Councilor Scarpelli said, a defect causes an injury, then a person can bring a claim against the city within the limits that our vast general law provides for. For a private way, you know, these are streets that are owned by private property owners. They're not streets that the city has accepted. So usually those private property owners are responsible for it. But a lot of private ways, you know, act like streets, like normal streets that we'd see in the city. And of course, those private property owners are still paying tax money to the city as well. And according to the resolution, and I think this lines up with the previous summits that we've heard, about 39% of our roadways are private ways. And I think as Councilor Scarpelli alluded to, I think a lot of residents who live in private ways have been asking about city services on those streets. I will say, just going forward, most of this presentation is on the snow piece of it, since that's what the national law is for.

There are slightly different rules, as I'll mention later on, about other types of upkeep and maintenance. So the very short version of it, the TLDR, is that accepting section 60 would let the city spend more money to apply private ways. It requires a vote of the public. It does only cover snow and ice, so it doesn't cover potholes, patching, or other repairs. Well, a big thing that 6D does is it makes plowing not count as a quote-unquote repair. And I think Gallagher's opinion that Councilor Callahan read out or kind of alluded to in that resolution.

In that court case, the question of repair came up. And when the city does repairs, we have to accept a bit of liability over it. And having it not count as a repair limits the liability that the city would have. Repairs in general fall under Section 6N. And Section 6N basically says that cities can create ordinances that address a ton of different factors. And we do have a 6N ordinance, but it's not the most updated ordinance in the world. And I'll go through that later.

So what does 6C do? It lets us spend money to clear snow and ice from private waste that are open to the public. I think there's some kind of litigation over what open to the public means. Generally, it allows us to do that. And right now, the city doesn't actually have the legal power to do that, except in cases of emergency. 60 also places some responsibility on the city council to choose which private ways get plowed. approving a list of streets, for example.

And I already talked about the repair part and the pothole part. What 60 doesn't require is for it doesn't require the city to plow every single private way. So these private ways have to go on a list that are approved. And it doesn't change the designation of a private way into a public street. And it doesn't change ownership over that. that piece of land. The process for adopting section 60 would be first to have meetings like this, where we're talking about it. And at the end of the committee process, referring it out back to the city council for approval. Then, I put November 2027, because that's when the next city election is, at least for now. But voters get to decide.

And if a majority wins, then 60 would take effect. And step three would be the council having, I assume community meetings, but having meetings over the streets that the city can plow. Um, and the vote comes from section 60. So it's already, it's prescribed in the state law. And there's a specific kind of wording to the question, which you'll see in that blue box. Um, and that's what voters will see. Um, I wanted to compare what the task force today. with a possible yes vote and a possible no vote if this does go forward. So while the city does, I think, plow some private ways right now, The state guidance is that we actually do have to adopt 16 for most of that or a lot of that work to be in compliance with state law. If voters say yes, then that will happen. If voters say no, we might find ourselves in a harder kind of legal situation where we might not be fully in compliance with state laws by providing these services in private ways.

even though we do that plowing work, it's conceivable that a court would call it a repair and again, open the door to more liability for the city. If voters choose to say yes on it, it gets carved out of that repair category. And the voters say no, again, we're back in the land that we are today. Across the board, repair rules won't change. That's, I think, up to the discretion of the DPW, the mayor's office, the city council in coordination with each other. And it doesn't change any status of whether street is public or private.

about liability. And so the way that works in public streets, at least in a very simple way, is that if a defect causes an injury, the person can bring a claim against the city. And state law limits these claims to $5,000, and the injured person must notify the city quickly. On private streets, the city is not responsible. But if the city repaired the street in the six years before that injury, a court could treat it like a public street. So that's where that kind of, Tim, I see your hand.

[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, thank you. So just to clarify, so section 25 doesn't apply to emergency work. So we fill potholes in the interest of public safety as an emergency situation, as well as snow plowing under an emergency provision, which section 25 doesn't apply to. Section 25, which you're referencing here as far as liability goes, is more like if we have done ongoing maintenance work and have treated a private way like a public way when it comes to crack sealing, mills and overlays, stuff like that. We're actually doing maintenance on it like it was a public way. That's my understanding of the applicability of section 25. I just wanted to get that in there. Thank you.

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: On this slide, I was gonna cover that, that emergencies are a separate situation than regular maintenance and repairs. But I think that's a good point to reinforce.

[Tim McGivern]: It's really a legal basis for what we're doing right now. So I am in support of 6C, although I would underline the idea that if it was voted down, then we'd be in a tough situation because we would probably need to stop phase out plowing on private ways. We do plow all private ways, anything that's laid out as a private way, not driveways, not shared driveways, but paved private ways that give emergency access, first responders to buildings. Thank you.

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: take away for Councilors is that there's a lot of positives for 60 passing, we do have to deal with the risk of 60 not passing and complicating the situation for residents of public ways on private ways, and for the city for city staff as well. Yeah. So, I mean, this kind of goes through it, goes through what we just said. 6N is the part of the statute book that talks about repairing. And again, this is like non-emergency. This is repairing and maintenance for private waste. And It lets the city adopt an ordinance, which we have done, setting rules for temporary repairs on private ways. I think these are technically not like long-term repairs, but these are temporary repairs that could be helpful. And this is something that we do have power over as a city without going to the voters or going to the state house. The ordinance has to decide on eight different things. I folded one that's very clearly missing from the ordinance.

But these are basically those eight things. And going through the text of the ordinance, what's in there and what's not. So I just want to focus on the missing parts. And some of them are not as, I think, important or as kind of like urgent as the others. The public necessity point, it's not addressed, it's left to the mayor. I mean, I think that's not uncommon in ordinances around the state. Of course, we could provide guidelines, but that's also something that I think DPW could do by themselves right now, which I think gives the city more flexibility.

The ordinance is supposed to address whether neighbors share the cost. that's not addressed in the ordinance right now. So that is something that's missing from it. I'm not sure where towns have fallen on that. The liability limit is the big thing that's not addressed. Of course, there's that cap from the state already, but the ordinance kind of urges city councils to write rules about to set their own limits for liability as well. So that's not in the ordinance. And there's a point about cash deposits, and that's not in the ordinance either. But I don't think that is as pressing. And I think that goes hand in hand with whether neighbors share the cost.

And so there are possible changes that we could make to the ordinance. The ordinance is 24-91. I think the big things would be looking at liability limits, looking at kind of addressing those missing details that I had on that last slide. It also, Essentially, I think the kind of gray area that we're stuck in right now is whether temporary repairs become permanent repairs, like a permanent maintenance plan. And the ordinance isn't super clear about what type of work the city is doing. We can do temporary repairs. The state doesn't allow us to do permanent repairs or long-term repairs.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Yeah am I correct that this is actually ordinance 6n which are the the that piece of the mgl um and this would be a separate ordinance and that we're not actually covering this today is that accurate that's accurate that's accurate it just goes i think hand in hand with what folks came to this meeting for so i thought i put it in absolutely i appreciate the extra information i just want people to understand that like this is not this is like what maybe we might do in the future but this is not actually what we're going to cover today right right Did you want to jump in for a second?

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Yeah, I appreciate. Thank you, Councilor Callahan, and I think it's important that this is the beginning point. I want people to understand, you know, one of the things I heard was what's wrong with Councilor Scarpelli. He wants to have, he doesn't want people to plow the streets. That's not it exactly. This is the beginning point to start getting the ball rolling to both help our city and then also really more importantly is to help our residents understand the processes as we're moving forward to do what um what we can do to assist all of our neighbors so we'll get into that part in the next resolution but I think that's important that um that that uh the presentation council saying is bringing forward it's very important to understand what it is but also I appreciate your input with bringing it back and saying, we're not there yet, but we want to get there. I think that's what's important to people to understand. This is a beginning point, at least in my eyes, that we move forward. We still have a year, but I think a lot of people have to learn a lot about this process. I can't tell you how many people called me in the last 24 hours saying, George, I didn't realize they live in a private way. What does that mean? It wasn't meant to scare anybody or think that we're trying to take something away from anybody. I think the DPW, like Tim said, they plow every street right now, private or public. I think that that's not going to change and that's not our intent. Our intent is really to really educate everybody and understand the processes and procedures. So thank you for that.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Great.

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: Yeah, just to quickly end my presentation, I think that's more or less... I'm sorry, Matt, is that OK? Let me just quickly finish or just wrap up. Go for it. Thanks. I think what the folks who spoke before me said is completely correct. Section 6C really is about snow and plowing snow. And so I think that's a huge kind of place that we could provide more clarity, um, for residents and for future city staff, you know, we won't all be here forever. Um, but I, it doesn't solve all, all the problems that residents are seeing on their streets. Um, and I think that has to be kind of a more, a long-term discussion, um, and a kind of more comprehensive discussion with, um, the DPW.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Thanks, um, Councilor Leming.

[Councilor Matt Leming]: Yeah, I did just want to say with regards to a ballot question about plowing, and I understand the consequences of a potential failure there. First, I think that something like that is unlikely to fail. But even in the case that it does, having something like that be a ballot question in the first place I, it serves it serves a good purpose, which is to Councilor Scarpelli's point, it would be a public education initiative, you know, people would be aware that, you know, the private public way distinction, they would need to do research on what they're voting on. It would generally put that on the forefront of people's minds and hopefully generally make people more aware of what's going on when the DPW is not able to plow their private ways. And even if it does fail, you know, at least it is something to point to. It says, like, you know, we tried. The voters said they didn't want the DPW to do this.

But there was clearly effort that was put into this. And in the case that it does pass, then, you know, it does mean that we can make progress on this issue. So I personally see it as a net positive to put this on the ballot either way.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Great, I don't see any other hands raised. I'd love to just see if we can get a quick comment from Councilor McGibbon first and then any other city Councilors and then from the public. Sorry, Commissioner McGibbon. Got a promotion. Yeah, that's a good point.

[Tim McGivern]: Thanks. I think that was a wonderful presentation Councilor Tseng, and I think that you presented some of the, the, the private way laws and mass general law in a, in a way that I think folks should be able to understand just a couple comments already said 1 section 25 is important. You know, I kind of explained what I believe my intent is, and that's really whether or not liability is seen on the public or on the private way. So that's important. 6C, again, Councilor Tseng already said it, but this is just for snow and ice removal. And we currently remove snow and ice under snow emergency situations. So that's what we do on private ways. That's why we do it. That's the expectation out there. So I would say that if, you know, I agree that it probably would pass, because we already do it. But if it doesn't, I think we can continue to operate under that idea of snow aburgency. It just becomes under the spotlight. There's certainly a contingent out there that doesn't think that we should be spending public operation money on private waste. That contingent certainly exists out there.

What else is that? Look at my notes here. Private ways. I know there was just a clarification. They're not always owned by the abutters. Massachusetts has a law. It's called the derelict fee law that says basically if it's not a public way and there's no other title to it, then it defers, you know, it's a derelict piece of land and it defers to the frontage holders on that way. The city, in addition to that, the city takes the position that the public does have rights for access on private ways, even dead-end ones. Traditionally, it's seen as if it connects a public way to a public way, then the public has pass-through rights. I would make the argument that even if it's a dead-end, public services still need to be able to get to the end of the dead-end, and people can't blockade the road, for example.

6N, we do have an ordinance under 6N, which is fantastic, and we can use it. But the thing that I want to highlight to everybody is that public obligations come first. We own and operate a public way network of roads. Everybody pays taxes into that public way network. regardless if you live on a private way or a public way. That's the network that the city taxes pay to upkeep. And that's the primary one that we're looking at as an obligation. So we know now, and that year 2020 was brought up, that's when we started to know what our condition was of our public way network. That's when we decided what we needed to fund and what we needed to prioritize. So that ordinance really, 6N, really hasn't been used knowing that our public obligation is so large at this point. And we'd love to get from a condition index of 46 or 47 up into the 60s, keep that stable, and then look at how much we're spending every year to keep it stable. We know how much we think it will cost, but how much are we actually spending? Then we will actually know at that time how much we could spend on, say, 6N.

6N to do private ways. At that time, we would also need to look at other mass general law mechanisms like a poll and levy system to take private ways that we believe are in the interest of the public. I can think of a couple right now that it would be great if the city just owned and controlled those private ways. That's not all of them, but that's some portion of them. I sent along some corrections, but I think it's probably more on the of the resolution but I think one that is included in this one is we actually do spend money on repairs right now on private ways so the number zero was put in these resolutions. That's not true. So, we have a highway operation budget that this council appropriates every year, a portion of that highway budget goes towards private ways. in the form of snow plowing, sweeping, and pothole repairs. We also do other weird random stuff on Private Ways, too. But we do it under an emergency situation to avoid issues with Section 25. So that's kind of been the way we have operated on Private Ways. But we do spend a significant portion of our already highway budget on Private Ways.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: I think that technically what was stated in the motion was the city has appropriated zero dollars. And I think the point was that we don't have it tracked, right? So we spend money, but it's not appropriate for that specific purpose. Is that inaccurate, do you think?

[Tim McGivern]: That is correct. It's not tracked. No, we don't. But we know the breakdown. We know what we do. We know how much we spend on potholes. We know the breakdown of private ways. So we could estimate it, but we don't track it. I wouldn't recommend that we do necessarily track it, just as long as we know where the money is coming from and we know approximately what percentage it is.

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Uh, thank you. And again, this isn't to be adversarial or in any way. I, I, I, I understand what commissioner given talking about, but this is a conversation we need to get started because I think that, you know, just that, that description, uh, and understanding of, of both understands what we're saying. We say zero. I think having, for me, starting that conversation and getting that policy and those procedures out so people can see them and understand what that means, I think Commissioner McGibbon's correct. We obviously use a lot of the city money right now and doing what needs to be done on private ways. But at the same time, my initiative and getting into the next resolution, the focus is really on having that line item where we can identify as a city council, where we see some necessities that might need to happen that fall into maybe a decision making that the city council can assist with when it comes to like, again, a dead tree that's coming down and a homeowner that might not. want to bear the responsibility or have an issue with the responsibility taken down that tree, where there's a public safety issue that isn't eminent per se, but I think it's important as we get to the next resolution, we talk about that. But I think that Councilman Gibbons is right, and I don't think that it wasn't meant to say zero, but it was really understood that we get that word out so people understand what that meant.

[Tim McGivern]: So thank you. It is zero capital. We don't, we haven't appropriated money for capital projects. That's for sure. Thank you.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: And Paul Garrity, I do see you. We're going to get to councilors first and then we'll have public comment. So Councilor, President Bears.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just want to stick on 172 on the chapter 40 section 60. I will reserve my other thoughts about the general maintenance and FAQs and how we're explaining what's going on to the public for the next resolution, but just wanted to circle back. with Commissioner McGivern and confirm like we think that moving forward with Chapter 40, Section 60 is a good idea and we should kind of take this to the next place. Is that right, Tim?

[Tim McGivern]: That would be my recommendation, as long as everybody understands the risk that it could get voted down, and then we have that little bit of a rat's nest to sort of untangle. But I think it's worth it, because we are already doing it, that status quo, and I'd like to do it in a more legal fashion, more legal than it already is.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: All right, great. Then I would move that we refer 26-172 out to our to a future regular meeting. Maybe it's the one next week, maybe it's in three weeks. You know, this boat's not till November of 2027, so I don't think we have to rush it to the council floor next week, but I would move that we refer this paper out so that we can move forward on the section 60, kind of the legal piece, and then we can get into, I think, where we were starting to get into some of the discussions on maintenance. I would second that, Mr. President.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Wonderful. We have a motion and it's seconded, but before we vote, I'd love to take public comment. So if there are no other Councilors going to speak, I will turn it over to Paul Garrity. If you can say your name and neighborhood, you are still muted. Paul Garrity, if you're there, you're still muted. Are there any other members of the public? All right, sounds like Paul Gary, are you able to unmute yourself?

[Paul Garrity]: Well, we heard that.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Perfect timing.

[Paul Garrity]: Thank you. I love technology. Well, good evening, councillors. Again, I appreciate the work that you're doing here, but as I listen to it, I have a concern. I do live in a private way. And the first thing I'd like to know, will there be a registry of are you on a private road or not? You know, it was mentioned by the DPW director that some may or some may not be calling this a private road, but I'd like to make sure that that's clear, that everybody knows are they on a private way or not. The second thing that I'm concerned about is that If this is adopted and passes favorably, it says that effectively the city can plow, but there is no liability. My concern then is where does the liability shift to? If during the winter time roads plowed, sanded and suddenly freeze comes in, somebody walks up the road and I have a lot of people walk through my area. They live down in the old high school condos and they walk up Ashcroft across the area. If they slip or hit their heads, am I responsible? I think that that's a key portion that has to be looked at and clearly specified as to where is the liability going to land if it's no longer with the city. Third point is that if I am now assigned liability for the way, do I have the right to block the road? Because I don't want any unnecessary traffic coming across my way since I'm not liable for it. And only people who live on that road have access to it. So I'm really concerned about where the liability goes.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Great. I am going to let it looks like a Councilor Tseng it would like to answer that question.

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: Some part of it, at least. So the reduction in liability is real, but it's not a full reduction. Um, it would only cover whatever becomes designated waste. Now, that could be the whole list of private waste in the city. But at the same time, the Tort Claims Act, which is Chapter 258, would still be active. And so what the Tort Claims Act basically says is like, if there's damage to a car or to a fence or to a lawn, there would still be liability there. So 16 wouldn't affect that.

[Paul Garrity]: I'm confused. I'm saying somebody walks up on the road in front of my house. There's no sidewalk that walk on the road. The question is, who owns it? Who's responsible for it? If an injury takes place and somebody's walking on a road in front of my property, And they're injured, they slip, they fall, whatever. And the city no longer has liability because this passes and they can plow, but they don't have liability. Who assumes that responsibility if they slip and fall on the road in front of my house?

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: be better poised to answer the non-snow stuff. Um, at least with regards to snow, the liability that we were talking about before this point was really about liability related to snow removal.

[Paul Garrity]: I understand what you're saying to me that if the audience passes, uh, Other than a snow plow, the snowing doesn't constitute that there's liability on the road. So effectively, it's saying the city does not have any liability, if I understand what you're saying to me. So if that's the case, the ordinance passed, you can plow the street, no liability to the city, then injury takes place, where does the liability then fall?

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Commissioner McGibbon?

[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, that's not really how it works. The way Section 25 works is, and this exception to that, would be that it would make it more like a public way. So right now, we have limited liability in a public way if we cause damage and plow. So we own the plowing, so to speak. The city is responsible for the plowing. So it would become a situation where the city is obligated to plow those private ways. So under Massachusetts general law now now we are the quote unquote owners of the plowing, so the city would still own the liability that's associated with the plowing, if we were to damage something, we would just fall under Massachusetts law for for limits associated with that that damage. So it's actually relieving the private ways of a burden, because right now, you know, if someone were to get slip on the ice, so to speak, without the 6C, it opens up the city and the private way owner up to liability that isn't controlled and limited by Mass General Law. I'm not a lawyer. This should be clarified by legal. That's my understanding as someone who operates in this world. So those are my understanding of the legal structure that I'm working in.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Hopefully that helped.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Great. I'm going to turn it over to President Bears.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thanks, Chair Callahan. Tim, if you could just further right now on a private way, it's a beautiful sunny June day, somebody falls down, what is the current, and if you can't answer this and we need to go to council and get an answer I think that's fine, You know, if it's on a public way and there's some sort of defect in the sidewalk, you know, we have claims against the city and folks file claims and then they're settled or litigated or whatever. If you're on a private way, it's not nothing related to snow and ice. Someone slips and falls due to the condition of the private way. You know, who is liable or who can be sued in that case right now under the current conditions?

[Tim McGivern]: This is definitely a question for a lawyer, but what I can tell you is from an operator's perspective or the land manager's perspective, it's better to think about this and what is not a public way. So what is not public property? Because private ways and private property and private parcels can have all different types of statuses and easements and rights associated with them. So it's not clear cut. A private way isn't just a private way. A private way is a parcel of land that has rights associated with it that are private.

So it's still a parcel, it still has an owner, and many of those parcels fall under the direct fee statute, which means that the abutters end up being the title holders to, you know, the center line of the road, which means, you know, land rights associated with land title then are attributed to the abutter or the frontage holder as opposed to the city. The city is in care and control and responsible for the public way network, not private property. And private ways are a type of private property that the public has rights in, as well as all of the frontage holders on that private way. Hopefully that helps.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: It's detailed, and I think it's one of the reasons we need to like both get legal advice and be able to boil this down into kind of plain language, as best as we can, given the complex kind of legal status of private ways or really anything that's a non public way I think. anyone who's gotten into land title and easements and things like that understands that they're kind of inherently complex and there's an entire legal establishment designed and making plenty of money trying to figure out what's going on in these matters and certainly anyone who's ever bought a house or a property. But I just want to kind of get to a clear understanding around 6C before we get into everything else, which is You know, right now on a June day, not related to snow, if someone slips and falls on a private way, then there may be something related to the title of that private way, whether that's attached to like the title of the frontage owner, like the one or multiple people who own homes on that private way or something, that might be where the liability falls right now. Now let's say it's, and I think you were trying to get to this, let's say it's a snow storm.

And right now the city plows that private way under, without having the 6C, and somebody flips and falls, they might be, the city may have to be paying for that. Is that basically, and under 6C, that would change.

[Tim McGivern]: My understanding is under 6C, it would change that whole process. So the plowing is very similar to plowing a public way when it comes to liability and who's responsible for damages. Okay, great. Thank you.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: So that means that they could sue the city and they would pay, there would be a limit at $5,000, etc, etc.

[Tim McGivern]: That's just my understanding, but whatever limits exist for a public way, section 25 would convert that to anything on a private way like a public way, including plowing. So this would be an exception to that. So it would say it's not a repair, it's not maintenance, it's plowing under 6C, plowing and ice removal under 6C. So it kind of moves that into the world of now that's a public way service, but it's on private ways.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: And basically for this specific purpose, whether you slip on a private way that is plowed by the city, you would be treated the same.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: You broke up for a minute there.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: If you slipped and fell after plowing, if you slipped and fell on a public way or a private way that was plowed by the city, you would be treated the same way.

[Tim McGivern]: That's my understanding. Thank you.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: I do think it is worth us getting some, like asking these questions very specifically of legal counsel, so that we have this information available.

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: I'm going to- Can I make that motion, if we can?

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: I'm sorry?

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Can I make that motion? I'd make that motion if we can, yeah.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: That would be great. We have a motion by George Scarpelli to get legal counsel to answer that specific question about legal liability and how it has changed under 6C, seconded by, who was seconded? I heard somebody. Second. Thank you, President Bears. I would like to go over to Jean's iPhone, if you can unmute yourself and say your name and your neighborhood.

[SPEAKER_03]: My name is Jean Gisquin. I'm at 71 Norwich Circle. We have a tree in front of my house that was planted way before, I guess, in the 1950s. And the tree is sick. I've gotten two quotes on it that it should come down. And who is liable for that tree? And if I am liable for the tree, How am I liable for the tree when it's not on my property?

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: So we can spend just a little short bit of time answering this question. It is not related to the question of snow removal. But if Commissioner McGivern doesn't mind, just to answer that question quickly.

[Tim McGivern]: Sure. So trees run with the land, unless they're publicly protected trees that are protected under Chapter 87. So if it's a Chapter 87, which is a tree in a public way or close to a public way, there are mass general law protections. You know, the tree warden gets involved, hearings and all that. Trees on private ways or anything other than, you know, Chapter 87 protected trees just fall to the title holder. The city does respond to private ways in public emergency situations. We think a tree is an immediate threat to the public and the owner of the tree is having issues with it. So if you live in a private way and there's a tree in front of your house, then the question you would want to answer is, who owns title to the land in front of my house in the right of way? In Medford, a lot of the times that land is derelict fee land, and it lands to the private way owners or the abutters, people who have access to parcel frontage on that private way. So that's kind of how that works. We've, we try to be pretty good with drawing the line between what is emergency services on trees and what is care and control of a tree that kind of matters in my world. So we do try to, and we do understand that we've worked on certain trees in front of certain properties over the years. And it hasn't always been as clear cut in Medford when it comes to trees and what the public works does and doesn't do. So we're working on clearing that up. We have a new tree warden now, so we're continually trying to work with residents and private way landholders to try to figure out the best way to manage the private way canopy legally. So thank you for the question.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Thank you, and I will go ahead over to admin if you don't mind stating your name and your neighborhood.

[Sharon Deyeso]: Sharon so I live 1 half of my house is on circuit road and 1 half is on mass have private way. So, thank you for your time. Tonight's an interesting subject and. something that has been gone back and forth for a long time. I do have one question for the commissioner at the DPW. I have lived in Methodomus all my life and maybe the last 30, 35 years, both my homes were on private ways. So one half of my parcel now is on a private way. I do not think that we own the whole street. If I'm not mistaken, You own, I think it's either 10 feet out, something like that, sir. I think, and now I will call my real estate lawyer anyway, per the council's suggestion.

It's almost like beach rights, where you also own beachfront. You really don't own half of that river. You only own about three to four feet out, and that's it. So it's a little bit more confusing than we think. And then say, what part of that parcel, I mean, what part of that road did somebody, if that be true, what part of the road did that person fall on? It gets very, very sticky. Then who would be liable? But besides that, the private way I grew up in, in a larger home, had very, very, very, very little traffic on it because it wound down to the back of the woods. Now where a part of my house is an actual cut through. So this nearly needs to be reviewed anyway, because if it's going to be public open to traffic, they are the ones basically who are ruining and potholing many of our streets in many of our private ways. I would really respect the fact if someone would go out and take some photo shots or watch some traffic. flow and see what really is the right path to pursue from here. Because certainly on Circuit Road and Mass Ave, there's maybe a dozen houses that come in and out morning, afternoon, or evening, or picking up children, or coming home after work. We have constant flow around 330 to 530 to cut over to Route 93. Thank you for your time.

I look forward to seeing another announcement when this will be followed up. Any input I get from my lawyer, I'll be glad to present to George Ciappelli or President Bears or Councilwoman Callahan. Thank you.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Thank you so much for your comment. Great. I would love for us to get it back to the issue at hand. There was a motion on the floor Are there any other comments from councillors before we vote on that motion?

[Councilor Zac Bears]: I would happily take Councilor Scarpelli's friendly amendment to ask the specific analysis of liability regarding adoption of 6C.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Wonderful. Councilor Tseng, did you also want to speak?

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: Um, making sure that that was in there so that we could see the legal advice before we voted on this and in the city council.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Fantastic. Um, great. I think we are ready to call the roll. Um, Clark Siegel, if you don't mind doing that.

[SPEAKER_08]: All right. Uh, sure. Yes. President Bears?

[Councilor Matt Leming]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_08]: Councilor Levee?

[Councilor Matt Leming]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_08]: Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?

[Councilor Matt Leming]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_08]: And Councilor Tseng?

[Councilor Matt Leming]: Not a voting member of this committee, I don't think.

[SPEAKER_08]: Okay, yeah, that's fine.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Great. We have one other item on the agenda. I will go ahead and read through it. It is resolution on routine maintenance and upkeep of private ways, whereas Chapter 90 funds are state aid restricted for use on public ways only, whereas on average Medford's annual Chapter 90 aid hovers around $990,000. Whereas the city administration in its annual budget since 2020 relies solely on chapter 90 funds for the maintenance and upkeep of city roads. Whereas the city administration has a policy of refusing to perform certain routine maintenance and upkeep of private ways citing the restrictions of chapter 90 funds. Whereas the use of revenue generated through taxation is not restricted for use on public ways only. Whereas a taxation override for the purpose of funding a dedicated road and sidewalk crew allocated $500,000 annually to establish a permanent in-house DPW repair division specifically, whereas these override funds are not restricted by the provisions of Chapter 90, whereas the city administration since 2020 has appropriated $0 for the maintenance and upkeep of private ways, whereas 39% of the streets in the city are private ways that do not receive their fair share of funding for roadway maintenance and upkeep, whereas the use of tax revenues for the purpose of maintaining and upgrading our private ways is not precluded by state statute, Whereas appropriating tax revenues for the purpose of funding for maintenance and upkeep of private ways is a budgetary decision of the city administration. And whereas the city administration has failed to make equitable delivery of public work services a priority, be it therefore resolved that the city administration create and assign a specific account and line item for the purpose of funding private way upkeep and maintenance. And this one also says it was offered by George Scarpelli. So I will go to Councilor Scarpelli.

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate all the work that everybody's doing looking into this, and I know I can look at a few of these. amendments and focus on the meeting I had with both Mr. McGiven, Mr. Watello, and I think understanding the definition and the policies might help with the refining of the way these were presented. I think understanding and making sure the verbiage is correct and saying that we spend zero money. I think it's the ability to spend money I think is important. I think that having our residents understand the legalities of what our city can do and can't do on private ways, I think plays a huge impact in understanding that process. um when we look at our chapter 90 funding it's true we can't use chapter 90 money um it can only be used for uh public ways and when we look at the ability that uh that Mr. McGiven's already talked about that we have an opportunity to look at our private ways and see where we can um allocate those private ways back into public ways. I think looking into the options of the funding that we do receive, because we are 39% private way, we do lose a lot of Chapter 90 money because a lot of our roads aren't classified as public ways. And when we receive funding, we have 39% of our roads and streets in our city that leave us out of that mix for that funding. So I think it's important that really the intent of this resolution is really to start a dialogue to understand what the funding and what we truly need. I know that residents have asked, you know, that the idea of Jean's question with the tree has been brought up a few times and who With the tree is deemed that it needs to come down and it's already been identified and it's already been, um. uh, vocalized and put into place with paperwork and, and notifications, but then understanding who's taking that tree down, um, whether it's the community on that private way or it's one resident. Uh, when we look at, um, you know, the raised sidewalk and we have an injured resident on a private way, who falls, uh, who falls to that responsibility when we look at the options of repaving. We've heard residents ask questions that we've come together, we've repaved our street. It's a private way, but then what happens with a redirect or detour from the city from a public way to a private way? By law, that's acceptable. But questions that I've had from residents when this has come up now is what happens if we have heavy trucking that's normally travels those private ways that now come down and then might put some damage on those roads. Who's liable to replace that road or any damages to that road? So there's a lot of nuances that really could be clarified once the process comes out. And I think that my intent really is to get this initiative out there with questions that were brought forward and understandings from residents of private ways to say, okay, how can we support our residents? The override for the sidewalk and street crew, that's been another issue where we need some clarification and understanding that I know that Mr. McGibbon and his team, they fill potholes in emergency situations. But where that money has been earmarked and residents of private ways voted on that, what that means in totality. So there are so many levels with this process. I think this is just the starting point that, um, that most important that I've I heard when meeting with Mr. McGiven, um, is really having that support that we can get the message out properly. He shared some great information in what neighboring communities do and videos that I believe the city of Boston does to help people understand what the responsibilities and what we do for private ways. But I think it behooves the residents, this body, and the ability to support our DPW in making sure that we to the mayor and the communications team that we find an avenue to get everything that's here and put on paper or put on, uh, on websites so people can see and understand. And I think once people see and understand that, I think it alleviates a lot of the questions and concerns that we've heard. So, um. And, uh, and.

Like I said, having that directory is 11 way we can start because I think that. One thing I heard loud and clear in the past week is how many people didn't realize they actually live in a private way and that if they're all of a sudden being notified, you need to resurface your street and it quickly falls back on no you have to do it and not understanding that no that's not the way the process and the policies uh written or understood so um i appreciate again i appreciate tim for taking the time to be here tonight answer the questions but i think that my my initiative my initial initiative um focus was really getting the word out finding the process to get get this out to the public in a place that they can see it readily. And then understanding that one thing I didn't know until I met with Tim is understanding that starting that emergency line item for private ways where I know we fill a pothole, but in the case of the tree, for instance, if that tree is eminently coming down and we're asking that one resident that really can't afford it and they don't want to skirt it, they don't want to hide from it, but they just can't do it. How can we support that resident that's a taxpayer? The other questions that come out are, you know, in conversation, people think that, oh, people in private way don't pay the same taxes. That's false. People on private ways pay same taxes as people on public ways. And that there's no distinction and there's no reason to divide the two. I think this is really just getting everybody on the same page. So.

I can keep going, but I'll stop because my dog is getting a little loud. So thank you.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I don't see any other city councilors with their hands raised. Oh, now I do see President Bears. I'll go to you.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Sorry about that, Councilor Callahan. Yeah, I just wanted to add that I think, you know, we keep coming back to this because I think it's a perpetual issue. And part of that is you know, just the scale of the private way issue that we have as a city, just how many of our streets are private ways. And that's a piece of it. And obviously, funding questions. I think we've had meetings in the past where I've said, hey, Tim, how much do you think it would cost to bring every private way to public way? I think it'd be $500 million. And Tim says, maybe, could be more, could be less, but probably in the nine figure range, right?

Yeah, so, you know, that's a huge, huge project, you know, basically, like, you know, that's where we're talking about, actually, maybe the city share of the high school being a smaller number than that, right? And that's the that's a huge, huge, once in every 50 year project. So I think that's just an important kind of thing to put out there. There's a resource question and We have really been, I think, let down by, you know, people here 50, 60, 80, 100 years ago who laid out the city and had these subdivisions and state subdivision control on all of the reasons that we ended up with such a high percentage of private ways here in Medford and what that means and the impact on the folks who own homes or properties on those ways. So there's that piece of it. But I do really think to Councilor Scarpelli's point around the communication piece, For example, the email that you kind of shared with us earlier today, Commissioner McGibbon I think has a ton of really great information in it. And, you know, we have this page I think on the police website I'd have to go back and check exactly where it is about parking on private ways. Councilor Scarpelli talked about these videos explaining what, you know, folks' rights are or what the laws are and the city policies are around private ways that Boston has. I really think something we should figure out how to lock down is a central FAQ for private ways page that has all of this great information kind of brought together in one place so that when a resident says, what's going on here, that we can direct them there. And I understand there's a nuance between what we do in an emergency versus regular maintenance. And I think we'd probably have to do a lot of workshopping to figure out, you know, what do we feel is both accurate and essentially what is accurate and also understandable to put on a website around some of those more nuanced questions. I think that's gonna be an important point, but I really do think we need to have a landing page that can put all of the many conversations that we've had. And I'm sure that Tim and Owen and others have probably weekly in private somewhere so that we can direct residents to it. Because I think that's the first part is just like, okay, this is the law. We are now following the law. This is what private ways mean here in Medford. And then there's a bigger conversation, which is, what does it mean in the future? And is there a way that the city can engage with solving the private way problem? It's again, such a huge problem. And we have many, many big problems in the city that need to be fixed. But first and foremost, before we can even get to this question of, is there an approach the city could take to work with the property owners on these private ways to maybe address them or at least have some sort So like a clear FAQ for folks. So that's just my two cents. Thank you.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Thank you. I do have a legal question about this specifically, that if we appropriate and have a line item specifically for private way repairs, are we then getting into more trouble the kind of liability trouble that the MGL, chapter 40, section 6C would get us out of for snow removal, if that question makes sense. Like, are we, because we're like actively putting a line item and displaying that we as a city are in fact spending this money every year to repair private ways, does that put us in trouble of legal liability?

[Tim McGivern]: I can't comment on the legal aspect, but I can tell you what I would prefer to see. If you want to allocate specific money for private ways, you should do it under Section N or our ordinance. Those would be capital projects. And that would go against my recommendation because of our public obligation currently. I think we need to wait a few years before we do something like that personally. Thank you.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Can I just clarify, you think we need to wait a few years before we update Section N?

[Tim McGivern]: No, we can update it before we fund it. Thanks.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Great, Councilor Scarpelli.

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that that's an opportunity that we have another angle that we can approach. And I understand what Commissioner McGibbon is saying and where we need to be percentage-wise. But I think the intent for that at the request of a line for an emergency is really understanding a start in a dialogue with our council in in a situation like I bring forth and specifically where we have a situation that might be um eminent and really just defined. I know that Commissioner McGibbon said that when we do have emerged situations that um uh we do have an avenue in place and I and I think maybe um I would remove this request in looking for that line item, but maybe getting a more defined process of policy where we can turn to as a council when we have a resident call and say, I live in a private way, my tree is dead, it's dying, it's imminently gonna fall, we don't know where it's gonna fall, but we need to make sure that it gets taken care of, especially where there's still questions and who that tree belongs to in a private way, whether it's the person that's in front, that the tree sits in front of, or the discretion of the whole street, and they have to figure that out. But in the meantime, I think that's where we don't have that clarification as a council to make sure that public safety is taken care of, where it might be not, something that the commissioner feels that it's eminent, but I think that this council might feel that it's eminent. That's why I was asking for that specific line item for emergency purposes. Now that you bring you pose a great question, Councilor Callahan, but that if do we by making this happen are we now putting ourselves in liability so I would ask ask as we get legal opinion with this too before we vote on it and I would I would table this right now what and I would move forward with the um uh a new motion which would be right now like council biz state is maybe starting that um um that site or that questions and and that page that we can now start that process we're getting that information out and starting the policies and the procedures so people can see and and really just start off right now that I think wouldn't be a heavy lift is really a page that shows who lives on a private way right now and then work with the commissioner to say okay, Mr. Commissioner, what are those streets that are private that we can move forward right now and moving into public without any concerns or any issues or any negative legal impacts? So I think that that might be pretty vague, but I'm hoping my colleagues can help me bring that together and make that a form of a motion that we can both help our commissioner Um, and then ask the city administration to present this and put this into a policy that we can then work off of on a public page on our city website.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: So- Can I suggest that that motion be to send to the Public Works Committee to discuss the information that we would like to appear on the website about- That's a good idea.

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: That's a great idea. It's a craft, you know, a guideline and maybe, uh, you know, a bullet point process and what we want to see. I think that's great. Councilor Callahan and I appreciate that. with the request for the legal question.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Do you still want the legal question on the funding?

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Yes, absolutely. Yeah, and I wouldn't put that to a vote, but I'd wait for the legal question on that and see if then it might be something as we move into the next level that we can talk about that. But again, I also heard that, you know, people call me, well, here you go, Councilor Schiappelli, you're no different than a former councilor that this goes to subcommittees and then it goes to die. That's not true at all. I think this is so important that I think that what we're seeing with this council is that when it goes to a subcommittee, we put pen to paper and we put meetings on the agenda to make some efforts to get to some conclusion. And I think that, I think we're moving in the right direction. I think that we have a commissioner that's committed and helping guide us. And I wanna make sure we can work together to make sure that we can get the information that our residents need and know. So thank you. I make that a formal motion then.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Thank you so much. I do see the two hands, but I believe that we have a motion to table, which is not the word we end discussion. Am I correct about that? If we have a second for the motion to table?

[Councilor Zac Bears]: I don't think it's a motion to table anymore. No.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Okay.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: But it sounded like it was a motion to move to the table that one and then a motion

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: to send to the Public Works Committee? What I could do is I could make the motion to move that question to our next subcommittee meeting as well and set a table and get so we can hear people, but then move forward if we can, Madam Chair.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: I would second the motion to keep the paper and committee, add on the discussion and send a request to legal counsel. And I just wanna quickly, if I may, Madam Chair, Um, I think Tim's going down this road, too. So I kind of just want to pitch it over to Tim. But this question of the of the emergency of the tree that is in an emergency state. Um, I don't know if that's where you were going to kind of talk about. I think we've kind of talked about it a little bit. But just talking about if there's an emergency situation, it sounds like you guys are acting upon that. So I just wanted to to see what is currently in place for that. And I think part of what we're talking about is making sure that residents understand if this is a thing, this is how they report it.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Yep, Commissioner McGiven.

[Tim McGivern]: Sure. The reason I raised my hand, and I can comment on that, President Bears, for sure, is that we're in the business of public way, care and control public ways. So we can't necessarily put a map out there that says, here are the private ways. Because private ways have all kinds of title issues that I was talking about before. Most of the time, the title is not clear. So what we can do on the city side is say what is under the care and control of the city. We don't really necessarily comment on or try not to who is the quote unquote owner of a private way. Therefore, who owns the tree? It's not usually known. It's not a clear thing. So I think that's really important to understand. So we do have a map. It's in draft form of all of our public ways that we are in care and control of as a city. We are going to publish that at some point. It's still kind of going through that quality control piece because our records aren't the, you know, over, you know, the life of the city, there are lots of old roads and old records that we have to make sure that our roads are public, for example.

To comment on the tree situation, yes, we do respond to trees that are not in the public way in an emergency sort of fashion. We have, you know, we can't just cut down people's private trees. We can't do it. It's just not something that's a legal thing for us to do. So we have a certain amount of due diligence that we have to do if a tree is on private property and it's dying. It's not in our care and control, but we are more than willing to, for example, take the tree down immediately if it's an immediate threat to the public. We've done that before. There are also trees that we know that we have cared for in the past in private ways for one reason or another. We typically work with the property owner to manage the care of that tree until the end of the life. We're in a bit of a gray zone with trees because of how the city has cared for them in the past. As a DPW, we can put together some guidance. I have a draft guidance document, a little bit of a flowchart. on how trees are dealt with in the city. It's still draft form. There's lots of issues with it. We keep finding new issues, but it's, you know, it's something that could be finalized.

And then, I don't know if this time is appropriate, Chair, but I just had a couple other just general comments that are a little bit new that I'd like to make.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Just if I could quickly, Councilor Callahan, before we jump there. On this kind of I hear you when it's like, we can't get into the legal status of something that we don't have a hand in, right? So that's helpful information, Tim, to have. I think what would be helpful when we are finalized and 100% secure and sure on these are the public ways is something, I think there needs to be some sort of message. It's not that these are the public ways, but it's, if you don't see your street here, this is what that might mean. And here is a place you could go to, or I don't know if it's a recommendation, and I get that it gets into some gray area around that, right. But if you don't see your street on this list, this is what it might mean. And, and, you know, I wonder if some of the kind of the, the way that we talk about it in these meetings that we've had several of now, of It may mean that there's a title thing. It may mean that it's a private way. What does derelict fee mean, right? I'm guessing someone's going to, as Councilor Scott probably said, they're going to, as these conversations always bring up, I didn't know I lived on a private way. I bet you when we have that resource out there, people are going to go to it. They're going to say, I had no idea what that means. And then they're going to be pretty lost.

I think I have like a 70% understanding when you talk about it. And I think we've talked about it five or six or seven times now. So some sort of explainer there of, okay, if you don't see your street here, what might that mean? And here are resources, whatever they may be. Because I think there are some people who would certainly be motivated to maybe band together with their neighbors to at least determine the status. Maybe they don't take anything further than that, but at least they know. And then when they sell the property, they may be able to pass that along to a future owner, knowledge of the legal and ownership status of the private way. And I think of anything that might be something we could at least help with, which is helping the folks who are in these situations understand and access resources around finding answers to those questions. Because before anything else, that's going to be the question that's always going to need to be answered. I would assume if a group of residents wants to go and repair their private way, or if in five years we're able to do some sort of matching or cost-sharing program with folks, maybe we have Mystic Ave is developed and we have more revenue and we think, okay, now it makes sense to put a little money into something. So I think that piece of it, like that's gonna be the first question for anyone who wants to do anything about a private way. So we should try to figure out a way for whatever resources we put out to at least lead people in a good direction on that question. So just appreciate that. And that's just, I think that's like step one for anyone to do anything about it, you know?

[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I think there's an opportunity there.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Great. We are lucky that we, if this motion passes, we will have an entire meeting to discuss exactly what information we do present. So I hope we can carry this energy into that meeting in the future. We do have a motion on the floor.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: I cut Tim off, Anna, so.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Oh.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Sorry. I had asked, I had interrupted Tim. He had two more things I think he wanted to say. I apologize.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Sorry. Yes, that is right.

[Tim McGivern]: That's okay. I will say that, just in quick response to what President Bears just said, so we are actually working with for example Hall Avenue, which is a cut through private way, they would like to do some work on the road so they're working with Todd Blake on some some traffic improvements mitigation type things. They I think they're working to pave the road so it does happen it's out there. We usually tell private way residents, if we have an issue with the road, when it comes to providing services like getting trash trucks up up the road, etc. The kind of things I wanted to say was that these the rules and the laws that we're talking today tonight are old. And they are always confusing. I think real estate agents don't do what they should do and tell property owners that they're buying a house on a certain type of roadway. But also at the same time, when you're buying a house, you should. really understand what you are buying. It's usually in your deed, it describes what your frontage is and what you're fronted on. Whether it's a shared driveway, a private way, an easement, a driveway that's not supposed to be there legally. So everybody that owns a home should know their deed, read it, understand what they're buying before they buy it. Also, this process that we're talking about is similar in many other states, but how roads are made in Massachusetts, how cities are laid out, it is an old process. Roads always start as private, land always starts as private, the city has to adopt or accept a public way up. to a certain standard, which goes to another point I wanted to make sure it was clear. Some private ways will require millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars to rebuild from scratch, and they might not be worth it to make a public way. They may always stay private ways, unless the people who live on that way, would like to invest in it, bring it up to city standards, and then give it to the city. So there are processes in place that are very old. In the 80s, the city did a poll and levy system, which basically you poll everybody who lives on a private way, and if they all are in agreement, then the city then levies a tax on those individual parcels, puts it in a pot, upgrades it to city standards, and then adopts it as a public way. So these processes are very defined and, you know, I can talk about them and advise on them. And I also think that the idea of putting together resources, we talked about it before, there are lots of resources out there. So I'm not opposed to that. It's just a matter of, you know, doing the work to put it all together. Thank you.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Thank you. Are there any public comments?

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Just Councilor Callahan really quickly. I know we're going to talk about this more, so I don't want to belabor it more, but just to put it out there. I think that is helpful piece too, like and maybe it's not on the FAQ page at the beginning, but What are your options? And if the city is able to, the city could talk to you about this or we can't talk to, you know, something about that, I think.

[Tim McGivern]: Sure. Yeah. Yeah. I tell that to a lot of people, a lot of people that live on private ways who want to explore, well, what would it look like making it a public way? I can tell you all about what that looks like, but there's a really big, important point that needs to be made there. And that is the people who quote unquote own or live on the private way are the ones who end up footing the bill to bring it up to public standards. So then the public, the general public, the city, can accept it for care and control. We need to make sure that there's enough gravel under the road, all the utilities are put in properly so we can take those over, the granite curbing, sidewalks, all the right width, ADA, all of that good stuff. We usually will watch a road being built to public standards at like 12 different places so we can ensure that it is built to public way standards, will last another 100 years, and we'll take care of it. So that hopefully helps.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: All right, I do not see any hands raised. It's 735. If I don't see a hand raised soon, I think we're going to go ahead and call the question and vote on the motion. And I wonder if Clerk Siegel would read that motion back to us.

[City Clerk Laurel Siegel]: The current version I have is motion to move to keep the paper in committee and discuss in the Public Works Committee the information the council would like to appear on the website regarding the private waste and guidelines with a request for legal input on the question of having a line item for private waste. Is that covered?

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Wonderful. Well done. This, I believe also, I'm sorry, this was, does this have a second?

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Oh, second. Fantastic. Unless it was my motion.

[City Clerk Laurel Siegel]: I believe it was Councilor Scarpelli's original motion as amended then by you, President Bears.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: All right, I will second.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Fantastic. Clerk Siegel, please call, please have the vote.

[SPEAKER_08]: All right, President Bears. Yes. Councilor Leming?

[Councilor Matt Leming]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_08]: Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Yes.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Chair Palacan? Yes. Five in the affirmative. Five in the affirmative. Zero, sorry. I was waiting for someone to say that here. It's my job. Five in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. Do we have any other motions?

[Councilor Zac Bears]: I would move to adjourn.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Motion to adjourn, do we have a second? Second. Seconded by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[SPEAKER_08]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Levin? No. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?